O'Connor is Such a Joker

[Cameron]

All I am saying is that we should crap or get off the pot.

Cheers to that brother.

[blueblood]

stated that it colored our thinking and determined a force composition that we are now in possesion of.

Is that we we have F-18s, leopards, Frigates, Submarines...........

I humbly submit, you are not in possesion of the facts.

The military wanted F15's, they were given F18's. They wanted Abrahms, they got Leopards. They wanted missle cruisers, they got frigates. They wanted real subs and they got obsolete crap that killed sailors. The military knew what they needed to do the job that was given to them by the government who then gave them less than what they needed and endangered their lives in doing so.

Once again it is a question of force composition, what we have is barely adequate for peace keeping and completely 2nd rate for entering into an aggressive engagement. Listen fella, the stuff needed to play in the big leagues is far from cheap and second hand and second rate equipment can get you killed. I am not keen on the idea of sending my fellow citizens into a gun fight packing a knife. Our guys are good, so good that they would be downright awesome if they had the right equipment and the proper political support. All I am saying is that we should crap or get off the pot.

You can say that about health care, roads, etc. over here, thats the story of Canada

[White Doors]

Armed icebrakers can't go through thick ice, they can best go at the margins of the pack ice.

N Subs aren't cheap, but they are the only real solution. Unfortunately, we have so many pressing needs in the military that these are at the bottom of the list. Those Diesel class one's from GB are garbage even if they didn't leak.

Okay....if a heavy ice breaker can go through 4 ft of ice, are you saying a sub can punch through 10-15 ft of ice, which can be the thickness of pack ice?

No, I'm saying that they can go underneath it.

A lot of good that would do if there were mexican illegal immigrants on top of the ice........

What? It';s about asserting our sovereignty. You don't need to actually kill people to put good military kit to effective use. I do agree that they are down on the list, but they really make alot of sense for Canada.

Oh, and the troop carriers are on the way. No more frigates I'm afraid, but there was talk about 2-3 more destroyer's.

Not troop carriers....supply ships....big difference

New generation supply ships that can act as multi-use roles and one of them includes being a troop transport.

[M.Dancer]

stated that it colored our thinking and determined a force composition that we are now in possesion of.

Is that we we have F-18s, leopards, Frigates, Submarines...........

I humbly submit, you are not in possesion of the facts.

The military wanted F15's, they were given F18's. They wanted Abrahms, they got Leopards.

Sorry, when Canada bought the Leopards, the military may have wanted them, but they didn't yet exists.....Canada received the first Leopards in 1978. The Abrams Beta versions didn't start until 1980. And given the price difference, I doubt the Military would have wanted to wait till after the US inventory was filled to start getting one Abrams for every 5 leopards.......

[White Doors]

stated that it colored our thinking and determined a force composition that we are now in possesion of.

Is that we we have F-18s, leopards, Frigates, Submarines...........

I humbly submit, you are not in possesion of the facts.

The military wanted F15's, they were given F18's. They wanted Abrahms, they got Leopards.

Sorry, when Canada bought the Leopards, the military may have wanted them, but they didn't yet exists.....Canada received the first Leopards in 1978. The Abrams Beta versions didn't start until 1980. And given the price difference, I doubt the Military would have wanted to wait till after the US inventory was filled to start getting one Abrams for every 5 leopards.......

Aren't the Leopards considered to be superior to the Abrahms anyways? I know our are not, but the next generation Leopards are billed as the best tank ever according to TLC anyways.

[Cameron]

I personally like the Leopard line more than the Abrams line. The Abrams are fuel pigs. I've heard good things about the Leopards, mind you this was from a show on Dico channel, so I would have to get an opinion of a military specialist to make an educated argument.

[M.Dancer]

stated that it colored our thinking and determined a force composition that we are now in possesion of.

Is that we we have F-18s, leopards, Frigates, Submarines...........

I humbly submit, you are not in possesion of the facts.

The military wanted F15's, they were given F18's. They wanted Abrahms, they got Leopards.

Sorry, when Canada bought the Leopards, the military may have wanted them, but they didn't yet exists.....Canada received the first Leopards in 1978. The Abrams Beta versions didn't start until 1980. And given the price difference, I doubt the Military would have wanted to wait till after the US inventory was filled to start getting one Abrams for every 5 leopards.......

Aren't the Leopards considered to be superior to the Abrahms anyways? I know our are not, but the next generation Leopards are billed as the best tank ever according to TLC anyways.

