Canadian Defence News

[Aristides]

49 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

True, we can send a beaver on NATO missions to show our symbolic support. It can swim ahead at the very front.  

Western countries already have overwhelming superiority in carriers, why spend the largest part of our defence budget just to add one more. As I said before, you will still need modern anti aircraft and anti submarine frigates and possibly an attack sub to protect it, either that or expect other navies to do it for you. It makes no sense.

 

Even though they are expensive, frigates still give the best bang for the buck when it comes to surface craft. Other than carry fixed wing aircraft, they can be equipped to do just about anything larger ships can do. They've been navy's all rounders since the days of sail. Nelson was always worrying about his shortage of frigates during the Napoleonic wars.

Edited January 28, 2024 by Aristides

[Army Guy]

3 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

The North Atlantic at the entrance to the Labrador Sea is the gateway to our Arctic, Hudson Bay, and our Northwest Passage.  It’s not frozen but Canada already has ordered 7 Polar Ice Breakers to supplement its few aging icebreakers.   Obviously naval icebreakers are needed.

Nuclear subs can be the go to with the air defence you mentioned in the Arctic.  Air defence and more modest naval capacity on the Pacific.

It would be a major contribution to be able to deploy a carrier to the Middle East, Iran, and China. Halifax is a significant deep water base with a headstart to the east because of its eastern location.  Newfoundland too.

It would be something to see Canada have a foreign policy that other countries take seriously again, rather than continue to be the effete wet noodle we’ve become.

Carriers are for nations that are serious not only with defending their nation but effecting military power globally...we can't even effect power in our own bathtubs...

Navy has been discussing new subs for some time, and debating nuclear subs to patrol our northern waters , yes we can patrol for surface fleet but anything submerged good luck...Nuclear does bring many more advantages than conventional or AIP subs...the problem is the price tag...Aussies are looking at a 90 bil bill just to start...bets it goes double that...

[Zeitgeist]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Western countries already have overwhelming superiority in carriers, why spend the largest part of our defence budget just to add one more. As I said before, you will still need modern anti aircraft and anti submarine frigates and possibly an attack sub to protect it, either that or expect other navies to do it for you. It makes no sense.

 

Even though they are expensive, frigates still give the best bang for the buck when it comes to surface craft. Other than carry fixed wing aircraft, they can be equipped to do just about anything larger ships can do. They've been navy's all rounders since the days of sail. Nelson was always worrying about his shortage of frigates during the Napoleonic wars.

You’re right about the value of frigates.  We do need better subs though.  I guess it comes down to how much power we want to project, because the less we depend on foreign powers the more we can tailor foreign policy to meet specifically Canadian interests.  I tend to think we’re either one of many smaller players or we pay more but get the opportunity to shape international affairs rather than be shaped by the “great powers” who are basically the veto powers in the Security Council.  Really Canada should’ve had France’s seat after WW2, because at that time we had the fourth largest military and had liberated a swath of Europe. Rather than expanding or even maintaining our power we relinquished it.  Now that our population is expanding at boom pace, we should restore what we had at least.

[Dougie93]

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

You’re right about the value of frigates.

Frigates are only valuable if they are cheap

Lord Nelson would never advocate for buying frigates at ten times the market price

once you are paying for Ships of the Line, but getting frigates instead, that is self defeating

all war is logistics in the end

[Dougie93]

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

  We do need better subs though.

you can't afford a submarine program, when you are paying such high prices for everything else

submarine programs are space programs, submarines are spaceships

submarines are the most expensive warships to operate & maintain by tonnage

hence, if are buying 12-15 frigates at $6+ billion each, then that's your entire budget blown on frigates

everything else will have to be cut to pay for a frigate boondoggle,

resulting in having too many frigates and nothing else

which describes the RCN to a tee

[Dougie93]

10 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

  I guess it comes down to how much power we want to project, because the less we depend on foreign powers the more we can tailor foreign policy to meet specifically Canadian interests.

the Post National State is an Hermit Kingdom

the Laurentian Elites are now focused almost entirely on crushing any dissent against their farcical rule

that's all they use their power for, feathering their nests while remaining above the law

furthermore, there really is no such thing as Canadian interests

as Canada's interests are in conflict

what is good for the west is bad for the east, and vice versa

what is good for the elites is bad for the working & middle classes, and vice versa

hence how we have arrived at Orwellian cultural revolution to divide and conquer from within

[BeaverFever]

11 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Really Canada should’ve had France’s seat after WW2, because at that time we had the fourth largest military and had liberated a swath of Europe. Rather than expanding or even maintaining our power we relinquished it.  

