Canada's military is broken and falling apart.

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

And on the right... we have politician that do nothing more than condemn and criticize and besmirch anything and everything. No plans, no beliefs, no foresight, no promoting Canada and unity.

Unfortunately, one side is as divisive as the other.

Horseshit.

https://www.conservative.ca/pierre-poilievre/

 

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:

Americans saw the Chinese/Russians in open waters.  Can’t we just use ships too?  Why do we need submarines?  That article from 2 years ago had nothing compelling in it to convince me that subs would grant us some magical status in the Arctic.  

first of all, there is zero chance that Canada would open fire on a Russian or Chinese vessel

those decisions are taken in Washington on Canada's behalf

so there's no Canadian military solution to either the Russians or the Chinese

but moreover, in order to operate under the polar ice in the Arctic, your submarine has to make its own air

and for that you need a nuclear reactor

so these non nuclear submarines Canada has now are not particularly useful for operations in the Arctic at all

[Dougie93]

in fairness, I will present the RCN argument for why you need these submarines

a submarine is the most complex and difficult to operate machine in human history

a submarine program is more complex and difficult than a space program

it takes decades to get a submarine program up and running

Canada spent decades getting a submarine program up and running

if you end that program, it's gone forever

you will have no submariners, no submarine school, no submarines to train with

the RCN doesn't know the future

maybe someday Canada will need submarines

so they are maintaining the minimum capability required for Canada to operate submarines, for all time

they would argue that this submarine program is actually quite modest and affordable compared to most

bear in mind that Australia's Collins class submarines are no better than Canada's Victoria class

and yet Australia's submarines cost $1 billion each to buy, and they cost $3.5 billion per year to maintain

so in comparison, Canada's submarine fleet is in fact a deal, one of the most (relatively) affordable in the world

 

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Serious question….  does Canada’s navy  need submarines?

Subs are the Navy's most potent weapon, And i don't want to sound like a angry dick, but perhaps you should do some research, i will give you a much better understanding why we have the equipment we do , and what equipment we are missing...

[Army Guy]

4 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Can we shoot them when they climb out of the subs and up onto land?  I’m not entirely sure what we’re supposed to be scared of…. we clearly haven’t needed the ice-subs yet.   And our current subs have defended our coastlines by going to Japan and the Mediterranean!  Canada’s reach is far and wide!  
 

I haven’t heard a compelling case for why Canada needs more and better subs. 

We do not have the ability to travel under the ice pack for long periods , our current subs can travel in the norths once the ice pack is broken up..as the it needs to surface to replenish fresh air supply...I'm sure some navy guy here can explain it much better...

Our subs are deployed by the government DND does not have much say in where they go, that being said these subs we have currently have are old in the tooth, and need to be replaced , but have been put on hold until after the Ship building program is resolved...and with the price it is at now there won't be any new subs...Australia is trying to build 6 to 9 nuke  subs and they are priced out to 90 Bil....So it is not why do we need them the need is always going to be there , but rather can we afford to have them.

[Moonbox]

40 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

So...I believe the question here was...are the Poles united as a people...or more united than Canucks...?

You decide for yourself.  You can always find an angry group of people protesting something, but the last polls I saw showed nearly 80% of Poles supportive of sending weapons to Ukraine.  I suspect if they weren't restrained by NATO they'd have probably intervened themselves already.  Other than Ukrainians, nobody hates Russia more than the Poles...well the Poles and almost all of Russia's other neighbours. 

40 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

And while I find your dismissal of news sources outside your little msm bubble...amusing as hell...

Trust me, it's not nearly as amusing as seeing some donkey cite state-sponsored news from the Islamic Republic of Iran to try and prove his point, and to do so with a straight face.  😆👌

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Army Guy said:

We do not have the ability to travel under the ice pack for long periods , our current subs can travel in the norths once the ice pack is broken up..as the it needs to surface to replenish fresh air supply...I'm sure some navy guy here can explain it much better...

the fight with the Russians is way further north

you can't track a Russian SSBN once it gets up under the ice

the ice makes too much noise, so you have to be right on top of them

so in order to track Russian SSBN's

American & British SSN's go into the Barents, right to Zapadnaya Litsa bay

they follow the Russian Boomers as they come out of their bases

all the way up under the ice, and then back again

non nuclear subs play no role in this mission whatsoever

the Canadian SSK's are not useful at all for the silent war in the Arctic

if Canada was going to fight with these submarines, they would be sent to Europe, to operate in the Baltic etc

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Clearly, we need a navy for coastal defence.  The fleet make up of the navy is pretty open to argument.  Subs?  Aircraft carriers?  Etc, etc.  
 

But you have no compelling arguments to make for your assertion that we need submarines that can operate in the Arctic.  

Here is just a thought, since none of us here are experts in things navy, ask our navy why we need subs, there are thousands of these Q&A on the web, from yes our naval commanders...all one has to do is goggle that...

 

[Army Guy]

2 hours ago, herbie said:

During the Cold War we had... the operative word. Not having a base in Germany there's no need for our tanks there. And aside from training crews and tech, little need for them here either.
You don't fly 40 ton tanks to where the war IS.