Yes and no......like saying that a rolls is better car than a mustang...except for the price....in which case the mustang wins hands down.

Back when the purchases were made, in the mid 70s, the leopard 1 was the best tank for the dollar. At this point though they should be transfered over to the militia for training and we should be looking at something new...and something that definately isn't an Abrams.

[M.Dancer]

I would also say this is the first place I have ever heard of Canada's Navy wanting a missile cruiser.....I believe that would be ridiculous as it would be a complete change in Canada's (and for that matter. Canada's NATO maritime role) Naval doctrine which is to keep the North Atlantic sub free......to that end the Upholder Class subs are not obsolete crap and are up to date modern hunter killer subs. What's more, they costy us virtulllay nothing becasue they were part of a barter deal.

[Black Dog]

What? It';s about asserting our sovereignty. You don't need to actually kill people to put good military kit to effective use. I do agree that they are down on the list, but they really make alot of sense for Canada.

Can anyone tell me what "asserting our soverignty" m,eans, in practical terms? I mean, is it really worth spending millions of dollars just to say "this here bit of wasteland be our wasteland?"

Well we never know, I can't predict the future, and those after world war 1 thought germany was finished and well look what happened, i don't know of a threat, but a good sub fleet would provide employment, deterrence, etc. Also an N-sub can hand most sea vessels its ass in a naval engagement. Surface warships are outclassed by nuclear attack subs, that is why they were created in he first place, better to stay ahead of the curve. I am talking about replacing warships of course, from what i've seen of our warships they look like cannon fodder. I don't see much of a need to launch a chopper from a warship in a naval engagement.

When was the last time there was a naval engagement of the kind you envision? World War 2? Quite frankly I don't see old-school warship to warship engagements being a fixture of the battlefield of the future.

Canada is just as likely to get invaded as anywhere else,

No. We're not. The only country that could possibly mount an invasion of Canada is the U.S, in which case we'd be screwed regardless of how many nuclear subs we have.

Your ideas sound good for our coast guard which we already have and has a function, the navy is for war at sea, the navy and coast guard are two different things.

But "asserting our soverignty" sounds like a coast guard role to me.

Anyway, military procurement should be based on real threats and real needs, not fantasy scenarios. And most of the stuff everyone here is talking about sounds like gearing up to fight last century's wars. Another thing: Canada doesn't have the dosh or the population abse to sustain a "big-league" military. What we need to determine what role we want to play and focus on acquring the right equipment to do that job. IMV, those roles should be confined to territorial/maritime defense and mobile light infantry for overseas deployment in fourth generation combat zones where Canada would be supplementing a larger force.

[White Doors]

I would also say this is the first place I have ever heard of Canada's Navy wanting a missile cruiser.....I believe that would be ridiculous as it would be a complete change in Canada's (and for that matter. Canada's NATO maritime role) Naval doctrine which is to keep the North Atlantic sub free......to that end the Upholder Class subs are not obsolete crap and are up to date modern hunter killer subs. What's more, they costy us virtulllay nothing becasue they were part of a barter deal.

The cold war is over. Those are outdated doctrine's.

[M.Dancer]

I would also say this is the first place I have ever heard of Canada's Navy wanting a missile cruiser.....I believe that would be ridiculous as it would be a complete change in Canada's (and for that matter. Canada's NATO maritime role) Naval doctrine which is to keep the North Atlantic sub free......to that end the Upholder Class subs are not obsolete crap and are up to date modern hunter killer subs. What's more, they costy us virtulllay nothing becasue they were part of a barter deal.

The cold war is over. Those are outdated doctrine's.

Tell that to the Iranians, North Koreans,.......

[White Doors]

What? It';s about asserting our sovereignty. You don't need to actually kill people to put good military kit to effective use. I do agree that they are down on the list, but they really make alot of sense for Canada.

Can anyone tell me what "asserting our soverignty" m,eans, in practical terms? I mean, is it really worth spending millions of dollars just to say "this here bit of wasteland be our wasteland?"

Well we never know, I can't predict the future, and those after world war 1 thought germany was finished and well look what happened, i don't know of a threat, but a good sub fleet would provide employment, deterrence, etc. Also an N-sub can hand most sea vessels its ass in a naval engagement. Surface warships are outclassed by nuclear attack subs, that is why they were created in he first place, better to stay ahead of the curve. I am talking about replacing warships of course, from what i've seen of our warships they look like cannon fodder. I don't see much of a need to launch a chopper from a warship in a naval engagement.