That’s the Canadian colonial mentality unfortunately. We believe our place in the world is to be nothing more than a subservient second-rate “helper” to “real” countries like UK and US and to supply them with raw materials for their advanced industries at the expense of our own. We even let smaller countries like Australia and Brazil colonize our economy and eat our lunch.

[BeaverFever]

12 hours ago, Army Guy said:

The fact we really don't have any large or Artic ice breakers is telling.that has to give you an idea on how much we as a nation care about our artic sovereignty...All those artic fobs we were suppose to build never got built, we own the north but can only really vist in the summer...One of the reasons we built AOPs was to use those new Artic FOBS to patrol from...now we are stuck with AOPs that are nearly useless for naval use.

I don’t think any aircraft carrier is capable of operating in the arctic. In fact I don’t believe there are any armed warships that can break winter arctic ice. Icebreaking is tedious slow-going work at only a few knots pace with lots of reversing involved. Any icebreaker or warship following an icebreaker in am assault is a sitting duck. Russia is currently building a warship that is equivalent to the Harry DeWolf/Svalbard class in ice capability but will carry cruise missiles and a 76mm gun. Assuming those ships ever become operational we will have an armed surface threat at least in summer seasons but AFAIK none exist currently.  The US has talked about building armed icebreakers but AFAIK there’s nothing imminent.
 

Meanwhile the CCG breaks arctic ice for the RCN when needed for exercises. In addition to the 4 fighter FOLs there is the naval facility at Nanisivik that is expected to be fully operational this year. 

[Dougie93]

25 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

That’s the Canadian colonial mentality unfortunately.

I'm proudly colonial

British North Americans since 1757

born in British Columbia, raised in Nova Scotia, come of age in Upper Canada

Loyalist Orangeman

Guardian of Confederation

unto death as necessary

for God, King & Country

furthermore, the Anglo-American Empire of Liberty has been very, very good to me

raising my standards of living to the pinnacle of civilization

allowing me to live a life of romantic adventure

defending the faith to walk with the Nazarene on the road to Calvary Hill

Nec Aspera Terrent

[Aristides]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

Frigates are only valuable if they are cheap

Lord Nelson would never advocate for buying frigates at ten times the market price

once you are paying for Ships of the Line, but getting frigates instead, that is self defeating

all war is logistics in the end

Is the Type 26 really a frigate? It is 20 metres longer and 1700 tons heavier than our recent Tribal class destroyers. Maybe that's why the Brits are calling it a Global Combat Ship.

 

Odd comment from a guy who would spend 14 billion USD and as much again for its air wing on a single ship which would cost almost as much to run as all our frigates put together.

Edited January 28, 2024 by Aristides

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Is the Type 26 really a frigate? It is 20 metres longer and 1700 tons heavier than our recent Tribal class destroyers. Maybe that's why the Brits are calling it a Global Combat Ship.

it's only armed as a frigate

32 x Mk.41 VLS cells

24 x Sea Ceptor

8 x NSM

it's certainly not a Destroyer by armament

in comparison, an US Navy DDG-51 has 96 VLS cells, a PLAN Type 055 has 112 VLS cells

the Type 26 could be more heavily armed, there is a version which could load 96 VLS cells

but Canada is only buying a frigate configuration, by firepower

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Odd comment from a guy who would spend 14 billion USD and as much again for its air wing on a single ship which would cost almost as much to run as all our frigates put together.

