Shipbuilding contracts

[Guest Derek L]

It's funny that they're drawing on, at this point, expertise from both AEGIS and APAR users. I would expect us to now get ships numbering 6 AOPS (we shouldn't be doing this anymore, IMO, or the CCG should get them), 2 AORs, and 12 CSC. That's not necessarily bad though, considering it's a trend with navies world wide.

After further thinking about it, perhaps the nods to Lockheed and General Dynamics could also signal a perspective look towards each companies Little Crappy Ships………LockMart has proposed an enlarged variant of the Freedom class equipped with AEGIS & Mk41 VLS……

http://www.lmlcsteam.com/

[punked]

At this point I wont even blame Harper. I mean the opposition leader in NS has been attacking this contract from the second that province won it. Honestly I thought the ship building thing was something everyone could agree on and even the people who benefit from it the most are attacking it? How dumb can we be? Here is one time the government gets it right and we still crap all over them.

[Guest Derek L]

At this point I wont even blame Harper. I mean the opposition leader in NS has been attacking this contract from the second that province won it. Honestly I thought the ship building thing was something everyone could agree on and even the people who benefit from it the most are attacking it? How dumb can we be? Here is one time the government gets it right and we still crap all over them.

Even when the total program reaches into the 100s of billions once support and operational costs are factored in?

[waldo]

Even when the total program reaches into the 100s of billions once support and operational costs are factored in?

careful punked... careful! Derek L is looking for additional MLW support references for the F-35!

[Guest Derek L]

careful punked... careful! Derek L is looking for additional MLW support references for the F-35!

Don’t spoil me magnum opus…………Once they’ve become accustomed to the taste of regional benefits, the rest will follow…………Say, I wonder how many federal NDP ridings our touched with F-35 largess…….Off the top of me head, I can think of all those surrounding Longueil & Mirabel Quebec making engine bits for the F-35.…….Or North Delta, making those F-35 wing tip sections………

[Smallc]

After further thinking about it, perhaps the nods to Lockheed and General Dynamics could also signal a perspective look towards each companies Little Crappy Ships.

You can say bad things about the LCS, but they certainly are fast, and relatively inexpensive. I thought another option would be a modification of the new US National Security Cutter, but, it's just too expensive.

[Signals.Cpl]

Nope you got it wrong that was the cost of transporting MPs and ministers, and other government officials by replacing challenger jets with small personal aircraft that cost 1/200th to 1/500th of the cost to buy and operate.

The arming part was only using bomarc missiles as an area effect against any type of invasion or large scale attack.

Many planes and missiles is far more effective against a mass launch than 50 planes based at 2-3 points in Canada

You don't need fast planes, you need fast missiles or energy weapons.

The light personal jets were a solution for challenger replacement not cf18 replacement although 1 or 2 f35s would be sacrified to fund the program for 400 or so jets and second hand aircraft like helicopters and turboprops to be leased for commercial purposes such as air cargo and flight training amongst small scale transport.

for cf 18 replacement, was to be done with a variant CF-18 with an autoflight and remote flight function amongst other tweaks which could be physically engaged. via a physical bridge, rafale for eastern Canada and quebec, and eventually f35's or their successors or something like the j31 when the programs mature in 5-10years.

The personal jets and other craft would be used primarily for Canadian Domestic flights, while the remaining challengers would be used in concert with commercial flights where available or non emergency in nature (of course it would be on economy flights not VIP/ business or first class as ministers often use.)

military personnel would use military jets and civilian and military flights would only intermingle during emergencies.

some deployments of personnel overseas would be done through commercial flights were available.

Only equipment transfers or emergency operations might require military aircraft. However civllian government should be use to flying economy class while the government has a debt.

Its ultra contemptuous for a company running year on year losses for 10 years while also being in debt hundreds of billions of dollars would be so thieving as to live in luxury while they drain money from the taxpayers. If they want luxury and VIP treatment they should pay for it out of their generous salaries (generous for incompetents)

This navy issue though, needs to address the realities of the future. A strong arctic capable merchant marine with the ability weaponize at a future date.