When was the last time there was a naval engagement of the kind you envision? World War 2? Quite frankly I don't see old-school warship to warship engagements being a fixture of the battlefield of the future.

Canada is just as likely to get invaded as anywhere else,

No. We're not. The only country that could possibly mount an invasion of Canada is the U.S, in which case we'd be screwed regardless of how many nuclear subs we have.

Your ideas sound good for our coast guard which we already have and has a function, the navy is for war at sea, the navy and coast guard are two different things.

But "asserting our soverignty" sounds like a coast guard role to me.

Anyway, military procurement should be based on real threats and real needs, not fantasy scenarios. And most of the stuff everyone here is talking about sounds like gearing up to fight last century's wars. Another thing: Canada doesn't have the dosh or the population abse to sustain a "big-league" military. What we need to determine what role we want to play and focus on acquring the right equipment to do that job. IMV, those roles should be confined to territorial/maritime defense and mobile light infantry for overseas deployment in fourth generation combat zones where Canada would be supplementing a larger force.

There is no reason we can't have a 'big leagure' military of a modest size. We shoudl ahve the best for the people we task with these things. fyi - nuclear powered subs and nuclear armed subs are two VERY different things. I'm only advocating the former. Soverignty is being able to prove we are soverign over our territory. It' used to settle these disputes in world court. And if you think Canada's arctic is a 'wasteland' you really need to read up on it more.

[M.Dancer]

we have no need for nuclear paowered subs....tey aren't the best, only different

[White Doors]

we have no need for nuclear paowered subs....tey aren't the best, only different

??? They are the only thing that can patrol over 1/3 of our seaways???

[M.Dancer]

we have no need for nuclear paowered subs....tey aren't the best, only different

??? They are the only thing that can patrol over 1/3 of our seaways???

The northwest passage isn't 1/3 of our maritime terrirtory and as already pointed out, patrolling under the water isn't much of a visable presence. Aircraft do the job much better qalong with arctic ice breakers.....4 times the bang for the cost.

[White Doors]

we have no need for nuclear paowered subs....tey aren't the best, only different

??? They are the only thing that can patrol over 1/3 of our seaways???

The northwest passage isn't 1/3 of our maritime terrirtory and as already pointed out, patrolling under the water isn't much of a visable presence. Aircraft do the job much better qalong with arctic ice breakers.....4 times the bang for the cost.

The northwest passage is only a msall piece of the arctic.

[M.Dancer]

we have no need for nuclear paowered subs....tey aren't the best, only different

??? They are the only thing that can patrol over 1/3 of our seaways???

The northwest passage isn't 1/3 of our maritime terrirtory and as already pointed out, patrolling under the water isn't much of a visable presence. Aircraft do the job much better qalong with arctic ice breakers.....4 times the bang for the cost.

The northwest passage is only a msall piece of the arctic.

Quite right, the rest is land

[White Doors]

we have no need for nuclear paowered subs....tey aren't the best, only different

??? They are the only thing that can patrol over 1/3 of our seaways???

The northwest passage isn't 1/3 of our maritime terrirtory and as already pointed out, patrolling under the water isn't much of a visable presence. Aircraft do the job much better qalong with arctic ice breakers.....4 times the bang for the cost.

The northwest passage is only a msall piece of the arctic.

Quite right, the rest is land

haha.

hardly. you DO know where the NW passage is don't you?

[M.Dancer]

we have no need for nuclear paowered subs....tey aren't the best, only different

??? They are the only thing that can patrol over 1/3 of our seaways???

The northwest passage isn't 1/3 of our maritime terrirtory and as already pointed out, patrolling under the water isn't much of a visable presence. Aircraft do the job much better qalong with arctic ice breakers.....4 times the bang for the cost.

The northwest passage is only a msall piece of the arctic.

Quite right, the rest is land

haha.

hardly. you DO know where the NW passage is don't you?

Yes...I'm looking at a map of the north right now.

http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps.../abo_1996/inuit

[Black Dog]

Tell that to the Iranians, North Koreans,.......

They aren't coming anywhere near us.

There is no reason we can't have a 'big leagure' military of a modest size.

Ain't that a bit of an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp"? Anyway, we're saying the same thing: we are stuck with a modest size military, like it or not, so let's at least make sure it can do the job we want it to do. Obviously, what the job is is going to be a matter of debate.

