Canadian Defence News

[Aristides]

Ah, the CH-148, the biggest procurement F Up in Canadian history.

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Ah, the CH-148, the biggest procurement F Up in Canadian history.

if you handed them over to the Ukrainians, with the torpedoes

they'd fly them out over the Black Sea and start sinking Russian submarines, right away

beggars can't be choosers

Slava Ukraini

 

[Dougie93]

not to mention that,

the Type 26 frigate program is making the CH-148 look like great value for the Canadian taxpayer

$80 billion for 12 warships ?

for that price, Canada could buy six CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers instead

Edited January 26, 2024 by Dougie93

[Aristides]

9 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

not to mention that,

the Type 26 frigate program is making the CH-148 look like great value for the Canadian taxpayer

$80 billion for 12 warships ?

for that price, Canada could buy six CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers instead

What about the cost of buying and operating the 75+ aircraft each of them would carry? Carriers are useless without aircraft.

Where are you going find and pay for the 4500+ crew each carry?

 

At least others are operating the Type 26. The CH-148 is a one off orphan that only we use. Maintaining it in future with its proprietary systems will. be very difficult and expensive. They are already worried about parts availability and the final machines haven’t even been delivered.

We will  be 100% on the hook for every mod and upgrade with no others to share development costs.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/cyclone-helicopters-defence-air-force-1.7088390

Edited January 26, 2024 by Aristides

[Dougie93]

10 hours ago, Aristides said:

What about the cost of buying and operating the 75+ aircraft each of them would carry? Carriers are useless without aircraft.

Where are you going find and pay for the 4500+ crew each carry?

the British don't have the jets to fly off their carriers, the USMC is providing most of their F-35's

the Post National State doesn't have the sailors to crew the Type 26 neither

the Post National State can't even crew more than one AOPS

the entire Canadian military is in a state of existential cascading collapse

so in fact, buying any warships at all at this point is nonsensical

Canada is already destroyed from within, hence there is nothing left worth defending here in any case

the enemies of the Canadian people are in Ottawa

so I wouldn't cross the street to p iss on the Post National State if it was on fire

never mind go to war for it

if the Loyalists remaining in the "Canadian" military are not going to mutiny

then I would advise them to get out now, to return home and prepare

for the total collapse of governance,  the economy, and associated civil order

When we came back to the glen
The winter was turning
Our goods lay in the snow
And our houses were burning

Edited January 26, 2024 by Dougie93

[I am Groot]

10 hours ago, Aristides said:

At least others are operating the Type 26.

Not yet they're not. And while the Brits seem to be moving along well there are a lot of complaints about the Aussies as they try to build their version. Someone recently called it the most expensive, least armed large vessel ever produced.

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

 Someone recently called it the most expensive, least armed large vessel ever produced.

indeed

with the threat of Anti Ship Ballistic Missiles, Anti Ship Cruise Missiles

UAS loitering munitions, unmanned boat drones,  surface and semi submersible

the defences on the ship could easily be overwhelmed by asymmetric opponents like the Houthi rebels

never mind a near peer adversary

the conops of the Canadian Surface Combatant is already obsolete

never mind how overwhelmed it would be in the decades to come

[Aristides]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Not yet they're not. And while the Brits seem to be moving along well there are a lot of complaints about the Aussies as they try to build their version. Someone recently called it the most expensive, least armed large vessel ever produced.

Like any other ship, it's armed with whatever you put on it. The Brits are using it mainly as an Aegis type ship to protect their new carriers.

Edited January 27, 2024 by Aristides

[Aristides]

4 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

the British don't have the jets to fly off their carriers, the USMC is providing most of their F-35's

the Post National State doesn't have the sailors to crew the Type 26 neither

the Post National State can't even crew more than one AOPS

the entire Canadian military is in a state of existential cascading collapse

so in fact, buying any warships at all at this point is nonsensical

Canada is already destroyed from within, hence there is nothing left worth defending here in any case

the enemies of the Canadian people are in Ottawa

so I wouldn't cross the street to p iss on the Post National State if it was on fire

never mind go to war for it

if the Loyalists remaining in the "Canadian" military are not going to mutiny

then I would advise them to get out now, to return home and prepare

for the total collapse of governance,  the economy, and associated civil order

When we came back to the glen
The winter was turning
Our goods lay in the snow
And our houses were burning

https://theaviationist.com/2023/10/06/f-35b-intercept-il-38/

 

The Brits have 138 F-35B's on order.