This buy really expensive equipment that can be built for a fraction of the cost BS is nonsense, get technicians to build it, stop paying prices garnered by IP blockades. Build the tech by techs, get our ship builders to be able to build arctic capable hulls and equipment, that's all you need. aside from ships able to intergrate energy weapons, perhaps super caviated torpedos and some supermachine gun mounts. Canada doesn't need big ships it needs small craft capble of performing in the arctic as well as in the great lakes which could act as ferry boats or inter great lake cargos, plus cargoes. Some boats that can operate on the mississipi might be good too.

Big ships are big targets.

The only big ships should be freighters/cargos able to be converted into use as helipads and aircraft carriers. That way they can earn their keep and still be used for emergencies.

These acquisitions should not be looked at from a solely military standpoint, they should primarily integrate the commercial use and secondary military function. The key is instilling in the CF/navy an ability to build and maintain its own electronic systems. Also rolling the navy into the coast guard should also occur, perhaps just calling them Maritime Forces, if deployed outside Canada they could be called NAVY and if deployed within Canadian seas Coast Gaurd.

ex.

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/marpac/0/0-w_eng.asp

This merchant marine aspect would provide much better global deployment of Canadian forces to points of economic interest to Canadians by default.

Come on login, your argument is based on pure fantasy...

[waldo]

Don’t spoil me magnum opus…………Once they’ve become accustomed to the taste of regional benefits, the rest will follow…………Say, I wonder how many federal NDP ridings our touched with F-35 largess…….Off the top of me head, I can think of all those surrounding Longueil & Mirabel Quebec making engine bits for the F-35.…….Or North Delta, making those F-35 wing tip sections………

take it to the right thread... I think... no, wait... I know we could have some real fun with this one! Your choice - carry on!

[Smallc]

Please don't...I enjoy talking about the CSC, even if we don't get the first for 9 years or so.

[Guest Derek L]

You can say bad things about the LCS, but they certainly are fast, and relatively inexpensive. I thought another option would be a modification of the new US National Security Cutter, but, it's just too expensive.

Fast yes, but for what they are, they aren’t cheap……….Though some aspects are certainly interesting, they appear rather small in some areas………….

When you have a moment, checkout the virtual tour:

http://www.lmlcsteam.com/360/flash/Run-_LCSTour-4.html

The wardroom is much smaller then our old steamers and only slightly larger then the wardrooms on our old sweepers………Yet the Bridge and hanger much larger…The four bunk staterooms seem about the same size, but appear to have a private head and the new racks appear much larger……Looking at the hanger, with perhaps some modifications to the door and tracks for a bear trap, I’d think you could fit a Cyclone in it…..And the “RHIB hanger” seems pure genius…..hmmmm

My concerns would be the large portion of superstructure being made of aluminium and such a small crew for damage control………For the price tag, it’s hardly a “disposable ship”…….

[punked]

Even when the total program reaches into the 100s of billions once support and operational costs are factored in?

Almost every cent of which will go to creating real jobs here at home. Sounds good to me. At this point in this economy I will take any stimulus I can get out of this government.

[Smallc]

That's true. If not for the fact that it's built to commercial design standards, I'd think that 15 of the Danish frigates would be the way to go. They don't cost much, and we could certainly afford the 15 even at our construction prices. I'm just not sure how they would last.

[Guest Derek L]

After going below the flight deck to the “Reconfigurable Space 2” and looking up, plus back to the hanger to see where the elevator terminates, a bear trap would be out……….

[shortlived]

Come on login, your argument is based on pure fantasy...

Au contraire your fantasy is fantasy.

What in there don't you see? It is absolute genious, my fantasies arn't fit for this board, my advice is. No argument, nothing to argue against, other than to represent your corrupt and shortsighted position.