We shoudl ahve the best for the people we task with these things. fyi - nuclear powered subs and nuclear armed subs are two VERY different things. I'm only advocating the former. Soverignty is being able to prove we are soverign over our territory. It' used to settle these disputes in world court. And if you think Canada's arctic is a 'wasteland' you really need to read up on it more

I don't think nuclear powered subs are neccesary at all. If someone else's subs want to cruise under our icecaps (and really, the Yanks have been doing it for years without much fuss), what difference does it make? It's not like we'd blast them out of the water anyway. There's cheaper ways of asserting our soverignty over the north (surface icebreakers, long range patrol aircraft etc.).

[White Doors]

Ain't that a bit of an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp"? Anyway, we're saying the same thing: we are stuck with a modest size military, like it or not, so let's at least make sure it can do the job we want it to do. Obviously, what the job is is going to be a matter of debate.

No I don't find it an oxymoron at all. I'm speakign of having the best, not the biggest. Perhaps the 'big leagues' is a misnomer. How about a military 1/2 the size of GB's with the same level of modern capability (minus the nuclear deterrant)

[Black Dog]

No I don't find it an oxymoron at all. I'm speakign of having the best, not the biggest. Perhaps the 'big leagues' is a misnomer. How about a military 1/2 the size of GB's with the same level of modern capability (minus the nuclear deterrant)

Because that's implausible. To get up to half of Britain's strength, we'd have to increase our total numbers by 26,000: not impossible. But if we were to start spending half of what they spend, we'd have to double our current budget and then some. Oh and did I mention their GDP is almost double ours? In other words we have to spend twice as much to get half as much with only half the money. To me, questions of size and equipment will always be secondary to the question of role. You have to figure out what you want you rmilitary to do befor eyou start thinking about how big it should be or what equipment it needs.

[M.Dancer]

No I don't find it an oxymoron at all. I'm speakign of having the best, not the biggest. Perhaps the 'big leagues' is a misnomer. How about a military 1/2 the size of GB's with the same level of modern capability (minus the nuclear deterrant)

Because that's implausible. To get up to half of Britain's strength, we'd have to increase our total numbers by 26,000: not impossible. But if we were to start spending half of what they spend, we'd have to double our current budget and then some. Oh and did I mention their GDP is almost double ours? In other words we have to spend twice as much to get half as much with only half the money. To me, questions of size and equipment will always be secondary to the question of role. You have to figure out what you want you rmilitary to do befor eyou start thinking about how big it should be or what equipment it needs.

Quite right.

What's more their makeup is quite different, being an island nation that was, technically on the front line during the cold war....

UK force make up

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/tsp1/gender.html

[White Doors]

No I don't find it an oxymoron at all. I'm speakign of having the best, not the biggest. Perhaps the 'big leagues' is a misnomer. How about a military 1/2 the size of GB's with the same level of modern capability (minus the nuclear deterrant)

Because that's implausible. To get up to half of Britain's strength, we'd have to increase our total numbers by 26,000: not impossible. But if we were to start spending half of what they spend, we'd have to double our current budget and then some. Oh and did I mention their GDP is almost double ours? In other words we have to spend twice as much to get half as much with only half the money. To me, questions of size and equipment will always be secondary to the question of role. You have to figure out what you want you rmilitary to do befor eyou start thinking about how big it should be or what equipment it needs.

I agree with the 'role' part. But your math is off. If their GDP is almost twice as big as ours, we shoudl only have to spend 1/2 as much as them to have a force that is 1/2 as big as theirs...

[White Doors]

No I don't find it an oxymoron at all. I'm speakign of having the best, not the biggest. Perhaps the 'big leagues' is a misnomer. How about a military 1/2 the size of GB's with the same level of modern capability (minus the nuclear deterrant)

Because that's implausible. To get up to half of Britain's strength, we'd have to increase our total numbers by 26,000: not impossible. But if we were to start spending half of what they spend, we'd have to double our current budget and then some. Oh and did I mention their GDP is almost double ours? In other words we have to spend twice as much to get half as much with only half the money. To me, questions of size and equipment will always be secondary to the question of role. You have to figure out what you want you rmilitary to do befor eyou start thinking about how big it should be or what equipment it needs.

Quite right.

What's more their makeup is quite different, being an island nation that was, technically on the front line during the cold war....

UK force make up

http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/tsp1/gender.html

Agreed, but we do have the largest coastline in thw world, so it would be a good model. ie: strong navy emphasis.