And this arctic panic shit = WTH would Russia send vessels through "our Arctic"? What possible benefit would they derive from that? There's no need for oceanic shortcuts from Russia and only range disadvantages for boomer subs.
 

Canada is still a signatory to NATO, and it might be asked to provide troops and equipment to any where in the globe that NATO might be involved... Almost any mechanized battle group or Brigade group has tanks.. it is part of the rock, paper scissors game...it does not work with one element left out.

And we have flown 60 ton tanks to where the war is, By C-17 to Afghanistan...one at a time or by renting Russian airlift.

Russian military ground forces have already been in our artic, there has been Russian equipment, rations boxes, and other supplies found on our shores , why is that? why is it we patrol up there, it's not becasue the fishing is good, Why would Russian subs be in our artic waters to shorten flight time of nuke missiles.. and you don't need a boomer to launch nukes..

[blackbird]

If Canada had been smart, they would have combined the coast guard and navy.  It would have made a lot of sense because we need both on our coasts and would save billions of dollars.

[Dougie93]

15 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Here is just a thought, since none of us here are experts in things navy, ask our navy why we need subs, there are thousands of these Q&A on the web, from yes our naval commanders...all one has to do is goggle that...

military personnel are only expert in their specific trades

Generals & Admirals are not strategists

the leading experts on military strategy are all civilians

the most knowledgeable submarine expert was John P. Craven

he served in World War Two as an enlisted man on BB-40 USS New Mexico

but his expertise as the Project Manager for the Polaris Submarine program

and as Chief Scientist at the Navy Special Projects office

was as a PhD civilian 

 serving members of the military are not in any way strategic experts, not even close

in fact,  most assertions coming from military officers are naive compared to the general public

because they are bound to tow the party line

Edited February 1 by Dougie93

[Army Guy]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

military personnel are only expert in their specific trades

Generals & Admirals are not strategists

the leading experts on military strategy are all civilians

the most knowledgeable submarine expert was John P. Craven

he served in World War Two as an enlisted man on the USS Missouri

but his expertise as the Project Manager for the Polaris Submarine 

and Chief Scientist at the Navy Special Projects office, was as a PhD civilian 

 serving members of the military are not in any way strategic experts

If our Naval commanders can not tell us WHY we need subs in our inventory, then they should be working in the mail room. They have to have tactical and strategic sense how to deploy them and in what situations. Or atleast answer all of tree beards questions so he can understand.  

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If Canada had been smart, they would have combined the coast guard and navy.  It would have made a lot of sense because we need both on our coasts and would save billions of dollars.

if Canada wasn't detached from reality, they would get rid of their boondoggle navy and just have a coast guard

Canada is not even sovereign on these issues

Canada does not decide if/when Canada goes to war, nor what Canada does in a war

all that is decided by the Americans for Canada

so Canada's navy doesn't even work for Canadians, it is a instrument of foreign interests in Washington

I see no need at all to have the money which Ottawa seizes from me to be spent on such a boondoggle

if the Americans insist that Canada have a fake military just for show, let them pay for it

 

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

If our Naval commanders can not tell us WHY we need subs in our inventory, then they should be working in the mail room. They have to have tactical and strategic sense how to deploy them and in what situations. Or atleast answer all of tree beards questions so he can understand.  

the problem for the commanders is : there's no actual reason for Canada to have submarines

Denmark's military is way better equipped than Canada's, yet Denmark got rid of their submarines

if Denmark, living in the line of fire with the Russian in the Baltic doesn't need them, then Canada doesn't neither

the North American continent is defended by the US Navy by default

the Americans are not going to allow any hostile operations in Canada's waters to go unchecked

so the idea that Canada even needs a navy at all,  is entirely suspect

Edited February 1 by Dougie93

[TreeBeard]

24 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Here is just a thought, since none of us here are experts in things navy, ask our navy why we need subs, there are thousands of these Q&A on the web, from yes our naval commanders...all one has to do is goggle that...

 

Of course they want the latest and greatest submarine; it’s not their billions.  If I was in the navy, I’d want them too!  
 

Do we need them?  I’m unconvinced that we will lose our Arctic territory if we don’t have them. 

[Nationalist]

26 minutes ago, Moonbox said:

You decide for yourself.  You can always find an angry group of people protesting something, but the last polls I saw showed nearly 80% of Poles supportive of sending weapons to Ukraine.  I suspect if they weren't restrained by NATO they'd have probably intervened themselves already.  Other than Ukrainians, nobody hates Russia more than the Poles...well the Poles and almost all of Russia's other neighbours. 

Trust me, it's not nearly as amusing as seeing some donkey cite state-sponsored news from the Islamic Republic of Iran to try and prove his point, and to do so with a straight face.  😆👌

Funny that all this means to you is support for your blood sport.

I guess that's about all that needs to be said about that.

 

[TreeBeard]

16 minutes ago, blackbird said:

If Canada had been smart, they would have combined the coast guard and navy.  It would have made a lot of sense because we need both on our coasts and would save billions of dollars.