Lets look at it again, this time think, maybe take few breaths and get some circulation to your nogen.

Nope

you got it wrong that was the cost of transporting MPs and ministers,

and other government officials by replacing challenger jets with small

personal aircraft that cost 1/200th to 1/500th of the cost to buy and

operate.

The arming part was only using bomarc missiles as an area effect against any type of invasion or large scale attack.

Many planes and missiles is far more effective against a mass launch than 50 planes based at 2-3 points in Canada

You don't need fast planes, you need fast missiles or energy weapons.

The light personal jets were a solution for challenger replacement

not cf18 replacement although 1 or 2 f35s would be sacrified to fund the

program for 400 or so jets and second hand aircraft like helicopters

and turboprops to be leased for commercial purposes such as air cargo

and flight training amongst small scale transport.

for cf 18 replacement, was to be done with a variant CF-18 with an

autoflight and remote flight function amongst other tweaks which could

be physically engaged. via a physical bridge, rafale for eastern Canada

and quebec, and eventually f35's or their successors or something like

the j31 when the programs mature in 5-10years.

The personal jets and other craft would be used primarily for

Canadian Domestic flights, while the remaining challengers would be used

in concert with commercial flights where available or non emergency in

nature (of course it would be on economy flights not VIP/ business or

first class as ministers often use.)

military personnel would use military jets and civilian and military flights would only intermingle during emergencies.

some deployments of personnel overseas would be done through commercial flights were available.

Only equipment transfers or emergency operations might

require military aircraft. However civllian government should be use to

flying economy class while the government has a debt.

Its ultra contemptuous for a company running year on year losses for

10 years while also being in debt hundreds of billions of dollars would

be so thieving as to live in luxury while they drain money from the

taxpayers. If they want luxury and VIP treatment they should pay for it

out of their generous salaries (generous for incompetents)

This navy issue though, needs to address the realities of the future.

A strong arctic capable merchant marine with the ability weaponize at a

future date.

This buy really expensive equipment that can be built for a fraction

of the cost BS is nonsense, get technicians to build it, stop paying

prices garnered by IP blockades. Build the tech by techs, get our ship

builders to be able to build arctic capable hulls and equipment, that's

all you need. aside from ships able to intergrate energy weapons,

perhaps super caviated torpedos and some supermachine gun mounts. Canada

doesn't need big ships it needs small craft capble of performing in the

arctic as well as in the great lakes which could act as ferry boats or

inter great lake cargos, plus cargoes. Some boats that can operate on

the mississipi might be good too.

Big ships are big targets.

The only big ships should be freighters/cargos able to be converted

into use as helipads and aircraft carriers. That way they can earn their

keep and still be used for emergencies.

These acquisitions should not be looked at from a solely military

standpoint, they should primarily integrate the commercial use and

secondary military function. The key is instilling in the CF/navy an

ability to build and maintain its own electronic systems. Also rolling

the navy into the coast guard should also occur, perhaps just calling

them Maritime Forces, if deployed outside Canada they could be called

NAVY and if deployed within Canadian seas Coast Gaurd.

ex.

http://www.navy.forc...c/0/0-w_eng.asp

This merchant marine aspect would provide much better global

deployment of Canadian forces to points of economic interest to

Canadians by default.

Edited March 11, 2013 by shortlived

[Guest Derek L]

That's true. If not for the fact that it's built to commercial design standards, I'd think that 15 of the Danish frigates would be the way to go. They don't cost much, and we could certainly afford the 15 even at our construction prices. I'm just not sure how they would last.

The Danish frigates, built to commercial standards(?), with ~100 person complement, would be a greater death trap then the British type 21 frigates………No thanks.

[Smallc]

It seems that all ships have a significant reduction in crew compliment though.

[Signals.Cpl]

Au contraire your fantasy is fantasy.

What in there don't you see? It is absolute genious, my fantasies arn't fit for this board, my advice is. No argument, nothing to argue against, other than to represent your corrupt and shortsighted position.

