Canada's navy cuts coast patrol fleet in half

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

Yep. Good book.

While we do obviously want to be an independent nation, I still think you have to seriously consider that the US will blow the crap out of anyone that comes within 10 miles of invading Canada.

Because of that I don't think its necessary to load up on equipment that we don't really need. And I would start getting rid of equipment that is out of date and falling apart.

I don't think we need a military that has aircraft carriers, although one would be pretty damn cool. Nor do we need a large amount of tanks, fighter jets etc, etc.

Instead we should go for the lean and mean approach. Make sure that our infantry has more than enough resources to do its job, and make a stronger effort and perhaps pour even more money into JTF-2, and maybe even a different special forces unit.

I'm not saying to totally get rid of all our fighter jets, just saying that we don't need so many of them. The US would scramble their whole airforce for us if Canada were to be invaded.

We have something good going with JTF-2 and other infantry units that have preformed remarkably well in Afghanistan. We should focus on doing that better than anyone else in the world.

I completely disagree with the concept of specializing your military. As we've seen in the last few decades, every conflict has been completely different. We've seen a shift from mass air power, to fast moving armor to special forces and beyond.

Our Military is really there for three reasons. First and foremost to protect our national interests. Its great that we have an ally like the American's who can add to our punch since we still seriously punch below our weight. But we need an airforce to protect our airspace, especially since we represent the northern trip wire in the Norad alliance. The ability to project an interception capability allows us to protect our airspace, especially since the Russian's have begun to ramp up their bomber excercises up north. Because of the events of 9/11 we know know that we need air defense capabilities. Our fighters can also act as interdiction against un-authorized craft used for smuggling.

Because the Arctic is becoming such an important area for resource development we need to have a combination naval and air approach to protect it. We also use our submarine and navy access on all three shores for drug interdiction, smuggling actions, and protection against Illegal fishing. Its also important to have that survaillance capability against hostile sub and surface vessels that are capable of naval launch. Our Navy also works in concert with our Nato allies and are key in UN missions around the world.

Because of our support for NATO and the UN in a more limited role, we need armoured vehicles, Tanks are becoming more important because they're a natural counter to IEDs, and also provide long range fire support for troops on the ground. We also need general infantry and specialized infantry that can commit to these deployments.

Special forces can only take you so far, and while they're effective at their specialities, there is still a heavy requirement for less specialized troops that can fight and provide security.

Its just like I never agreed with the concept of building a specialized force for peacekeeping. The concept of peace keeping is dead. The day of the blue Beret acting as social workers and standing in between warring sides is over because of asymetrical warfare. In order to be effective you have to partake in peace enforcement. there has to be the ability to enforce the peace, and defend the innocent, and for that you need armored vehicles, artillary, guys with guns, air support and the ability to supply and withdraw your troops without depending on other nations.

Because of the constantly changinign faces of war, you need to have a well rounded military that can effectively fight and deploy in any kind of situation.

[chalms04]

Originally Posted by SebC

IMO:

If we want strategic power / deterrent to invasion by a sovereign country, it's simple: get nukes.

But my highest killstreak is only 21.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

IMO:

If we want strategic power / deterrent to invasion by a sovereign country, it's simple: get nukes.

Then you build your military to deal with rogue states, terrorists, and foreign/peacekeeping deployments.

We had nukes, it wasn't a good policy because of the command and control protocals that were put in place. And the weakness of our military leadership at the time.

See above on why I disagree with your second part.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cactus Jack

I'd prefer to spend my money on health care and other social programs

We're already near the top for most money per person in the world for healthcare. Throwing more money at the hole that is healthcare isn't going to fix the problems. Actually reforming our healthcare system and looking at the lack of efficiencies is what needs to be done.

Its no longer a "Throw Money at the Problem and it will go away" with Healthcare, its how can we change the system so we can get value.

[Barnes]

CC, whats so bad about the 3 destroyers we have? They were recently upgraded and had many recent successes in the middle east including the Iroquois carrying out flagship duties.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Barnes

CC, whats so bad about the 3 destroyers we have? They were recently upgraded and had many recent successes in the middle east including the Iroquois carrying out flagship duties.

I believe that one of them is tied off and not being used due to lack of crew and other problems, so in a sense we have two.

