[Jonny_C]

One could argue that the Navy, without a shooting war to fight, needs to be sailing its ships and training its personnel anyway, so why not have them do things that at least apply some of their skills in a meaningful way other than simply exercises.

The same would apply for the army helping out in civilian emergencies.

[Gunnair]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

One could argue that the Navy, without a shooting war to fight, needs to be sailing its ships and training its personnel anyway, so why not have them do things that at least apply some of their skills in a meaningful way other than simply exercises.

The same would apply for the army helping out in civilian emergencies.

That's what is done. Xort just forgot that's all.

[Xort]

If we have a short fall in the ability of the coast guard to perform tasks it needs to be doing that we fill with the navy. What happens when we need the navy to do it's warfighting job?

Just not do coast guard stuff properly?

The more I hear the more I think we need a better coast guard not a better navy.

Gunnair when was the last time a Canadian navy ship engaged another nation's navy ship in combat? How much time is spent trying to run down non allied subs in our waters? When was the last time Canadian naval aviation attacked something?

Gulf War I?

[Gunnair]

Xort Xort:

If we have a short fall in the ability of the coast guard to perform tasks it needs to be doing that we fill with the navy. What happens when we need the navy to do it's warfighting job?

Just not do coast guard stuff properly?

The more I hear the more I think we need a better coast guard not a better navy.

Gunnair when was the last time a Canadian navy ship engaged another nation's navy ship in combat? How much time is spent trying to run down non allied subs in our waters? When was the last time Canadian naval aviation attacked something?

Gulf War I?

Korea would be the last time. As far as non allied subs? I wouldn't answer that if I could. What a fellow you are. Canadian naval aviation?

RCN is power projection. Right now, we project power in the Middle East.

[saturn_656]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Xort Xort:

If we have a short fall in the ability of the coast guard to perform tasks it needs to be doing that we fill with the navy. What happens when we need the navy to do it's warfighting job?

Just not do coast guard stuff properly?

The more I hear the more I think we need a better coast guard not a better navy.

Gunnair when was the last time a Canadian navy ship engaged another nation's navy ship in combat? How much time is spent trying to run down non allied subs in our waters? When was the last time Canadian naval aviation attacked something?

Gulf War I?

Korea would be the last time. As far as non allied subs? I wouldn't answer that if I could. What a fellow you are. Canadian naval aviation?

RCN is power projection. Right now, we project power in the Middle East.

Canada gave up on naval aviation back in 1962 when they retired the Banshees, and the Bonaventure soldiered on till 1970 with only Sea Kings and Trackers. After 1970 Canadian naval aviation was more or less dead. Any number of navies can fly a helo from a frigate. The serious ones have aircraft carriers.

[Jonny_C]

Xort Xort:

If we have a short fall in the ability of the coast guard to perform tasks it needs to be doing that we fill with the navy. What happens when we need the navy to do it's warfighting job? Just not do coast guard stuff properly?

No, then we just shoot at everything.

[Jabberwalker]

$1:

Canada gave up on naval aviation back in 1962 when they retired the Banshees, and the Bonaventure soldiered on till 1970 with only Sea Kings and Trackers. After 1970 Canadian naval aviation was more or less dead. Any number of navies can fly a helo from a frigate. The serious ones have aircraft carriers.

If you've got a little time, this is an interesting, old film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmFD5bijrok

[saturn_656]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

$1:

Canada gave up on naval aviation back in 1962 when they retired the Banshees, and the Bonaventure soldiered on till 1970 with only Sea Kings and Trackers. After 1970 Canadian naval aviation was more or less dead. Any number of navies can fly a helo from a frigate. The serious ones have aircraft carriers.

If you've got a little time, this is an interesting, old film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmFD5bijrok

Yeah, those were the days.

If I were running the show back then I would have taken the money we spent on the Army and RCAF bases in Europe and dumped it into the Navy. We were never going to be anything more than a speed bump, at best, for the Red Army, like pissing in the wind. A beefed up Navy though could have made a real difference in the sea war if things went hot.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Canada gave up on naval aviation back in 1962 when they retired the Banshees, and the Bonaventure soldiered on till 1970 with only Sea Kings and Trackers. After 1970 Canadian naval aviation was more or less dead. Any number of navies can fly a helo from a frigate. The serious ones have aircraft carriers.