Lets look at it again, this time think, maybe take few breaths and get some circulation to your nogen.

You have severe problems with reality...

[Guest Derek L]

It seems that all ships have a significant reduction in crew compliment though.

Not so much with even reduced manning requirements in the Burkes, de Zevens, Sachsen, Hobarts or even the type 45s……..When you reduce the crew too much, the ability to perform DC is significantly reduced

[shortlived]

You have severe problems with reality...

You have severe problems with economical programs, and cost savings.

It is oh so clear my plan is great because you are forced to lob ad hominems against me rather than critique my plan.

You fail.

Try to redeem yourself with address what is fantasy and unreal about

"This navy issue though, needs to address the realities of the future.

A strong arctic capable merchant marine with the ability weaponize at a

future date.

This buy really expensive equipment that can be built for a fraction

of the cost BS is nonsense, get technicians to build it, stop paying

prices garnered by IP blockades. Build the tech by techs, get our ship

builders to be able to build arctic capable hulls and equipment, that's

all you need. aside from ships able to intergrate energy weapons,

perhaps super caviated torpedos and some supermachine gun mounts. Canada

doesn't need big ships it needs small craft capble of performing in the

arctic as well as in the great lakes which could act as ferry boats or

inter great lake cargos, plus cargoes. Some boats that can operate on

the mississipi might be good too.

Big ships are big targets.

The only big ships should be freighters/cargos able to be converted

into use as helipads and aircraft carriers. That way they can earn their

keep and still be used for emergencies.

These acquisitions should not be looked at from a solely military

standpoint, they should primarily integrate the commercial use and

secondary military function. The key is instilling in the CF/navy an

ability to build and maintain its own electronic systems. Also rolling

the navy into the coast guard should also occur, perhaps just calling

them Maritime Forces, if deployed outside Canada they could be called

NAVY and if deployed within Canadian seas Coast Gaurd.

ex.

http://www.navy.forc...c/0/0-w_eng.asp

This merchant marine aspect would provide much better global

deployment of Canadian forces to points of economic interest to

Canadians by default."

Edited March 12, 2013 by shortlived

[Signals.Cpl]

You have severe problems with economical programs, and cost savings.

It is oh so clear my plan is great because you are forced to lob ad hominems against me rather than critique my plan.

You fail.

Ok so lets see if I can explain to you the simple reasons why your argument has no bearing on reality.

1)The whole problem of "weaponize at a future date" means that we have essentially a group of people who will not be capable of doing their job because they have no practice at doing said job since most of the time if not all of the time their ships are unarmed.

2)When the PM says we are deploying a destroyer and 2 frigates to the middle east I think recalling our "merchant navy" back from whatever port they are in, adding the new equipment and retraining the crew might make Canada an irrelevant player. If Canada needs to protect its coasts what would be the preferred method? Call the navy and have a ship en route in 12h or a ship potentially en route in 3 months after "weaponizing" and retraining?

3)What is needed is people who know what they are doing and how they should do it to build our ships and we need people who can fix them and maintain them to fix and maintain them...we don't need some ass backwards way of doing things that will make us the worlds most inefficient and incompetent navy with zero abilities to do anything to protect Canada and requiring USN assistance to stop illegal fishing in our waters let alone something more serious.

4)We have two oceans that we need to protect now with a third ocean that will likely pick up a lot of traffic over the next few decades and we need to be able to protect them as well as assist our allies wherever they might be.

5)When you put military use as secondary you are essentially saying that we should just give up on having a navy, we need people who are experts in their field so that when the time comes they can perform their task, they can do so as experts which means that as many of them come home as possible rather than having amateur merchant marine sailors masquerading as navy sailors dying in droves.