These boats are nearly 40 years old, they're past their life expectancy, the engine replacements are still slow for a destroyer, The Radar that they use is just not up to modern standards and cannot be upgraded.

Under TRUMP we were suppossed to have already ordered or had new Destroyers on the board this year.

They're too old, too slow they're sensor packages are not up to Snuff, and their anti air defense isn't terrific and wouldn't be effective against sea skimming missiles.

The Iroquis isn't a good sub hunter either, so it would have trouble as a coordinating element in a task force that faces multiple threats from multiple levels.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

We had nukes, it wasn't a good policy because of the command and control protocals that were put in place. And the weakness of our military leadership at the time.

See above on why I disagree with your second part.

I probably phrased myself badly... I agree that we need coastal/aerial interception abilities, just don't think we could or should try to maintain sufficient forces to repel an all out invasion from the likes of Russia or China. Get nukes and such an invasion, from any group that cares about it's own population, is completely out of the question.

Since I know you know much more about this than I do, why were nukes a bad idea? Other than their role in the cancellation of the Arrow... since I'm pretty sure that the idea that they could replace the Arrow was largely a steaming pile of bull.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

I probably phrased myself badly... I agree that we need coastal/aerial interception abilities, just don't think we could or should try to maintain sufficient forces to repel an all out invasion from the likes of Russia or China. Get nukes and such an invasion, from any group that cares about it's own population, is completely out of the question.

Since I know you know much more about this than I do, why were nukes a bad idea? Other than their role in the cancellation of the Arrow... since I'm pretty sure that the idea that they could replace the Arrow was largely a steaming pile of bull.

Canada had three nuclear weapons options.

The Bomarc air defense missile with a 7 to 10 kt dialable warhead. This was designed to go after mass formations of Russian nuclear armed bombers. At the time the bombers were slow and not very maneuverable. The concept of a nuclear armed anti air missile was made obsolete in the fast bomber, missile age.

The CF-104 Starfighter was built to carry variable yield nuclear bombs up to 1.4 MT, those bombs were only deployed to Germany. The Starfighter was an unreliable plane, and a poor delivery system.

The honest John medium range tactical missile launcher which could fire a variable yield up to 40 KT nuclear armed missile. It was only to be used in Germany.

Canada also purchased air dropped nuclear depth charges for anti submarine usage.

There were really two reasons why Canada got away from nuclear weapons.

1) political, there was massive opposition to Canada being part of the nuclear club

2) Military and Political leadership - decision making has to be fast and agile in order to use tactical nuclear weapons of these kinds. In Canada's case the decision to use battlefield nukes had to come from the top level of government, and they could never make a decision on time.

The factor that the weapons that we bought were obsolete by the time we got them. Missiles negated nuclear anti air strategy, we never received one honest john warhead that would have worked. The CF-104 was a terrible plane.

Plus the maintenance and security of nuclear weapons is hideously expensive. Plus we moved into a series of dove governments that decided that soft diplomacy was the way to go.

The Avro Arrow was never really meant to carry nukes. The creation of a nuclear strategy was put in place due to the cancellation of the arrow.

[Barnes]

Some cool pictures from the Navy's website:

HMCS Toronto in front of the USS George Washington

http://131.137.250.232/netpub/server...original=54860

HMCS Athabaskan coming about.

http://131.137.250.232/netpub/server...original=54893

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

IMO:

If we want strategic power / deterrent to invasion by a sovereign country, it's simple: get nukes.

Then you build your military to deal with rogue states, terrorists, and foreign/peacekeeping deployments.

I would honestly have no problem if Canada had a couple nuclear weapons sticking around.

[Azure]

I'm also not saying that we should abandon every other part of the military and focus on JUST Afghanistan and our operations there.

I'm saying that because we are involved in Afghanistan, most of our effort should be put into making sure our guys have the resources they need, and that they have the best training in the world to do their jobs.

In the meantime you start upgrading the rest of the military. We don't need to spend billions upon billions every year, but I think a dedicated budget for upgrades. That way we can cycle our equipment as needed.

If you leave your stuff sitting around too long it falls apart and isn't any use to anyone. Gotta keep upgrading.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Because of our support for NATO and the UN in a more limited role, we need armoured vehicles, Tanks are becoming more important because they're a natural counter to IEDs

I find this unlikely. The size of IED’s has grown rapidly to match the increased capabilities of hardened vehicles in Afghanistan, to the point that I doubt a tank would be any more mobile after an IED detonation than any other vehicle.