you simply get more bang for your buck

as, if you are going to spend $80 billion, you should spend that on arms of decision rather than a supporting arm

if you have CVN's & SSN's, you don't need a large fleet of frigates

since as a military power therein, other countries in your coalition will provide escorts to your Carrier Group

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

you simply get more bang for your buck

as, if you are going to spend $80 billion, you should spend that on arms of decision rather than a supporting arm

if you have CVN's & SSN's, you don't need a large fleet of frigates

since as a military power therein, other countries in your coalition will provide escorts to your Carrier Group

You need frigates and destroyers to work with them. Each US carrier group has at least two. It isn't a case of one or the other.

What good is one carrier to us with three oceans to cover separated by a continent?

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

What good is one carrier to us with three oceans to cover separated by a continent?

there is no conventional military threat to Canada

Canada does not actually defend itself

Canada is defended by being within fortress America

thus Canada's strategic military imperative is not coastal defence

but rather power projection overseas to uphold Canada's foreign policy

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

It isn't a case of one or the other.

 

it is a case of one or the other with Canada, since Canada cannot afford to spend $80 billion more than once

blowing the entire budget on having more frigates than the Royal Navy or the French Navy, and nothing else

is obviously and typically id iotic of Canada

[ExFlyer]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

Frigates are only valuable if they are cheap

Lord Nelson would never advocate for buying frigates at ten times the market price

once you are paying for Ships of the Line, but getting frigates instead, that is self defeating

all war is logistics in the end

Lord nelson,the adulterer that had a child with his best friends wife? The one that assisted in the invasion of the Kingdom of Naples by the French?

he never bought anything, let alone was even consulted on them.

You certainly value scuzbags LOL

[Aristides]

26 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

it is a case of one or the other with Canada, since Canada cannot afford to spend $80 billion more than once

blowing the entire budget on having more frigates than the Royal Navy or the French Navy, and nothing else

is obviously and typically id iotic of Canada

A typical British carrier group consists of a QE class carrier, a Type 45 destroyer for anti aircraft defence, a Type 23 frigate (to be replaced the Type 26) for anti sub defence, an attack sub and a supply ship. That's four other ships to support and defend one carrier. It isn't a case of one or the other. 

The French also have 11 destroyers and the British six Daring class Type 45 destroyers in addition to their frigates. They also have nuclear attack subs.

Edited January 28, 2024 by Aristides

[Dougie93]

10 minutes ago, Aristides said:

A typical British carrier group consists of a QE class carrier, a Type 45 destroyer for anti aircraft defence, a Type 23 frigate (to be replaced the Type 26) for anti sub defence, an attack sub and a supply ship. It isn't a case of one or the other. 

The French also have 11 destroyers and the British six Daring class Type 45 destroyers in addition to their frigates. They also have nuclear attack subs.

but Canada is not buying any Destroyers nor SSN's

only frigates

as military powers, France & Britain are not so concerned with frigates

because again, lesser navies will provide frigates in coalition as escorts

a military power spends the money on the arms of decision

providing frigates is the role of lesser navies who cannot afford arms of decision

Canada blowing its entire budget on frigates renders Canada into a single role which is not decisive 

while Canada could actually buy a full spectrum navy

two strike groups off each coast for the same price as 15 frigates

each strike group would only require two destroyers & two frigates & one AOR

the remaining sixty odd billion or so could be spent on two escort carriers & four SSN's

Edited January 28, 2024 by Dougie93

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

but Canada is not buying any Destroyers nor SSN's

only frigates

as military powers, France & Britain are not so concerned with frigates

because again, lesser navies will provide frigates in coalition as escorts

a military power spends the money on the arms of decision

providing frigates is the role of lesser navies who cannot afford arms of decision

Canada blowing its entire budget on frigates renders Canada into a single role which is not decisive 

while Canada could actually buy a full spectrum navy

two strike groups off each coast for the same price as 15 frigates

each strike group would only require two destroyers & two frigates & one AOR

So what, more types of ships means more complication and more expense, that's why we are only  buying one type of fighter.

