Canadian Defence News

[Dougie93]

6 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

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.

the threat to Fortress America is from within

no maritime force is going to attack North America

other than nuclear missile submarines operating under the arctic ice

which, if you are going to address that threat, then you should be buying 12 SSN's not 12 frigates

[Zeitgeist]

3 hours ago, Dougie93 said:

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

I agree.  We always had regionalism and its attendant conflict of interests in Canada, but the Canadian story as taught by the propaganda arms of the CBC and The Canadian Press was compelling to most Canadians across regions.  I’m not sure that centre can hold, as the federal government increases its taxation and borrowing to throw more and more centrally planned  programs at the masses that are of dubious merit.  There simply isn’t a strong argument for a big federal government, with its overpaid MP’s, growing bureaucracy, and gold plated pensions.  The only justifications are major infrastructure projects like the St. Lawrence Seaway, Confederation Bridge, ice breakers for a Northwest Passage, and the bread and butter stuff like postal service to the boondocks, defence, that kind of stuff.

What is the federal government’s vision and why should ALL Canadians rally behind it?

Add the political polarization and culture wars and this federation becomes more and more unwieldy.

I think our Constitution needs beefing up, as well as our cultural values.  It’s not nothing, and it should have subsidiarity at its core, the idea that decisions be as local as possible on culture, resource development, and almost everything.  The federal government has grown by 40% under Trudeau.  I’d say it should be downsized by at least 50%, but that means canceling a lot of programs that the Feds have no business running.  It means more autonomy for provinces, lower taxes, and legislative safeguards against overreach.  That might be a state most Canadians really support.

[Aristides]

Canada should be supporting big boys that do have carriers, not building our own and expecting other navies to provide their escorts. Otherwise, aside from our NATO commitments we should be doing things like supporting the US and Britain against the Houthis in the Gulf of Aden which is a frigate or destroyer job. We should have a ship there now.

Edited January 28, 2024 by Aristides

[Dougie93]

12 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

What is the federal government’s vision and why should ALL Canadians rally behind it?

the Confederation is sub national to the House of Windsor

all Canadians being behind a federal government is the definition of totalitarianism

Loyalist Orangemen of Upper Canada do not swear fealty to any government

only to HM at Buckingham Palace

politically agnostic servants of the British Crown in North America

pilgrims on the road to Calvary Hill

 God, King, Country ; in that order

 

[Zeitgeist]

23 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Canada should be supporting big boys that do have carriers, not building our own and expecting other navies to provide their escorts. Otherwise, aside from our NATO commitments we should be doing things like supporting the US and Britain against the Houthis in the Gulf of Aden which is a frigate or destroyer job. We should have a ship there now.

But we have frigates and we’ve procured more.  Why don’t we have any there now?

[Zeitgeist]

15 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

the Confederation is sub national to the House of Windsor

all Canadians being behind a federal government is the definition of totalitarianism

Loyalist Orangemen of Upper Canada do not swear fealty to any government

only to HM at Buckingham Palace

politically agnostic servants of the British Crown in North America

pilgrims on the road to Calvary Hill

 God, King, Country ; in that order

 

Ontario coat of arms says, “Started loyal, remains loyal.”

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Ontario coat of arms says, “Started loyal, remains loyal.”

Glorious Revolution of 1688

William Prince of Orange, our founding father

Victoria, Queen & Empress

Mother Canada

[Aristides]

27 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

But we have frigates and we’ve procured more.  Why don’t we have any there now?

I don't know, we have had ships there doing anti pirate duties before.

[Dougie93]

54 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Add the political polarization and culture wars and this federation becomes more and more unwieldy.

do not look to the state for salvation

quite the opposite

as Canada was never a republic

the British North American monarchy is a religious institution

Judaeo Christian civilization itself

La Prière du Para

I'm asking You God, to give me what You have left.
Give me those things which others never ask of You.
I don't ask You for rest, or tranquility.
Not that of the spirit, the body, or the mind.
I don't ask You for wealth, or success, or even health.
All those things are asked of You so much Lord,
that you can't have any left to give.
Give me instead Lord what You have left.
Give me what others don't want.
I want uncertainty and doubt.
I want torment and battle.
And I ask that You give them to me now and forever Lord,
so I can be sure to always have them,
because I won't always have the strength to ask again.
But give me also the courage, the energy,
and the spirit to face them.
I ask You these things Lord,
because I can't ask them of myself

Airborne !

