Harper Announces Six Arctic Patrol Boats

[jdobbin]

By the way,do the Liberals have a Defence plan?

They had nothing which is why I supported the heavy ice breakers proposal that Harper made in the election. I was waiting to hear that promise fulfilled. This falls short of that.

I think the commentary from the Navy is a battle that has been going on between the Coast Guard and Navy for some time about who gets ice breakers. The Navy likes the idea of patrol vessels but it leaves the Arctic still unreachable for many months of the year.

The Tories should have stuck with the heavy ice breakers.

I think we are going to see a Liberal shadow cabinet shuffle soon, especially if there is new MPs elected in the fall. A new Defence critic will be one of the thing that we're likely to see. A new defence policy will be essential. The Liberals can't play lip service to defence or the north anymore.

[Riverwind]

If the Russians did it, the US would be there in a heart beat taking our side. The US will never tolerate Russians on our side of the pole.

If they did not Canada has the technology to develop some nuclear bombs. I read somewhere that the Japanese don't have nukes but they made sure that they could build some in six weeks if they needed it. Canada should do the same. Edited July 10, 2007 by Riverwind

[Michael Bluth]

Even the Toronto Star is giving Harper kudos on this announcement. Link

A year and a half after vowing to stake out an "aggressive" claim to Canada's Arctic, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has finally rolled out a plan that looks more like a prudent investment in the region than a bold undertaking. Still, it is money well spent.

You know a Conservative Prime Minister has to have done something right when he receives praise from the Red Star.

[AngusThermopyle]

If they did not Canada has the technology to develop some nuclear bombs. I read somewhere that the Japanese don't have nukes but they made sure that they could build some in six weeks if they needed it. Canada should do the same.

I don't believe that is any solution of any kind whatsoever. We can assert our presence in our northern waters without resorting to the "everyone looses weapon". Nukes can never defend Sovereignty, all they do is destroy and keep on destroying. When you consider the fact that if one Nuke is used most likely many more would be used it just gets worse and worst.

[jdobbin]

Defence critics continue to point out the need for Class 8 icebreakers.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/...h-shipreax.html

But critics have already deemed the steel-reinforced ships to be less powerful than ice-breakers that still can't break through thick ice in the coldest winter months. The armed patrol ships will also be stationed outside the North for most of the year.

Rob Huebert, an analyst with the Centre for Military and Strategic Studies at the University of Calgary, said Canada needs new icebreakers to replace the aging fleet of Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers currently in service.

While Huebert said Ottawa's made a positive step in the right direction with Monday's announcement, he remains somewhat skeptical because he has heard a lot of Arctic spending promises before.

"When we see the actual contract, and we see an actual ship start construction … it's at that point that I'll feel totally comfortable that in fact we are making the right steps," he said.

I was totally supportive of the Conservative promise on Class 8 icebreakers in the election. I wish they had followed through.

[Michael Bluth]

I think we are going to see a Liberal shadow cabinet shuffle soon, especially if there is new MPs elected in the fall. A new Defence critic will be one of the thing that we're likely to see. A new defence policy will be essential. The Liberals can't play lip service to defence or the north anymore.

Gerard Kennedy as critic for Defence?

It would be a bold move, positive and forward thinking.

Would Dion do it? Hmmmm

[M.Dancer]

I am a supporter of maritime security in general, and in the assertion of our sovereignty in the north but i am interested in the rationale that would allocate so much money to a resource dedicated for northern security and sovereignty but would be positioned outside of the north for most of the year?

It would seem to me that it would be far cheaper and a more effective use of the 7 billion to promote the Canadian communities already in the arctic by establishing surveillance air patrols based in those communities.

[M.Dancer]

To add to that I feel that launching arctic patrol vessels that are ioncapable of patrolling the arctic as wastefull as the kingston class patrol boats that are too slow to patrol.

[Army Guy]

I'd be the first one to admit i know nothing of the navy or how it operates. So i need some of you navy wogs "LOL" to sort me out..

DND NAVY

I read the medias version, then DND annoucment but i'm confused and have a few questions...

1) What class will these new ships be, Patrol class, corvettes what ?

2) Are they Ice breakers or just ice harden?

3) Is these ships intended to replace the covettes they intended to purchase, to assist in fishery patrols ?

I'm like everyone else excited that the navy is getting some more ships, but i'm concerned that perhaps it might not be on one of the navies priority list. As one of the poor cousin elements which does'nt get much in the way of funding are we making the right choice here or comprimising to fill someone's grand vision of what a Navy should look like.