The Canadian Coast Guard is not military.  Why would you combine a non-military department with the military?  

[Nationalist]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the problem for the commanders is : there's no actual reason for Canada to have submarines

Denmark's military is way better equipped than Canada's, yet Denmark got rid of their submarines

if Denmark, living in the line of fire with the Russian in the Baltic doesn't need them, then Canada doesn't neither

the North American continent is defended by the US Navy by default

the Americans are not going to allow any hostile operations in Canada's waters to go unchecked

so the idea that Canada even needs a navy at all,  is entirely suspect

Question: If NATO actually decides to attack Russia and WWIII ensues, wouldn't some extra subs and other new hardware be of use?

[Army Guy]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the problem for the commanders is : there's no actual reason for Canada to have submarines

Denmark's military is way better equipped than Canada's, yet Denmark got rid of their submarines

if Denmark, living in the line of fire with the Russian in the Baltic doesn't need them, than Canada doesn't neither

Well in a 2 second google search i found this ,from the Canadian naval review...they seem to have a different view. and i'm not trying to squeeze in the middle here, as i am not a naval guy... but having no subs is like the army having no armored recce elements, or tanks for that matter.  it does not make any sense...

Canada’s Future Submarines – Canadian Naval Review

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Question: If NATO actually decides to attack Russia and WWIII ensues, wouldn't some extra subs and other new hardware be of use?

only nuclear powered submarines would be useful for offensive operations against the Russians

the diesel electric powered submarine is really only for coastal defence

they make sense for countries in Europe perhaps

but the Russians submarine threat to Canada is lurking under the polar ice cap

the Russians use the ice as cover, to make a protected bastion,

in order to launch a nuclear strike against North America

so without nuclear powered submarines, Canada would play no role

Edited February 1 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The Canadian Coast Guard is not military.  Why would you combine a non-military department with the military?  

Canada's military origins are British

the British have never had a military coast guard

the UK Coast Guard, like Canada's, is a civilian agency

the military roles performed by the American Coast Guard, are performed by the navy in Britain & Canada

[Army Guy]

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Of course they want the latest and greatest submarine; it’s not their billions.  If I was in the navy, I’d want them too!  
 

Do we need them?  I’m unconvinced that we will lose our Arctic territory if we don’t have them. 

Thats your way of looking at it, I'm a tax payer and they want to spend my tax dollars i have questions, as you should......most of the equipment in our inventory is critical to the whole mission .. the Military already has lost dozens of capabilities on the ground, air, and at sea...and come game time (time of hostilities) these lost capabilities will cost lives, history has shown us every conflict our nation has been in, all of them we were ill prepared and lives were lost becasue of it. Becasue the government knows it is cheaper to bury our soldiers than equip them.. and if you agree then good on you, but one day it may be your son or daughter that is called to arms in this equipment...

Hans island is an example of disputed territory, we are lucky this was with a friendly nation...Both nations military forces played a cat and mouse game over this island...we also have disputes with the US , Russia, over artic borders...Russia is spending bils to build up their artic forces, and i'm pretty sure it is not to give them that artic holiday Russian have always dreamed about.. The treat is there, and we as a nation bury that under the carpet...The US is paying attention. 

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Well in a 2 second google search i found this ,from the Canadian naval review...they seem to have a different view. and i'm not trying to squeeze in the middle here, as i am not a naval guy... but having no subs is like the army having no armored recce elements, or tanks for that matter.  it does not make any sense...

Canada’s Future Submarines – Canadian Naval Review

Canadian Naval Review is hardly a disinterested party

Canadian Naval Review wants to save the RCN, God love them

but that doesn't mean that Canada actually needs a navy in a practical sense

sure, everybody involved with the Canadian Forces would like to save the institution

but since there is no conventional military threat to Canada which is not dealt with by the Amerricans

they don't actually have a rational case

it's all national pride & emotion

which will never stand up to logic

hence why the Canadian Forces are not a priority for the government at all

[Army Guy]

14 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

The Canadian Coast Guard is not military.  Why would you combine a non-military department with the military?  

Ask Justin remember that 2 % of GDP number , Justin counts a lot of the coast guard duties as military along with the most of the RCMP are considered under the military umbrella when it comes to "budget" Not command,...An accounting game meant to boost our military numbers or fool Canadians and NATO allied into how much we are spending on our military. it has gotten him maybe 3 or 4 points to about 1.5 %. 

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Ask Justin remember that 2 % of GDP number , Justin counts a lot of the coast guard duties as military along with the most of the RCMP are considered under the military umbrella when it comes to "budget" Not command,...An accounting game meant to boost our military numbers or fool Canadians and NATO allied into how much we are spending on our military. it has gotten him maybe 3 or 4 points to about 1.5 %. 

Justin Trudeau is a psychopathic lunatic

all he cares about is clinging to power cravenly by any means necessary

because he thinks 24 Sussex Drive is his house, not yours

he did grow up there after all, so its easy to see how he feels entitled to it

Edited February 1 by Dougie93