 

[Dougie93]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think our Constitution needs beefing up, as well as our cultural values.

two separate issues

to wit, what constitution ?

nobody is adhering to it here anymore

yet our cultural values are not the purview of any state

inalienable rights endowed by God Himself

not just for the Americans

for us Loyalist Orangemen as well

 

 

[Zeitgeist]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

two separate issues

to wit, what constitution ?

nobody is adhering to it here anymore

yet our cultural values are not the purview of any state

inalienable rights endowed by God Himself

not just for the Americans

for us Loyalist Orangemen as well

 

 

I just don’t want to have to deal with martial law every time one of the Trudeau-Castro line comes to power.  We need better checks on our federal government.

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I just don’t want to have to deal with martial law every time one of the Trudeau-Castro line comes to power.  We need better checks on our federal government.

the only check would be the ultimate faith that we are sacred individuals, never subject to tyrants of any sort

[Army Guy]

5 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

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. 

I agree , we have more issues to be solve before we start even talking about aircraft carriers... Most Ice breakers are not armed but could be if needed, but for an artic nation we should have a large powerful ice breaking that could operate in our artic in the winter. I just find it ironic that Japan/ Argintina  has an antarctic capable ice breaker and we don't...

[Dougie93]

2 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m not sure that centre can hold,

there is no centre

there is only good & evil

you are forced to make a choice therein

Saul becomes Paul when he sees the light over Damascus

there is no going back then

Onward Christian Soldiers

through mud & blood, to the green fields beyond

( Quick March of HM Royal Canadian Armoured Corps )

[BeaverFever]

4 hours ago, Army Guy said:

I just find it ironic that Japan/ Argintina  has an antarctic capable ice breaker and we don't...

We do but they are Coast Guard not Navy. I believe the Argentine and Japanese ships you are referring to are Polar Class 4, “year-round operations in thick first year ice with muti-year inclusions”. CCG has 2 purpose-built PC4 Icebreakers (Louis St Laurent and Terry Fox)  and 4 smaller ships that were recently upgraded to PC4. I really don’t find too many ships rated better than PC 4 except for some industrial and scientific ones, and one exotic French arctic cruise ship. There has never been a PC1 ship built which is the highest rating. USCG and CCG are both currently constructing PC2 icebreakers, with CCGS John G Diefenbaker and a yet unnamed sister ship to be among of the world’s most powerful icebreakers when completed, expected in 2030….another shipbuilding boondoggle as they were originally planned to be in service in 2017

Edited January 29, 2024 by BeaverFever

[I am Groot]

4 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

But we have frigates and we’ve procured more.  Why don’t we have any there now?

Procured? Jaysus, boy! They've only been working on them for a decade or so! Give em some time! They expect to probably sign a contract soon, then in no more than ten years or so we expect to get the first ship delivered.

As for our existing frigates, which were launched back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, although I know the navy was considering upgrading their missile defence systems I don't know that anything was really done about that and I believe they are considered to not have sufficient missile air defense to operate in that environment against an advanced enemy like the uhm... Houthis.

Or maybe Ottawa is just not willing to pay for sufficient fuel to get there. They do have phalanx and see sparrows after all. I don't know where that fits on the scale of capability for air defense.

Edited January 28, 2024 by I am Groot

[Army Guy]

1 hour ago, BeaverFever said:

We do but they are Coast Guard not Navy. I believe the Argentine and Japanese ships you are referring to ate Polar Class 4, “year-round operations in thick first year ice with muti-year inclusions”. CCG has 2 purpose-built PC4 Icebreakers (Louis St Laurent and Terry Fox)  and 4 smaller ships that were recently upgraded to PC4. I really don’t find too many ships rated higher than PC 4 except for some industrial and scientific ones, and one exotic French arctic cruise ship. There has never been a PC1 ship built. USCG and CCG are both currently constructing PC2 icebreakers, with CCGS John G Diefenbaker and a yet unnamed sister ship to be among of the world’s most powerful icebreakers when completed, expected in 2030….another shipbuilding boondoggle as they were originally planned to be in service in 2017

I get it they are coast guard, and the military really does not need a full time ice breaker...and coast guard and navy could work together in time of need...that being said during conflict coast guard ships have been armed, look what they did in the gulf war to the navies supply ships had a air defender on board with a javelin man pad for air defense...and things have improved today...