The Navy has some serious shortfalls and little cash to fix them, for instance AOR replacement, destroyer replacement, Frig refit, subs refit, lack of sub capability, using counter mine ves as patrol ves, no corvettes, some of these are being addressed but they are long term projects...

Are we putting our cash in the right basket ? what is it that we are trying to accomplish. assert our right's of northern sovereignty, are these small little ships up to that task, or are we just fooling ourselfs and keeping the honest guy out of our waters, could they take on Danish frigs that routinly operate in our waters, let me rephase that would they cause the captian of said frig concern...what about a sub, would they cause a sub skipper concern, or would they be brushed off as a minor threat. if not then really it is a flag waving exericise on that could be carried out by two men in a rubber boat...

We used to have the Airbourne regt covering our artic soveriegnty, which when you think about is alittle more flexiable than say 2 guys in a rubber boat, but like everything in the military that option was gutted...don't get me wrong, i don't want to be freezing my army ass off in the artic, i'd much rather the navy be doing that...but if we are going to do something i say go big or stay at home...

the Danes have shown us that they can operate thier Ice Harden frigas in the north with some effect, they offer fire power, air defense capibilites, and ASW all on one platform, plus they also offer a platform for spec ops or small army formations to operate off of. For that matter our own frigs have operated in the north with some effect.

[jdobbin]

Gerard Kennedy as critic for Defence?

It would be a bold move, positive and forward thinking.

Would Dion do it? Hmmmm

I think Coderre will be moved to another position.

By-elections have to happen 180 days after a seat becomes vacant according to legislation. Lapierre's old seat, for example, reaches that mark in August.

It is possible we may see a few more seats come open before the next legislative session. Several MPs have said they are not running again. The Tories have already hinted at by-election in the fall but because of the Ontario election, we might not see some of the new Ontario MPs elected well into the session.

I think Dion will have to shuffle before then.

The shadow cabinet is a bit unwieldy at the moment. Because of some of the retirements, there is some ability to move people around though.

If I was to hazard a guess as to the next Defence critic, I would say Michael Ignatieff. He could easily handle the double duty. Coderre will be shuffled off to Public Works or something like that.

After the new MPs come into place, there is likely to be another shuffle.

[jdobbin]

To add to that I feel that launching arctic patrol vessels that are ioncapable of patrolling the arctic as wastefull as the kingston class patrol boats that are too slow to patrol.

I think that was an example of trying to kill two birds with one stone.

Patrol and minesweeping are two tasks that other Navies have had a hard time combining as well.

Eventually those ships will have to be replaced with something better. Maybe we can sell the old ones to another country.

[jdobbin]

I'd be the first one to admit i know nothing of the navy or how it operates. So i need some of you navy wogs "LOL" to sort me out..

DND NAVY

I read the medias version, then DND annoucment but i'm confused and have a few questions...

1) What class will these new ships be, Patrol class, corvettes what ?

2) Are they Ice breakers or just ice harden?

3) Is these ships intended to replace the covettes they intended to purchase, to assist in fishery patrols ?

I'm like everyone else excited that the navy is getting some more ships, but i'm concerned that perhaps it might not be on one of the navies priority list. As one of the poor cousin elements which does'nt get much in the way of funding are we making the right choice here or comprimising to fill someone's grand vision of what a Navy should look like.

The Navy has some serious shortfalls and little cash to fix them, for instance AOR replacement, destroyer replacement, Frig refit, subs refit, lack of sub capability, using counter mine ves as patrol ves, no corvettes, some of these are being addressed but they are long term projects...

Are we putting our cash in the right basket ? what is it that we are trying to accomplish. assert our right's of northern sovereignty, are these small little ships up to that task, or are we just fooling ourselfs and keeping the honest guy out of our waters, could they take on Danish frigs that routinly operate in our waters, let me rephase that would they cause the captian of said frig concern...what about a sub, would they cause a sub skipper concern, or would they be brushed off as a minor threat. if not then really it is a flag waving exericise on that could be carried out by two men in a rubber boat...

We used to have the Airbourne regt covering our artic soveriegnty, which when you think about is alittle more flexiable than say 2 guys in a rubber boat, but like everything in the military that option was gutted...don't get me wrong, i don't want to be freezing my army ass off in the artic, i'd much rather the navy be doing that...but if we are going to do something i say go big or stay at home...

the Danes have shown us that they can operate thier Ice Harden frigas in the north with some effect, they offer fire power, air defense capibilites, and ASW all on one platform, plus they also offer a platform for spec ops or small army formations to operate off of. For that matter our own frigs have operated in the north with some effect.