Do you really believe we will be some kind of global bad ass that everyone will fear because we have a single aircraft carrier with conventional weapons?

[I am Groot]

18 hours ago, Aristides said:

I’m not against increasing our military capability, just don’t believe carriers are the best way to do it.

Oh, I don't either. I just brought up the carriers as an example of how wildly prices have gotten out of control for these frigates. I don't doubt they'll be great and capable ships, almost destroyers, but they're not five times better than the Constitution class the US are building for a fifth the price. 

But whatever we buy/build we need them today. The original contract for the Type 26 was supposed to start putting ships in the water last year. Now it won't be until the end of this decade, at best. That can be rushed, though I shudder at what the ships would be like if Irving was rushed given the lack of quality of the sips they take their time on.

We also need submarines, a dozen or so, but this government will never buy them. I don't know that a Poilievre government would, either. He seems more focused on cutting the deficit and I haven't heard him say much of anything about defense. There's so much our military needs, from portable anti-air/armor missiles for the infantry to armored vehicles - not to mention socks and uniforms - armed helicopters, and either some way to arm those crappy AOP ships, or junk them and build better ones.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, Aristides said:

So what, more types of ships means more complication and more expense, that's why we are only  buying one type of fighter.

Do you really believe we will be some kind of global bad ass that everyone will fear because we have a single aircraft carrier with conventional weapons?

the RCAF has one type of fighter, not one type of aircraft

I don't believe that the Post National State is even going to survive

on the current trajectory, Canada will descend into violent civil war at some point

but in theory, Canada did not have to destroy itself in a cultural revolution to overthrow the Crown

[I am Groot]

37 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Lord nelson,the adulterer that had a child with his best friends wife? The one that assisted in the invasion of the Kingdom of Naples by the French?

he never bought anything, let alone was even consulted on them.

You certainly value scuzbags LOL

There are few perfect men. Or women. We could get into the background of Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King Junior, if you so desire. Nelson was a heroic figure who accomplished much in his life. You can question his sexual morality but his knowledge of and impact on the British navy at the time, including its tactics and ships, is petulant and silly. 

[Aristides]

37 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

Lord nelson,the adulterer that had a child with his best friends wife? The one that assisted in the invasion of the Kingdom of Naples by the French?

he never bought anything, let alone was even consulted on them.

You certainly value scuzbags LOL

A flawed man but Britain's greatest admiral who's men openly wept when he was killed.

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

the RCAF has one type of fighter, not one type of aircraft

I don't believe that the Post National State is even going to survive

on the current trajectory, Canada will descend into violent civil war at some point

but in theory, Canada did not have to destroy itself in a cultural revolution to overthrow the Crown

We have one type of combat aircraft.

[I am Groot]

41 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

there is no conventional military threat to Canada

Canada does not actually defend itself

Canada is defended by being within fortress America

Fortress America's walls are crumbling and it's quite conceivable it will draw them in tighter, as in just around their own borders if it becomes Fortress Trump. He's already made clear he'd give up on Ukraine, and wouldn't even defend Europe. We can take from that he wouldn't bother to defend Japan or Taiwan either. I don't think we can rely on a fortress Trump to defend us from his friend Putin.

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

There are few perfect men. Or women. We could get into the background of Mother Theresa and Martin Luther King Junior, if you so desire. Nelson was a heroic figure who accomplished much in his life. You can question his sexual morality but his knowledge of and impact on the British navy at the time, including its tactics and ships, is petulant and silly. 

the genius of Nelson at Trafalgar was that he threw everything at victory with his arms of decision

battles are often lost because you dole out your forces piecemeal, never actually achieving decision

whereas Lord Nelson went for broke with all he had, even at the cost of all of his Ships of the Line

because the French fleet at Trafalgar was all the French had

while Britain. as the global economic power by this point, could simply build another fleet before the French could

6 minutes ago, Aristides said:

We have one type of combat aircraft.

because F-35 does it all

but that doesn't translate to the navy

there is no warship equivalent of the F-35