6) Changing the name means nothing, the navy is the same wether you call it the RCN, the coast guard or the canoe people, the coast guard and the navy serve two different purposes and even though they might need to work closer together they are not interchangeable. Thats like saying we will merge the police department and Fire department whose job would be to clean the streets and if there is crime we send them in to fight crime and call them cops if there is a fire we call them firemen but their primary job will be sanitation and their vehicles will be outfitted based on the need, so if there is a fire they will outfit their vehicles as a firetruck and if its a crime they will be outfitted at police truck(see they didn't buy cruisers because those cannot be used for the primary job of sanitation right) and what does this sh*tshow give the people? It gives respond times horribly slow with the responding personnel unable to do their jobs due to lack of training, experience, equipment etc... with incredibly slow respond time to allow for them to return to their station and outfit their vehicles based on the emergency, can you imagine waiting 4h for a firetruck to arrive and when they do arrive they cannot do their job because of previously mentioned shortcoming?

The military is not meant to bring in money, the military is meant to protect Canadians. Do you think you are the smartest person in the world and everyone else is an idiot because every other nation that has a dedicated army navy and airforce, uses them as such instead of having a military that does not even consider being a military force as its primary job...

We need a military we can depend on or we need to become a protectorate of the US either way I prefer knowing that if an emergency arises we will be protected rather than feeling protected but having an ill trained, poorly equipped excuse for a military. The military is there to protect Canadians, that is their primary, secondary and thirdly and that is what the military should be equipped and trained to do rather than being a business with a secondary job of protecting Canada which ultimately makes it useless...

[Guest Derek L]

Ok so lets see if I can explain to you the simple reasons why your argument has no bearing on reality.

1)The whole problem of "weaponize at a future date" means that we have essentially a group of people who will not be capable of doing their job because they have no practice at doing said job since most of the time if not all of the time their ships are unarmed.

2)When the PM says we are deploying a destroyer and 2 frigates to the middle east I think recalling our "merchant navy" back from whatever port they are in, adding the new equipment and retraining the crew might make Canada an irrelevant player. If Canada needs to protect its coasts what would be the preferred method? Call the navy and have a ship en route in 12h or a ship potentially en route in 3 months after "weaponizing" and retraining?

3)What is needed is people who know what they are doing and how they should do it to build our ships and we need people who can fix them and maintain them to fix and maintain them...we don't need some ass backwards way of doing things that will make us the worlds most inefficient and incompetent navy with zero abilities to do anything to protect Canada and requiring USN assistance to stop illegal fishing in our waters let alone something more serious.

4)We have two oceans that we need to protect now with a third ocean that will likely pick up a lot of traffic over the next few decades and we need to be able to protect them as well as assist our allies wherever they might be.

5)When you put military use as secondary you are essentially saying that we should just give up on having a navy, we need people who are experts in their field so that when the time comes they can perform their task, they can do so as experts which means that as many of them come home as possible rather than having amateur merchant marine sailors masquerading as navy sailors dying in droves.

6) Changing the name means nothing, the navy is the same wether you call it the RCN, the coast guard or the canoe people, the coast guard and the navy serve two different purposes and even though they might need to work closer together they are not interchangeable. Thats like saying we will merge the police department and Fire department whose job would be to clean the streets and if there is crime we send them in to fight crime and call them cops if there is a fire we call them firemen but their primary job will be sanitation and their vehicles will be outfitted based on the need, so if there is a fire they will outfit their vehicles as a firetruck and if its a crime they will be outfitted at police truck(see they didn't buy cruisers because those cannot be used for the primary job of sanitation right) and what does this sh*tshow give the people? It gives respond times horribly slow with the responding personnel unable to do their jobs due to lack of training, experience, equipment etc... with incredibly slow respond time to allow for them to return to their station and outfit their vehicles based on the emergency, can you imagine waiting 4h for a firetruck to arrive and when they do arrive they cannot do their job because of previously mentioned shortcoming?