Denmark's frigates are ice hardened. Some are class 5 ships just like the patrol vessels Canada is proposing. In terms of length, the ships are supposed to be as long as frigate. Denmark has three regular icebreakers but I think they fall short of class 8 which is the strongest category of icebreaker.

When Harper first made the announcement of this policy in the election, there were stories in the newspaper of how the Coast Guard and the Navy were fighting to get the icebreakers. It looks like the Navy won. Subsequently, our Coast Guard will have to suffice with its two heavy icebreakers and a limited budget to operate them. Our Navy, on the other hand, will have ships that can only operate seasonly.

Edited July 10, 2007 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

I'd be the first one to admit i know nothing of the navy or how it operates. So i need some of you navy wogs "LOL" to sort me out..

DND NAVY

I read the medias version, then DND annoucment but i'm confused and have a few questions...

1) What class will these new ships be, Patrol class, corvettes what ?

2) Are they Ice breakers or just ice harden?

3) Is these ships intended to replace the corvettes they intended to purchase, to assist in fishery patrols ?

All I know is what I have read in the last year.

1) I believe they will be a patrol class, lightly armed with a helicopter bay.

2)They are ice hardened....which means they won;t be able to operate in the arctic in winter, early spring or late fall....

3) In today's nomenclature, what defines a corvette? Many nations use Fast Patrol Boats or Fact Attack Craft.....and these aren't either....I think a corvette would be a slightly smaller class of frigate, capable of engaging long range targets and assisting in anti sub work....

[Mad_Michael]

I'd much prefer to see a contract for the purchase of heavy-duty icebreakers. Nothing less than this can stand for Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.

New patrol boats are nice, but they are just campaign candy.

[M.Dancer]

I'd much prefer to see a contract for the purchase of heavy-duty icebreakers. Nothing less than this can stand for Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.

Well, that and Canadians living there. As it happens, wehave those already....

That being said, defense college investigations have determined that at very least Canada needs 24 warships. Currently we have 16 frigates and destroyers. The proposed patrol ships are not warships. What we need are new frigates.

[Mad_Michael]

I'd much prefer to see a contract for the purchase of heavy-duty icebreakers. Nothing less than this can stand for Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.

Well, that and Canadians living there. As it happens, wehave those already....

That being said, defense college investigations have determined that at very least Canada needs 24 warships. Currently we have 16 frigates and destroyers. The proposed patrol ships are not warships. What we need are new frigates.

Yes, new/more frigates would be nice. But I still think maintaining permanent ice-breaking capacity up in the Arctic is critically important to the maintenance of the Canadian claim.

The USA steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that claim. Canada has to push our claim hard or it is no claim at all.

[White Doors]

I'd be the first one to admit i know nothing of the navy or how it operates. So i need some of you navy wogs "LOL" to sort me out..

DND NAVY

I read the medias version, then DND annoucment but i'm confused and have a few questions...

1) What class will these new ships be, Patrol class, corvettes what ?

2) Are they Ice breakers or just ice harden?

3) Is these ships intended to replace the corvettes they intended to purchase, to assist in fishery patrols ?

All I know is what I have read in the last year.

1) I believe they will be a patrol class, lightly armed with a helicopter bay.

2)They are ice hardened....which means they won;t be able to operate in the arctic in winter, early spring or late fall....

3) In today's nomenclature, what defines a corvette? Many nations use Fast Patrol Boats or Fact Attack Craft.....and these aren't either....I think a corvette would be a slightly smaller class of frigate, capable of engaging long range targets and assisting in anti sub work....

These are supposed to be modelled off of Norway's patrol boats which are by all accounts superb vessels.

Norwegian CG Arctic Patrol Vessel Svalbard for one.

Link:

http://naval.review.cfps.dal.ca/forum/topic2.php

Naval experts were calling for these type in advance of the announcement. They didn't like the icebreaker idea. Seems we changed course for the better from what I am reading.

Another link:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-icebreaker-svalbard.htm

Edited July 10, 2007 by White Doors

[M.Dancer]

Here's an intersting defence colleg paper arguing that Canada should acquire corvettes as a cost effective way to uphold our maritime security needs.

http://wps.cfc.forces.gc.ca/papers/csc/csc28/mds/bedard.doc

[jdobbin]

These are supposed to be modelled off of Norway's patrol boats which are by all accounts superb vessels.

