Senator: Navy must be made bigger, better, cheaper
ridenrain @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:11 pm
Even the much vaunted, Polar-8 icebreakers that Mulroney scrapped (To pay down the deficit 
) were to be under the controll of the coast guard and not the navy.
From what I see, No icebreakers are run by the Canadian navy.
ridenrain @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:29 pm
$1:
Nobody will repect a nation with a well equiped coast guard but they will with a well equiped blue water navy.
How have we survived to this date then? Are you telling me that the world didn’t respect our blue helmeted peacekeepers because we didn’t have a huge navy? The navy now is pretty much the same as it was 2 years ago so why is it now vital that we double it’s ability.
Again, I think we agree on the basic fundamental principals but politics is getting in the way.
Where do you intend to project power in Canadian waters? Are we doing an amphibious landing on Hans island? Has Vancouver island been taken over by the Chinese without our notice?
If that's the case, where is our navy right now? Some of it is laid up at dock without fuel but some of it is also out in the middle east playing with nato blocades and the like. Considering you're thread on Afghanistan, I doubt you support that, but that's what navies are designed to do.
What’s the point of having huge, powerful warships trolling up and down the coast handing out tickets for illegal Turbot fishing? The capability to sink an enemy warship 30nm away isn’t helpful in the average, day to day events in Canadian waters. better to have a crapload of smaller "partoll cars" out there all the time to find the problems then scramble the heavies when their needed.
herbie @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:31 pm
How about we start by putting the Coast Guard back as para-military instead of Fisheries bill collectors?
herbie @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:36 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
$1:
Let’s nail down what we want to do here first.
If we want to project power then we need a stronger navy.
If we want to patrol and defend our coastlines, we need a stronger coast guard.
If we want to project power then we need a stronger navy.
If we want to patrol and defend our coastlines, we need a stronger coast guard.
The coast guard cutters designed to police the waters, the navy operates warships designed to protect the country. 2 very important and different jobs.
Nobody will repect a nation with a well equiped coast guard but they will with a well equiped blue water navy.
$1:
If we want to project power then we need a stronger navy.
If we want to patrol and defend our coastlines, we need a stronger coast guard.
If we want to patrol and defend our coastlines, we need a stronger coast guard.
If we want to project power in our own waters we need a strong navy. Post the stats of all coast guard vessels. Even en mass they would be little match for even a few modern frigates. Thats not what they are designed for.
$1:
If we want to protect our coastline, why do we need an aircraft carrier? Do we need a Halifax class armed with sea sparrows and harpoons? That’s a massive amount of overkill to protect against the fish boats, freighters or maybe drug runners we find in our waters.
Odd statement for somebody defending military occupation of a foreign country.
Should the US disarm its navy because the kriegsmarine and japanese navy are gone?
We need multi-purpose helicopter carriers and modern frigates because a strong navy projects a strong message without even saying a word.
$1:
Looking at it, the Kingston class is designed for coastal partol but it could be run by the coast guard just as easy with possibly more efficiency .
Point? That seems to imply the kingston class vessels should be shifted to the coast guard and replaced with more powerful vessels.
Strange post from somebody pro-military.
Canada is an all coast country bordering only a country we will never fight.
A strong navy is the cornerstone of our defence followed closely by the airforce.
Lesson from WW2: The AirForce is the cornerstone of defense and offence. If you're interested in offence, you only need a Navy to deliver the Air Force.
dog77_1999 @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:41 pm
Just a word of advice to the Senator, you can only pick two of those things. 
Canada doesn't need a blue water navy. Money would be better spent on increasing the air force's capibility. Perhaps a large northern base to support operations would be in order. The navy would benifit from destroyers and other small ships. Carriers wouldn't be the best use of money. Subs would be an excellent addition since they can really ruin a multi-billion dollar naval fleet.
RUEZ @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:47 pm
herbie herbie:
Lesson from WW2: The AirForce is the cornerstone of defense and offence. If you're interested in offence, you only need a Navy to deliver the Air Force.
I think the navy was pretty instrumental to supply lines.
DerbyX @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:03 pm
$1:
How have we survived to this date then? Are you telling me that the world didn’t respect our blue helmeted peacekeepers because we didn’t have a huge navy? The navy now is pretty much the same as it was 2 years ago so why is it now vital that we double it’s ability.
1) The world is changing. Witness the decline of the roman empire.
2) The fact is that unless the US invades we are threatened only by sea.
3) Who says it wasn't vital 2 years ago? Why was the military only vital under the Liberals. Suddenly you guys went from screaming about the lack of fundimg to posting about how we don't need to spend money for them.
$1:
Again, I think we agree on the basic fundamental principals but politics is getting in the way.