The military is not meant to bring in money, the military is meant to protect Canadians. Do you think you are the smartest person in the world and everyone else is an idiot because every other nation that has a dedicated army navy and airforce, uses them as such instead of having a military that does not even consider being a military force as its primary job...

We need a military we can depend on or we need to become a protectorate of the US either way I prefer knowing that if an emergency arises we will be protected rather than feeling protected but having an ill trained, poorly equipped excuse for a military. The military is there to protect Canadians, that is their primary, secondary and thirdly and that is what the military should be equipped and trained to do rather than being a business with a secondary job of protecting Canada which ultimately makes it useless...

Don't you know.........We should just have the police act as taxis, firefighters drive buses and paramedics deliver mail.

[shortlived]

Ok so lets see if I can explain to you the simple reasons why your argument has no bearing on reality.

1)The whole problem of "weaponize at a future date" means that we have essentially a group of people who will not be capable of doing their job because they have no practice at doing said job since most of the time if not all of the time their ships are unarmed.

Why are their ships unarmed, what do they need to do? What can't they get done with torpedos mobile rocket systems and super machine guns? try reading what I've posted three times already before just writing a response to something entirely different from what I wrote.

2)When the PM says we are deploying a destroyer and 2 frigates to the middle eastI think recalling our "merchant navy" back from whatever port they are in, adding the new equipment and retraining the crew might make Canada an irrelevant player. If Canada needs to protect its coasts what would be the preferred method? Call the navy and have a ship en route in 12h or a ship potentially en route in 3 months after "weaponizing" and retraining?

Why is Canada intervening in the middle east? There is no war there. There is no declared war, it is against international law to wage war according to the UN charter. Why is Canada dumping tax dollars down the toilet on a place that has no direct sea or land routes to Canada?

3)What is needed is people who know what they are doing and how they should do it to build our ships and we need people who can fix them and maintain them to fix and maintain them...we don't need some ass backwards way of doing things that will make us the worlds most inefficient and incompetent navy with zero abilities to do anything to protect Canada and requiring USN assistance to stop illegal fishing in our waters let alone something more serious.

Not attacking the idea, here. You are labeling me as someone who doesn't know about design of nautical and naval systems. They have not made good ships, for instance the US national security cutters were made to last only 3 years in their operating environment, that is what your... highly skilled people did. There is nothing in what I said indicates any of my plan is inoperable, you are spouting nonsense. I think torpedos rockets and machine guns are more than enough deterrent to stop illegal fishing. You are being nonsensical. Anything more serious can be met with helicopters and jets.

5)When you put military use as secondary you are essentially saying that we should just give up on having a navy, we need people who are experts in their field so that when the time comes they can perform their task, they can do so as experts which means that as many of them come home as possible rather than having amateur merchant marine sailors masquerading as navy sailors dying in droves.

Not at all. I said very clearly. Having a gun for hunting doesn't mean you don't have a gun for killing. Once again your logic is faulty. You are painting my words in a false light.

6) Changing the name means nothing, the navy is the same wether you call it the RCN, the coast guard or the canoe people, the coast guard and the navy serve two different purposes and even though they might need to work closer together they are not interchangeable. Thats like saying we will merge the police department and Fire department whose job would be to clean the streets and if there is crime we send them in to fight crime and call them cops if there is a fire we call them firemen but their primary job will be sanitation and their vehicles will be outfitted based on the need, so if there is a fire they will outfit their vehicles as a firetruck and if its a crime they will be outfitted at police truck(see they didn't buy cruisers because those cannot be used for the primary job of sanitation right) and what does this sh*tshow give the people? It gives respond times horribly slow with the responding personnel unable to do their jobs due to lack of training, experience, equipment etc... with incredibly slow respond time to allow for them to return to their station and outfit their vehicles based on the emergency, can you imagine waiting 4h for a firetruck to arrive and when they do arrive they cannot do their job because of previously mentioned shortcoming?