Norwegian CG Arctic Patrol Vessel Svalbard for one.

Link:

http://naval.review.cfps.dal.ca/forum/topic2.php

Naval experts were calling for these type in advance of the announcement. They didn't like the icebreaker idea. Seems we changed course for the better from what I am reading.

Another link:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-icebreaker-svalbard.htm

Norway's Coast Guard is part of its Navy.

What we have seen over recent years is a fight between Canada's Navy and Coast Guard. The Navy has won but the Arctic has lost full year round heavy icebreakers. We will only get seasonal coverage from this decision.

The Canadian Navy has long disliked the unionized Coast Guard.

The Navy lobbied for more patrol vessels in principle. Harper had to fulfill a promise and a need for Arctic icebreakers. This was the compromise. It falls short of what was promised and what is needed in the North.

[White Doors]

These are supposed to be modelled off of Norway's patrol boats which are by all accounts superb vessels.

Norwegian CG Arctic Patrol Vessel Svalbard for one.

Link:

http://naval.review.cfps.dal.ca/forum/topic2.php

Naval experts were calling for these type in advance of the announcement. They didn't like the icebreaker idea. Seems we changed course for the better from what I am reading.

Another link:

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/bg-icebreaker-svalbard.htm

Norway's Coast Guard is part of its Navy.

What we have seen over recent years is a fight between Canada's Navy and Coast Guard. The Navy has won but the Arctic has lost full year round heavy icebreakers. We will only get seasonal coverage from this decision.

The Canadian Navy has long disliked the unionized Coast Guard.

The Navy lobbied for more patrol vessels in principle. Harper had to fulfill a promise and a need for Arctic icebreakers. This was the compromise. It falls short of what was promised and what is needed in the North.

Look, even a class 8 ice breaker would only be 'seasonal' and the navy experts were arguing that a class 8 icebreaker is useless for any enforcement issue as they are ploddingly slow.

The only person who doesn't like this is Denis Coderre, and you.

Of course the navy should get these vessels.

[jdobbin]

Look, even a class 8 ice breaker would only be 'seasonal' and the navy experts were arguing that a class 8 icebreaker is useless for any enforcement issue as they are ploddingly slow.

The only person who doesn't like this is Denis Coderre, and you.

Of course the navy should get these vessels.

Kingston class patrol boats do 15 knots. Canada's heavy icebreaker does 20 knots.

Canada's frigates and destroyers do 29 knots but have to slow down for ice.

Which Navy experts are you referring to? I have cited one expert already in this thread who said the need for heavy icebreakers is still there. This is not a full-time commitment to the north.

I supported the Tory proposal for heavy icebreakers because it was year round coverage of the north. I have criticized Liberal policy of not proposing anything for the north except a tax deduction.

[AndrewL]

Either way, the US and Canada are going to exploit this region for its resources. Is there any reason i should care who is sovereign over it? Is there a difference between the way the US or Canada would treat this land?

Andrew

[jdobbin]

Either way, the US and Canada are going to exploit this region for its resources. Is there any reason i should care who is sovereign over it? Is there a difference between the way the US or Canada would treat this land?

I suppose you can say that about Canada as a whole or of the planet as a whole.

[M.Dancer]

Either way, the US and Canada are going to exploit this region for its resources. Is there any reason i should care who is sovereign over it? Is there a difference between the way the US or Canada would treat this land?

Andrew

Yeah.....the difference is who gets the benefits......given my druthers I would prefer Canadians getting the glory over foreigners...but then again, I love my country.

[AndrewL]

Either way, the US and Canada are going to exploit this region for its resources. Is there any reason i should care who is sovereign over it? Is there a difference between the way the US or Canada would treat this land?

Andrew

Yeah.....the difference is who gets the benefits......given my druthers I would prefer Canadians getting the glory over foreigners...but then again, I love my country.

Well Canada has sovereignty over the oil sands and all the monetary benefits go to foreign companies. There are some pathetic royalties, and we got a $400 bribe from Klein once. Big deal. As for the rest of it all there is is increased crime, increased ecological destruction, increased traffic, and a major drain on the infrastructure and social services. Those are not benefits. There is no glory.

If you truly loved your country you would demand that Canada protect its claim with these ships in order to prevent the resources from being developed.

Andrew

Edited July 10, 2007 by AndrewL