[Dougie93]

11 hours ago, Aristides said:

https://theaviationist.com/2023/10/06/f-35b-intercept-il-38/

 

The Brits have 138 F-35B's on order.

since a CVN-78 is the price of just two Type 26 frigates

Canada could buy the CVN and sail it on behalf of the United Nations

UN Carrier Response Group

the RCN provides the crew, training and maintenance provided in America

then other countries would provide ships & aircraft to the UNCRG on a rotating basis

the RCN could name the CVN HMCS Lester Boyes Pearson

Parati Vero Parati

[Aristides]

Why?

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Why?

because that is Canada's only foreign policy

to temper the influence of the American republic at the gates

by way of multilateralism

the purpose of the military is to uphold your foreign policy

the Shock Troops of the Empire evolve into the Blue Berets

Vigilamus pro te

[Zeitgeist]

We don’t have any aircraft carriers.  In WW2 we had two. We have solid heavy lift, correct, in the CC-177?  We’ve ordered 88 F-35’s, correct?  We still have frigates and we’re ordering up to 9 new ones. We don’t have modern subs.  I would think that we’re getting to a size where our military needs to be more like Britain’s.  It would be nice to know that we could quickly recruit and go it alone or with an alliance of the willing if shit ever hit the fan, whether or not NATO is along for the ride.  I know, pipe dreams.

Edited January 27, 2024 by Zeitgeist

[Dougie93]

13 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

We don’t have any aircraft carriers.  In WW2 we had two. We have solid heavy lift, correct, in the CC-177?  We’ve ordered 88 F-35’s, correct?  We still have frigates and we’re ordering up to 9 new ones. We don’t have modern subs.  I would think that we’re getting to a size where our military needs to be more like Britain’s.  It would be nice to know that we could quickly recruit and go it alone or with an alliance of the willing if shit ever hit the fan, whether or not NATO is along for the ride.  I know, pipe dreams.

it has never been about the equipment

we were the best small army in the world once

despite being poorly equipped

it all came down to esprit de corps

when you are on your chinstrap, wanting to quit

when you are afriad and full of doubt

when others are falling out of ranks to the side of the road

you are spurned on then

simply because you will not be left behind

by the brothers to the left & right of you

Regiment, Colours, Colonel-in-Chief

over the top when the whistle blows, for Elizabeth Windsor

is all that mattered in the end

God, Queen, Country

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

We don’t have any aircraft carriers.  In WW2 we had two

Actually, those 2 small escort carriers, HMS Nabob and HMS Puncher, were British-owned ships.  They carried British aircraft and pilots, however the ship itself was crewed and commanded by Canadians under a loan agreement.   After the war Canada similarly “borrowed” 2 other UK ships, all part of preparation for Canada to develop its own carrier capability with the one and only 100% Canadian owned and operated aircraft carrier, HMCS Bonaventure (1957-1970). 

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Actually, those 2 small escort carriers, HMS Nabob and HMS Puncher, were British-owned ships.  They carried British aircraft and pilots, however the ship itself was crewed and commanded by Canadians under a loan agreement.   After the war Canada similarly “borrowed” 2 other UK ships, all part of preparation for Canada to develop its own carrier capability with the one and only 100% Canadian owned and operated aircraft carrier, HMCS Bonaventure (1957-1970). 