Having forces that can perform both functions is totally within bounds. You are being nonsensical again. Yes police and fire departments should be merged, it would be far better to have only firefighting police, much like the military having firefighters but still having soldiers. Your people can only do one thing position is just plain retarded.

The military is not meant to bring in money, the military is meant to protect Canadians. Do you think you are the smartest person in the world and everyone else is an idiot because every other nation that has a dedicated army navy and airforce, uses them as such instead of having a military that does not even consider being a military force as its primary job...

Your military is only meant to drain money, that is why it fails and can't be supported without extorting from tax payers. You military design is stupid. Dedicated forces are ineffective in defence, they are only used for occupation and destroying foreign nations of lesser technological capacity. It serves no benefit for Canada to have its forces designed in that fashion.

We need a military we can depend on or we need to become a protectorate of the US either way I prefer knowing that if an emergency arises we will be protected rather than feeling protected but having an ill trained, poorly equipped excuse for a military. The military is there to protect Canadians, that is their primary, secondary and thirdly and that is what the military should be equipped and trained to do rather than being a business with a secondary job of protecting Canada which ultimately makes it useless...

Try addressing the reason my plan doesn't work, not that it doesn't match your vision for how the military should look and act.

You are wasting tax payer funds for a theatrical production rather than utility and that is why your view fails.

capacity fits on a stick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W48_155-millimeter_nuclear_shell.jpg

We are going to need to build bigger rail guns, ideally capable of reaching space for actual defence needs, and base air defence around defending those rail guns, or missile launch sites.

This is the naval war that is coming

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-08/its-experimental-rail-gun-navy-wants-gps-guided-hypersonic-projectiles

example

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/89492-china-has-developed-its-own-electromagnetic-railgun.html

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/navy-gets-another-hypersonic-railgun-fires-test-shots/3317

you will need thels capable of knocking these things out of the air.

Edited March 12, 2013 by shortlived

[Army Guy]

Not attacking the idea, here. You are labeling me as someone who doesn't know about design of nautical and naval systems. They have not made good ships, for instance the US national security cutters were made to last only 3 years in their operating environment, that is what your... highly skilled people did. There is nothing in what I said indicates any of my plan is inoperable, you are spouting nonsense. I think torpedos rockets and machine guns are more than enough deterrent to stop illegal fishing. You are being nonsensical. Anything more serious can be met with helicopters and jets.

Maybe that is the problem, your great at following future tech, but you've failed to understand what it is our navy does for a living, and why over 160 nations are not multi tasking thier militaries with other more productive services. let alone just arm their ships with some torps, MG,s. or doing just illegal fishing patrols But hey maybe you know something they don't i mean maybe your ahead of your time. Or maybe you just don't know what your talking about.

Your military is only meant to drain money, that is why it fails and can't be supported without extorting from tax payers. You military design is stupid. Dedicated forces are ineffective in defence, they are only used for occupation and destroying foreign nations of lesser technological capacity. It serves no benefit for Canada to have its forces designed in that fashion.

Again why is it 160 nations or more are following the same dotrine, could it be they are on to something....

As for occuping and destroying other nations have you read any of our history....Thats what militaries do, they provide our nation with means to deal with problems once the polictical process breaks down.....it's really that simple....

Edited March 12, 2013 by Army Guy

[Signals.Cpl]

Why are their ships unarmed, what do they need to do? What can't they get done with torpedos mobile rocket systems and super machine guns? try reading what I've posted three times already before just writing a response to something entirely different from what I wrote.

Why is Canada intervening in the middle east? There is no war there. There is no declared war, it is against international law to wage war according to the UN charter. Why is Canada dumping tax dollars down the toilet on a place that has no direct sea or land routes to Canada?

Not attacking the idea, here. You are labeling me as someone who doesn't know about design of nautical and naval systems. They have not made good ships, for instance the US national security cutters were made to last only 3 years in their operating environment, that is what your... highly skilled people did. There is nothing in what I said indicates any of my plan is inoperable, you are spouting nonsense. I think torpedos rockets and machine guns are more than enough deterrent to stop illegal fishing. You are being nonsensical. Anything more serious can be met with helicopters and jets.

