Senator: Navy must be made bigger, better, cheaper
Bigger, Better, cheaper.
Pick one.
If there are resources to exploit in the arctic then we had better be prepared to protect our waters or suffer the consequences.
There have been a lot of disputes over the years about foreign fishers taking resources from Canadian waters. We told Cod fishers that the moratorium would allow cod stocks to rebound. We owe it to them to protect our waters and its resources.
It's a bit lengthy but pertinent:
$1:
The Canadian government claims that some of the waters of the Northwest Passage, particularly those in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, are internal to Canada, giving Canada the right to bar transit through these waters.[6] Most maritime nations,[24] including the United States and the nations of the European Union,[25] consider them to be an international strait, where foreign vessels have the right of "transit passage".[26] In such a régime, Canada would have the right to enact fishing and environmental regulation, and fiscal and smuggling laws, as well as laws intended for the safety of shipping, but not the right to close the passage.[27][28] In 1985, the U.S. icebreaker Polar Sea passed through, and the U.S. government made a point of not asking permission from Canada. They claimed that this was simply a cost-effective way to get the ship from Greenland to Alaska and that there was no need to ask permission to travel through an international strait. The Canadian government issued a declaration in 1986 reaffirming Canadian rights to the waters. However, the United States refused to recognize the Canadian claim. In 1988 the governments of Canada and the U.S. signed an agreement, "Arctic Cooperation", that did not solve the sovereignty issues but stated that U.S. icebreakers would require permission from the Government of Canada to pass through.[29]
In late 2005, it was alleged that U.S. nuclear submarines had travelled unannounced through Canadian Arctic waters, sparking outrage in Canada. In his first news conference after the federal election, Prime Minister-designate Stephen Harper contested an earlier statement made by the U.S. ambassador that Arctic waters were international, stating the Canadian government's intention to enforce its sovereignty there. The allegations arose after the U.S. Navy released photographs of the USS Charlotte surfaced at the North Pole.[30][31]
On April 9, 2006, Canada's Joint Task Force North declared that the Canadian military will no longer refer to the region as the Northwest Passage, but as the Canadian Internal Waters.[32] The declaration came after the successful completion of Operation Nunalivut (Inuktitut for "the land is ours"), which was an expedition into the region by five military patrols. [33]
In 2006 a report prepared by the staff of the Parliamentary Information and Research Service of Canada suggested that because of the September 11, 2001 attacks the United States might be less interested in pursuing the international waterways claim in the interests of having a more secure North American perimeter.[29] This report was based on an earlier paper, The Northwest Passage Shipping Channel: Is Canada’s Sovereignty Really Floating Away? by Andrea Charron, given to the 2004 Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute Symposium.[9] Later in 2006 former United States Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci agreed with this position; however, the current ambassador, David Wilkins, states that the Northwest Passage is in international waters.[34]
On July 9, 2007 Prime Minister Harper announced the establishment of a deep-water port in the far North. In the government press release the Prime Minister is quoted as saying, “Canada has a choice when it comes to defending our sovereignty over the Arctic. We either use it or lose it. And make no mistake, this Government intends to use it. Because Canada’s Arctic is central to our national identity as a northern nation. It is part of our history. And it represents the tremendous potential of our future."[35]
On July 10, 2007, Rear Admiral Timothy McGee of the United States Navy, and Rear Admiral Brian Salerno of the United States Coast Guard announced that the United States would also be increasing its ability to patrol the Arctic
source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_passage$1:
Canadian Navy: Operation Ocean Vigilance
When: 1995-1997 - Turbot fisheries dispute with Spain
Where in the World: Off the Grand Banks of Newfoundland
Who: Maritime Forces Atlantic vessels
What: Also known as the turbot dispute, this operation responded to the over fishing of Grand Banks waters. Navy vessels were sent to observe Spanish fishing activity suspected of contravening fishing regulations. As a result, the Navy retrieved an illegal fishing net from seabed for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in a continued effort to protect Canada’s shorelines.
source:
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_operat ... asp?id=460
Navy + Air Force = The possibility of a strong, independent Canada.
Army = Fighting more dumbassed American wars.
As dumb as that comment is, I somehow knew that's where you were going..
How large would our navy and air force be to effectively challenge the US?
Even if we had a civil defence system and manditory conscription like Sweden, our soverenty is better safeguarded more by our diplomacy than our might.
stokes @ Sun Jun 15, 2008 3:40 pm
Of all 3 sections of the CF, the Navy is by far the most expensive to equip, operate and maintain. 1 Ship with 230 people will consume more fuel in 1 year than an entire 2500 person battlegroup in afghanistan will consume in 3. Due to some of the out of the way places we visit, the cost of delivering spare parts is absolutely horrendous. The cost of building 1 Frigate is enough to buy brand new CF-18's plus about 150 LAV's for the Army. The Coast Guard is overpaid, over tasked while being under equipped and under-manned plus they are protected by a union (Do you really want someone in a union deciding what job they should do?)
We need a Navy with very sharp Teeth! We need more Missiles and bigger guns on the big Ships but we also need small yet very fast and heavily armed ships to patrol our coastal waters (like the Norwegians) the big hurdle is money!
herbie @ Mon Jun 16, 2008 12:15 am
Plywood PT boats. Plywood PT boats. Plywood PT boats. Plywood PT boats. Plywood PT boats.
Hundreds of them.
CHEEP. Stealthy.
One in every cove....
Keemo @ Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:23 am
I used to serve aboard the HMCS Mckenzie, back in the early 70s. The cold war was in full heat, and we were protecting our country. Even then,we felt under equipped. Today's realities are not the same, we no longer focus out training on Soviets as the enemy. We don't have a clue who the next enemy is. With the world as it stands now, we need the ability to defend all three of our coasts, even if one of them is mostly frozen. That seems to be changing of late, and there is a great deal of potential wealth under the Arctic Ocean.
In WWII, we went from a tiny insignificant navy to one of the world's largest. Our service in the Atlantic made victory in Europe possible. We can, and have, built a navy to be reckoned with, and we need to do so again. Not a huge one, but a well rounded one, one that can operate on all three coasts, deliver troops, aircraft etc to meet out treaty commitments.
Our coast guard is not a military organization, and should remain so.