we all report to the same Commander-in-Chief at Buckingham Palace

certainly there is sibling rivalry

but in a constitutional sense, there really isn't any clear distinction between us and HM UK Armed Forces

particularly as Canada has never really had any sovereign interests of its own

Confederation is not the nation

the House of Windsor is the nation

Patriation of the constitution was not a war of independence therein

British North Americans are in fact more British than the British themselves

in the face of the Fenians at the gates from America

God save the King

[Dougie93]

now for those who would not wish to go adventuring on behalf of the United Nations

there is an alternate option for the price of $6+ billion CAD per warship

because that would buy mutiple squadrons of Ship Submersible Nuclear Fast Attack Submarines as well

which are after all the ultimate arm of decision

again, the role of the military is to uphold your foreign policy

otherwise, you are a fake country by default

Canada being a Scots German Empire to find a Northwest Passage & defend it

since the Treaty of Paris 1763, the basis of all Canadian constitutional law

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

because that is Canada's only foreign policy

to temper the influence of the American republic at the gates

by way of multilateralism

the purpose of the military is to uphold your foreign policy

the Shock Troops of the Empire evolve into the Blue Berets

Vigilamus pro te

So we share our foreign policy with all the other countries operating this carrier? What if one doesn’t agree?

[Aristides]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

We don’t have any aircraft carriers.  In WW2 we had two. We have solid heavy lift, correct, in the CC-177?  We’ve ordered 88 F-35’s, correct?  We still have frigates and we’re ordering up to 9 new ones. We don’t have modern subs.  I would think that we’re getting to a size where our military needs to be more like Britain’s.  It would be nice to know that we could quickly recruit and go it alone or with an alliance of the willing if shit ever hit the fan, whether or not NATO is along for the ride.  I know, pipe dreams.

Our only capital ships in WW2 were a couple of heavy cruisers, the rest of our navy was small ships, nothing bigger than Tribal class destroyers.

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So we share our foreign policy with all the other countries operating this carrier? What if one doesn’t agree?

the other countries agree to abide by the UN charter by participating

they activate their forces to be under UN operational control therein

Canada would be the task force commander

said force could only be deployed in anger by United Nations Security Council Resolution Chapter 7

which is the very essence of Canada's stated foreign policy in the end

 

 

 

[Aristides]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the other countries agree to abide by the UN charter by participating

they activate their forces to be under UN operational control therein

Canada would be the task force commander

said force could only be deployed in anger by United Nations Security Council Resolution Chapter 7

which is the very essence of Canada's stated foreign policy in the end

 

 

 

 

 

The last and only time the UN went to war was Korea. I really don't see what practical use a carrier has for Canada, they are by far the most expensive warships. If we are going to spend that kind of money, better some subs that can operate in the Arctic year round.

 

[Dougie93]

16 minutes ago, Aristides said:

The last and only time the UN went to war was Korea.

no, Canada has gone to war under UNSC Chapter 7 five times since

Gulf War, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya

 again, Canadian foreign policy is that Canada should only go to expeditionary war as an absolute last resort

by United Nations Security Council Resolution Chapter 7

otherwise HMCS Lester Boyes Pearson would conduct Operations Other Than War

Humanitarian Assistance Disaster Relief, Non Combatant Evacuation, Maritime Security by UNCLOS

and HMCS Pearson would still be at the disposal for the Defence of Canada

although Canada would have to buy some F-35C & E-2D for those operations

Edited January 27, 2024 by Dougie93

[Dougie93]

11 minutes ago, Aristides said:

 If we are going to spend that kind of money, better some subs that can operate in the Arctic year round.

heck, for the price of 15 x Type 26, we could have both a CVN & SSN's instead

[Aristides]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

heck, for the price of 15 x Type 26, we could have both a CVN & SSN's instead

Great, one carrier and one sub to cover  three coasts.🙄

Edited January 27, 2024 by Aristides

[Zeitgeist]

8 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Great, one carrier and one sub to cover  three coasts.🙄

But shouldn’t we really have subs in the Arctic and a carrier for the Atlantic at the very least, as the unfrozen gateway to our vast northern waterways is in the northeast?  The northwest is guarded by Alaska.  It’s a start anyway. Smaller frigates and destroyers would have to suffice for the Pacific, for now.

Edited January 27, 2024 by Zeitgeist