Not at all. I said very clearly. Having a gun for hunting doesn't mean you don't have a gun for killing. Once again your logic is faulty. You are painting my words in a false light.

Having forces that can perform both functions is totally within bounds. You are being nonsensical again. Yes police and fire departments should be merged, it would be far better to have only firefighting police, much like the military having firefighters but still having soldiers. Your people can only do one thing position is just plain retarded.

Your military is only meant to drain money, that is why it fails and can't be supported without extorting from tax payers. You military design is stupid. Dedicated forces are ineffective in defence, they are only used for occupation and destroying foreign nations of lesser technological capacity. It serves no benefit for Canada to have its forces designed in that fashion.

Try addressing the reason my plan doesn't work, not that it doesn't match your vision for how the military should look and act.

You are wasting tax payer funds for a theatrical production rather than utility and that is why your view fails.

capacity fits on a stick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W48_155-millimeter_nuclear_shell.jpg

We are going to need to build bigger rail guns, ideally capable of reaching space for actual defence needs, and base air defence around defending those rail guns, or missile launch sites.

This is the naval war that is coming

http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2012-08/its-experimental-rail-gun-navy-wants-gps-guided-hypersonic-projectiles

example

http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/89492-china-has-developed-its-own-electromagnetic-railgun.html

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/navy-gets-another-hypersonic-railgun-fires-test-shots/3317

you will need thels capable of knocking these things out of the air.

I am not going to waste my time disproving your entire "argument" again but Ill give you a few things to think about:

1) We might run afoul with international law if we arm merchant ships.

2)A surprise attack against our Merchant ships while unarmed might see our entire navy at the bottom of the ocean in a matter of minutes while the weapons are on shore.

3)War ships need to be ready at a moments notice not in a month or 5 or or even a year if they are needed now they are needed now.

4)Experience is important, having a well armed ship with an inexperienced crew is a recipe for disaster, having people qualify on their job once a year and then don't see the equipment until next time negates the entire basis of the military. In your world I would be equal to a MWO simply because he will have just about as much experience as me whereas in todays military be it the Army, Airforce or navy a senior NCM with 20-30 years experience is invaluable.

5) Professional military forces have shown their dominance since well before the time of the Roman Empire, trying to argue against several thousand years of history to prove your "point" is pointless because you can't win...

If war breaks out I want the RCN ready to fight and defend Canada rather than be caught unarmed and defenceless all over the world and either sunk or interned in neutral ports which means we can see our fleet decimated in a matter of minutes.

Having forces that can perform both functions is totally within bounds. You are being nonsensical again. Yes police and fire departments should be merged, it would be far better to have only firefighting police, much like the military having firefighters but still having soldiers. Your people can only do one thing position is just plain retarded.

As for this little gem let me dissect it. We have people who chose a profession and are the best in that field be it firefighter, police officer, infantry, signaller, engineer, paramedic etc I don't want to go for an heart surgery and have an Orthodontist do the surgery as his/her secondary job. I want the firefighter who knows what he is doing to come and get me out of a fire rather than a jack of all trades and a master of none, I want a police officer who knows what he is doing rather than someone who will screw up the investigation due to lack of experience, knowledge, training or any combination thereof.

We can have a first world police department, fire department, military and healthcare system or we can have a third world police department that cannot solve a crime, a fire department that sees 10 houses burn because they didn't know how to stop the fire at the first house, a military that dies by the hundreds in the smaller firefight or the doctor that kills more through inexperience than saves...

I don't know why I waste my time talking to you as you appear to be some immature little kid hiding in mommies basement but hopefully someday you can come out and see the real world and realize that none of your ideas work anywhere other than your head.

I am done wasting my time with you.

[Smallc]

Please stop engaging WA...please