Do you think we as an artic nation with an incredible amount of artic ocean to defend ,  or patrol have the correct amount of polar ice breakers we should have... the 4 smaller ones are assigned to break ice in ports and sea lanes St Lawrence and NFLD for example...

 

 

 

 

[eyeball]

18 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

Do you think we as an artic nation with an incredible amount of artic ocean to defend ,  or patrol have the correct amount of polar ice breakers we should have...

By the time we do figure that out and build a bunch climate change will have made them moot.

[BeaverFever]

2 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Procured? Jaysus, boy! They've only been working on them for a decade or so! Give em some time! They expect to probably sign a contract soon, then in no more than ten years or so we expect to get the first ship delivered.

As for our existing frigates, which were launched back in the late 1980s and early 1990s, although I know the navy was considering upgrading their missile defence systems I don't know that anything was really done about that and I believe they are considered to not have sufficient missile air defense to operate in that environment against an advanced enemy like the uhm... Houthis.

Or maybe Ottawa is just not willing to pay for sufficient fuel to get there. They do have phalanx and see sparrows after all. I don't know where that fits on the scale of capability for air defense.

They have the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) Block 2, which is the most modern missile in that class but it is primarily a medium range self-defence missile with limited range and AFAIK no ability to intercept ballistic missiles. I believe the US has mostly shot down Houthi drones/missiles with the Standard SM-2, an Area Air Defence and ABM missile that our now decommissioned Destroyers used to have and the future CSC ships will have.  
 

That said the Brits and French have used Aster15 missiles to down Houthi craft. These have shorter range than our ESSM to down Houthi craft so it seems that we could shoot them down if we wanted to.  I think mostly we don’t have the spare personnel or budget. Plus this government is ideologically disinclined to participate in any military action much less one associated with Israel-Palestine. 

Edited January 29, 2024 by BeaverFever

[BeaverFever]

1 hour ago, Army Guy said:

I get it they are coast guard, and the military really does not need a full time ice breaker...and coast guard and navy could work together in time of need...that being said during conflict coast guard ships have been armed, look what they did in the gulf war to the navies supply ships had a air defender on board with a javelin man pad for air defense...and things have improved today...

Do you think we as an artic nation with an incredible amount of artic ocean to defend ,  or patrol have the correct amount of polar ice breakers we should have... the 4 smaller ones are assigned to break ice in ports and sea lanes St Lawrence and NFLD for example...

 

 

 

 

Icebreaking is such a slow process I don’t know if an icebreaker could really intercept a threat up there. Watching an icebreaker pursue another icebreaker might be like the world’s slowest car chase, a turtle trying to head off another turtle. Realistically threats are probably best responded to by air.   I think the icebreaker is more to support planned missions as opposed to a first responder situation. We should have some that’s for sure not sure how many though. 

Edited January 29, 2024 by BeaverFever

[ExFlyer]

21 hours 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. 

Certainly correct. 

Often hero worship cloud the real person.Ordering people to their deaths in battle does not make the leader a hero, the ones that died in the attempt are the heros.

When you pick a hero, make sure you know all about them. Dougie has a problem with that LOL

[Dougie93]

7 hours ago, ExFlyer said:

Certainly correct. 

Often hero worship cloud the real person.Ordering people to their deaths in battle does not make the leader a hero, the ones that died in the attempt are the heros.

When you pick a hero, make sure you know all about them. Dougie has a problem with that LOL

Vice Admiral Nelson was Killed in Action at Trafalgar, leading from the front aboard HMS Victory

[ExFlyer]

55 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Vice Admiral Nelson was Killed in Action at Trafalgar, leading from the front aboard HMS Victory

So??

Thousands of military personnel under his command were killed.

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:

So??

Thousands of military personnel under his command were killed.

for God, King & Country

the light of civilization itself

Sic Itur Ad Astra 

[ExFlyer]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

for God, King & Country

the light of civilization itself

Sic Itur Ad Astra 

Oh Dougie go worship your other heros...the ones that torture and kill civilians