I'd dispute that statement - Thailand is not a 'serious' navy and Brazil is hardly much better. Russia's single carrier spends most of its time in port because of technical and financial problems. Allied navies like Spain and Italy almost never deploy them very far from their coasts, so I'd question how serious they are too. Even China's carrier is questionable IMHO.

The reality is only four navies have serious carriers - France, India, the UK and the USA (although China seems to be working towards being included in this group).

[Jonny_C]

bootlegga bootlegga:

I'd dispute that statement - Thailand is not a 'serious' navy and Brazil is hardly much better. Russia's single carrier spends most of its time in port because of technical and financial problems. Allied navies like Spain and Italy almost never deploy them very far from their coasts, so I'd question how serious they are too. Even China's carrier is questionable IMHO.

It ought to tell us something when a power like Russia only has one carrier, and even that is not seriously used. A single carrier is a showpiece, and a very expensive one.

Canada, even in its WWII heyday when it had one of the largest navies in the world, was a small ship navy - destroyers and corvettes mostly. IMO there is no reason for us to have big ships, but we should have plenty of small ones for coastal and arctic operations, and occasional support deployment with allied navies. Let's put our eggs in useful baskets.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Canada gave up on naval aviation back in 1962 when they retired the Banshees, and the Bonaventure soldiered on till 1970 with only Sea Kings and Trackers. After 1970 Canadian naval aviation was more or less dead. Any number of navies can fly a helo from a frigate. The serious ones have aircraft carriers.

I'd dispute that statement - Thailand is not a 'serious' navy and Brazil is hardly much better. Russia's single carrier spends most of its time in port because of technical and financial problems. Allied navies like Spain and Italy almost never deploy them very far from their coasts, so I'd question how serious they are too. Even China's carrier is questionable IMHO.

The reality is only four navies have serious carriers - France, India, the UK and the USA (although China seems to be working towards being included in this group).

Thailands carrier is more of a through deck OPV.

I also wouldn't dig at Brazil, they've maintained carrier ops for a continuous 55+ years. Better than we were able to manage.

Also at the moment, the UK doesn't have anything that resembles a serious carrier.

[Jonny_C]

In order for a carrier to be effective (and have some survivability) it has to be part of a carrier group. It would take our entire navy to screen one carrier.

[saturn_656]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

In order for a carrier to be effective (and have some survivability) it has to be part of a carrier group. It would take our entire navy to screen one carrier.

If we wanted to build a American style CBG, yeah it would.

No one else runs CBG'S like the 'mericuns do.

[Xort]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Korea would be the last time. As far as non allied subs? I wouldn't answer that if I could. What a fellow you are. Canadian naval aviation?

RCN is power projection. Right now, we project power in the Middle East.

If the RCN had more ships, equipment and manpower would the RCN have been in some more fights in your opinion?

Or to put it another way has the lack of combat been because the navy wasn't properly equiped for it so they avoided it?

I'm sure the RCN has the ability to use rotory wing aviation; I've been lead to believe that the most effective ASW is done with choppers.

But in a pinch you could support a land unit close to a coast with something flying off the back deck of one of our ships right? In theory RCN ships could do something to support land operations or maybe provide some SAM coverage for our air force leaving a hostile area?
~
As for power projection, who are are we projecting power to? Is the RCN hunting down pirates 24/7? Or are they projecting power on Iran or maybe Syria?

Did the RCN do any power projection into Libya? IIRC the airforce was active out of Italy.

Is the RCN going to tell China they can't lay claim to all of the China Sea (name not withstanding). Is the RCN going to help Japan protect it's islands from Chinese agression?

Would the RCN move to help protect South Korea and or engage shore targets in North Korea?

Would the RCN do any of those task if we spent more money on then? Or is our ability to project force better served with aircraft? And rather than tasking our navy with coast guard duities to try and justify their cost we should take a realistic look at just what we need as a nation and what is cost effective.

~

At least this time we are not buying British junk.

[Jabberwalker]

$1:

At least this time we are not buying British junk.

... wait for it ... EH-101s ...

p.s Canada hasn't used Britsh-built aircraft for naval aviation since the time of the Korean War (Hawker Sea Furies) Our ships have been all Canadian except for two generations of subs and those old carriers. With the glaring exception of the Upholder Class subs that are currently sucking up resourse and giving nothing in return, there hasn't been British junk around much for generations.