Elaborate. I have always posted about the need for a strong navy. You went from crucifying the Liberals to heralding Harper even though he only praised the SAR branch while telling them their is no more money.
Thats not right.
$1:
Where do you intend to project power in Canadian waters? Are we doing an amphibious landing on Hans island? Has Vancouver island been taken over by the Chinese without our notice?
If that's the case, where is our navy right now? Some of it is laid up at dock without fuel but some of it is also out in the middle east playing with nato blocades and the like. Considering you're thread on Afghanistan, I doubt you support that, but that's what navies are designed to do.
If that's the case, where is our navy right now? Some of it is laid up at dock without fuel but some of it is also out in the middle east playing with nato blocades and the like. Considering you're thread on Afghanistan, I doubt you support that, but that's what navies are designed to do.
You don't believe projecting power in our own waters is warranted?
I'm surprised you even tolerate a navy.
Learn history.
$1:
What’s the point of having huge, powerful warships trolling up and down the coast handing out tickets for illegal Turbot fishing? The capability to sink an enemy warship 30nm away isn’t helpful in the average, day to day events in Canadian waters. better to have a crapload of smaller "partoll cars" out there all the time to find the problems then scramble the heavies when their needed.
Is that what you believe?
'nuff said.
ridenrain @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:41 pm
I’m not going to bite at you’re political bait so don’t bother. Let’s keep this on topic and leave the personal attacks out of this. The esteemed senator has been saying this for a very long time but this is the first that I heard you supporting this view.
The fall of the Roman empire and the dominance of the British navy are hardly relevant in this discussion. Countries no longer need to protect their trade with gunboats and the Canadian navy isn’t needed to protect Canadian steamships . Since Canada has no colonial ambition we have never needed to project power beyond our waters and even when we do, under NATO or UN charter, we need airlift and not ships.
bootlegga @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:02 pm
ridenrain ridenrain:
Aside from our foreign adventures, I doubt that there's much call for a Canadian naval fleet. We just don't have the requirement to project our forces long distances over water.
Instead, I'd like to see our coast guard actually doubled instead. It's really their job to patroll Canadian waters and Canadians are more worried about human smugglers, illegal fishing and dumping than an invasion armada.
Instead, I'd like to see our coast guard actually doubled instead. It's really their job to patroll Canadian waters and Canadians are more worried about human smugglers, illegal fishing and dumping than an invasion armada.
Yeah, you're right. Canada only has the longest coastline in the world, why ever would we need a navy? I guess you must be a big fan of what New Zealand did (scrapped the air force, all but 2 ships and most of the army).
The navy is necessary, simply because we are an oceanic nation that trades an awful lot with the world (both for imports and exports). More of it will go overseas too if that pipeline from Edmonton to Prince Rupert gets built. Then you'll see oil going to Asia as well as salmon and maple syrup.
I totally agree with the senator. We don't really need a couple of big helo carriers, when we could have 2-3 dozen frigates, each carrying a pair of helos. Far more capability in more hulls meaning more survivalibility.
While I don't foresee a major war breaking out any time soon, that is no point to shutter the entire navy like we did after WW1. Otherwise, if that's your rationale, then we can axe the tanks and artillery and half a dozen other combat arms too.
We don't need expeditionary capability like the admirals want. For them it's all about wanting what other admirals have, not any real need. We have no major overseas long range interests to worry about. Maybe if Turks and Caicos join Canada we could re-examine that...
Amphibs wouldn't have helped in Afghanistan, Kosovo or even Bosnia. Seeing as we've never really ahd that capability, we're better sticking to those we already have and maintaining them. A fleet of fast FFHs and DDHs, supported by submarines and a couple of JSS to give them legs, should they need to deploy farther than a few hundred clicks off our coast would be plenty. If all you are worried about is the close-in coast, then Skjold class patrol ships would be much cheaper to operate for fisheries/smuggler patrol than a frigate. The coast guard or the navy needs the ability to patrol the Arctic all year long, not just for a few months.
And BTW, Mulroney didn't cancel the subs or icebreaker to pay down the deficit. He never earmarked a cent for any of the White Paper purchases. He simply developed a white paper (costing us several million dollars in the process) and then refused to follow its recommendations after he saw the sticker price.
ridenrain ridenrain:
Since Canada has no colonial ambition we have never needed to project power beyond our waters and even when we do, under NATO or UN charter, we need airlift and not ships.
Even with 4 C-17s, we would never be able to deploy a battalion sized force anywhere, unless you were willing to do it at 2 or 3 platoons (or 1 tank per plane) at a time. Nevermind maintaining them, they will run out of fuel and ammo by the time the plane lands in Canada to get more supplies. They might still have some food an water when the plane gets back...