In my opinion the only way to mitigate the IED threat is to be able to maintain continual aerial surveillance, something that will be possible with the increasing size of drone fleets. A large number of surveillance drones operating at altitude with a smaller number of armed drones would probably be pretty effective at locating and eliminating the combatants as they plant the devices.

I’m not talking about a handful of drones, I’m talking about mass deployments, where any given patch of land comes under surveillance every 15 minutes or so. Should be possible with drones that can operate at high altitude (large area of coverage) for 24 hours or more per sortie, along with decreasing unit costs as the technology matures.

I’m no expert though.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

I find this unlikely. The size of IED’s has grown rapidly to match the increased capabilities of hardened vehicles in Afghanistan, to the point that I doubt a tank would be any more mobile after an IED detonation than any other vehicle.

In my opinion the only way to mitigate the IED threat is to be able to maintain continual aerial surveillance, something that will be possible with the increasing size of drone fleets. A large number of surveillance drones operating at altitude with a smaller number of armed drones would probably be pretty effective at locating and eliminating the combatants as they plant the devices.

I’m not talking about a handful of drones, I’m talking about mass deployments, where any given patch of land comes under surveillance every 15 minutes or so. Should be possible with drones that can operate at high altitude (large area of coverage) for 24 hours or more per sortie, along with decreasing unit costs as the technology matures.

I was going to suggest that too. Problem is how do you keep track of all the video they're going to record and send back to base?

I agree 100% with your concept of mass deployment. 'Eyes in the sky' provides a massive advantage on the battlefield.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The Avro Arrow was never really meant to carry nukes. The creation of a nuclear strategy was put in place due to the cancellation of the arrow.

Yeah, that's what I meant... the nukes "replacing" the Arrow made it's cancellation more palatable.

I get your argument against tactical nukes, I was advocating for strategic nukes... personally I am against the idea of the world getting rid of MAD, if the end result is that only the rogue states have nukes, or it eliminates the deterrent for a conventional WWIII. I am also against the idea of banning anti-nukes, as again I see a role for them against possible rogue state / terrorist attacks.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The CF-104 was a terrible plane.

A misused asset, not a terrible plane. The F-104 hit all the design goals set for it, and was the preeminent aircraft for its role at the time.

In the context of this discussion though, it probably was not the aircraft the Canadian Forces needed.

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by Azure

I was going to suggest that too. Problem is how do you keep track of all the video they're going to record and send back to base?

I agree 100% with your concept of mass deployment. 'Eyes in the sky' provides a massive advantage on the battlefield.

I can’t see it being that difficult - it should be pretty obvious when you spot a group of people digging holes in/beside a road what is going on.

And anyways, eyeballs are cheap. Who cares if it takes 500 or a thousand or three thousand people per shift to handle the oversight and assignment of targets for further recon or fire control to smaller tactical teams - I’m talking real big brother stuff here, where it is virtually impossible to move in the open without being seen. It’s still going to be cheaper and safer than boots on the ground for defending against insurgents who are dependant on movement to plant IEDs. (not to diminish the importance of boots on the ground, but they can’t be everywhere at once)

Computers play a big role too. It would not be hard to auto-fly hundreds of high altitude drones in such a way that you are guaranteed 100% coverage at all times. You’re not talking about individual aircraft, but entire constellations of aircraft.

[Azure]

One would think that the US is already doing that to a degree. I wonder if they even carry out operations anymore without using drones.

The technology will only continue to improve too.

It is a great idea.

[wooohooo]

I'm learning a lot from this discussion. Thanks everyone... especially Captain

[sclitheroe]

Originally Posted by wooohooo

I'm learning a lot from this discussion. Thanks everyone... especially Captain

Yeah, Captain seems to have a lot of knowledge about this stuff.

[RW99]

We had an aircraft carrier? Never knew that. I did find this photo while looking for some info on it



On a serious note, I did seriously think about joining for quite awhile, from around 1998 to 2003. But all those stories about Sea Kings and jeeps with bullet proof vests on the floor, and the overall age of the military equipment just made it unappealing (not including a bunch of other issues that stopped me from joining). If Canada looked like the US military, it would look a bit more appealing