Everyone, and I mean everyone, transports their troops and heavy equipment by ship, not plane.
ridenrain @ Sat Jun 14, 2008 9:13 pm
Is it the navy that protects Canadian shoreline or the coast guard?
Since we're all so worried about arctic ice breakers and SAR, which are both coast guard I think the funding is best put there instead.
ridenrain @ Sun Jun 15, 2008 12:20 am
.. So aside from an amphibious assault on Afghanistan, do we gave any solid reasons why we need a huge navy?
Canadian_Mind @ Sun Jun 15, 2008 6:25 am
Afghanistan is landlocked. we CAN'T do an amphib on it even with ships, unless the damn things sprout legs and walk, akin to the giant spider machine in Wild Wild West.
bootlegga @ Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:15 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
Is it the navy that protects Canadian shoreline or the coast guard?
Since we're all so worried about arctic ice breakers and SAR, which are both coast guard I think the funding is best put there instead.
Since we're all so worried about arctic ice breakers and SAR, which are both coast guard I think the funding is best put there instead.
Icebreaking is one of the Coast Guard missions, but SAR is actually handled by the CF, the Coast guard, and the RCMP, as well as several other departments.
http://www.nss.gc.ca/site/index_e.asp
As many on here have said, Canada is a wealthy nation in the G-8 and we shouldn't be neglecting our defence. While I don't think we need to field offensive weapons like a carrier or heavy bombers, we do need a military. As a nation bordered by its closest ally, we do not need a large standing army (like nations in Europe/Asia), but do need a large air force and navy to patrol our huge coastline and enforce maritime sovereignty. The Coast Guard is a non-military organization designed to:
$1:
* protect the marine environment;
* support economic growth;
* ensure public safety on the water; and
* ensure Canada’s sovereignty and security by establishing a strong federal presence in our waters.
The CCG helps the government meet the public’s expectation of clean, safe, secure, healthy and productive waters and coastlines.
* support economic growth;
* ensure public safety on the water; and
* ensure Canada’s sovereignty and security by establishing a strong federal presence in our waters.
The CCG helps the government meet the public’s expectation of clean, safe, secure, healthy and productive waters and coastlines.
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/CCG/Who_We_Are
DerbyX @ Sun Jun 15, 2008 8:58 am
ridenrain ridenrain:
I’m not going to bite at you’re political bait so don’t bother. Let’s keep this on topic and leave the personal attacks out of this. The esteemed senator has been saying this for a very long time but this is the first that I heard you supporting this view.
The fall of the Roman empire and the dominance of the British navy are hardly relevant in this discussion. Countries no longer need to protect their trade with gunboats and the Canadian navy isn’t needed to protect Canadian steamships . Since Canada has no colonial ambition we have never needed to project power beyond our waters and even when we do, under NATO or UN charter, we need airlift and not ships.
The fall of the Roman empire and the dominance of the British navy are hardly relevant in this discussion. Countries no longer need to protect their trade with gunboats and the Canadian navy isn’t needed to protect Canadian steamships . Since Canada has no colonial ambition we have never needed to project power beyond our waters and even when we do, under NATO or UN charter, we need airlift and not ships.
We are going to play the political game because you always do when its a chance to attack the Liberals. Every time a Liberal even dares hint about not supporting whatever military purchase suggestion they are immediately condemned as anti-military commie traitors. Any opposition to new ships, planes, vehicles, in any number is deemed to be the result of the inherent hatred in Liberals of the military.
As always when the focus is on you suddenly everything changes. Harpers lack of defence spending isn't because he hates the military but because he has other priorities and your seeing the navy as a useless defence item isn't because you hate the navy but because you think Canada needs to maintain a large land invasion force.
Hell even Harper made a navy commercial showing a Canadian sub tracking a drug smuggling vessel which is later interdicted by a navy frigate.
Bootleggas already made all the naval points about what we need and why we need it, although I disagree with his assesment about not needing helicopter carriers.
Suffice to say your arguments have been defeated.
ridenrain @ Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:47 am
The ammount of overlap between groups is rediculous in Canada. If you went farther into that CCG website and read their mandate:
The Oceans Act gives the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans responsibility for providing:
aids to navigation;
marine communications and traffic management services;
icebreaking and ice-management services;
channel maintenance;
marine search and rescue;
marine pollution response; and
support of other government departments, boards and agencies by providing ships, aircraft and other services.
Boot:
I'm not saying we don't need both but this senator needs to focus on the priority of what we need most, and I'm saying that a coast guard to protect and patroll our costal waters is more vluable than a strong blue water navy that's nost likely going to be away aiding in NATO missins.
Considering many here don't want us to use our military and revert back to some fictional peacekeeping mode, then these large and powerful warships are going to be more of a liability than a benefit.