[Kory Yamashita]

I think it's disgraceful that we live in a country full of resources, expertise, and unemployment. And yet we can't afford to protect ourselves. I'm pretty open about my disliking for wars/military/violence of any type. But at least if anyone ever chooses to invade us, lets make them make an effort to do it...

[z_whalen]

Actually there is a big need for these new ships. They are essential to our naval task groups and keeping ships supplied while they are out at sea; therefore they will play a key role in our coastal defense. We also need these ships right now because we are dependent foreign militaries and private transportation to move our troops around the world. Still don't think they're essential? I hope not. Of course, we do need new destroyers too, but I am extremely happy that about these new replenishment ships.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] Actually there is a big need for these new ships. They are essential to our naval task groups and keeping ships supplied while they are out at sea; therefore they will play a key role in our coastal defense. We also need these ships right now because we are dependent foreign militaries and private transportation to move our troops around the world. Still don't think they're essential? I hope not. Of course, we do need new destroyers too, but I am extremely happy that about these new replenishment ships.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Didn't mean to suggest we didn't need them--we just don't need the troop and equipment carrying aspect in a ship--we could've purchased C-130s or C-17s for that, although this is fine, but more vulnerable than a plane in the air. <br /> <br />What I am mainly trying to get at is the fact that ther eis currently no committment to replace our destroyers at all, let alone build more. <br /> <br /> <br />***There is also a scheme to fully integrate our armed forces into the U.S. military--see notacolony.ca, or the Globe and Mail--Novenmber 10th.

[Perturbed]

Also, if these new multi-purpose ships are going to cost 700 million each, why are they only designing it to go 20 knots? 30 knots is quite attainable. <br /> <br />Also, why is such an expensive ship beng (apparently) fitted with only a measely phalanx gun?

[z_whalen]

I can see what you are getting at. These ships are supposed to operate in a naval task group, with a fully functional destroyer. Both these new supply vessels and new destroyers are essential to the success of our task groups at sea. But yes, the government is still cutting corners, but something is better than nothing, am I right?

[Mr.Can-Euro]

It is shameful we don't have the proper equipment to defend ourselves from any enemy that might want to attack us. It is also shameful on how high our unemployment rate is. How do we solve these problems? <br />Some countries do have a higher unemployment rate but they have higher populations than we do!

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= z_whalen] I can see what you are getting at. These ships are supposed to operate in a naval task group, with a fully functional destroyer. Both these new supply vessels and new destroyers are essential to the success of our task groups at sea. But yes, the government is still cutting corners, but something is better than nothing, am I right?[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Yeah, you're right. I'm just confused that a ship neearly big enough to be a medium-sized carrier would only be given a phalanx gun to defend against incoming missiles. That's like buying a mansion and leaving the door open......combine that with no committment to build destoryers to protect these ships, and it looks like they might be relying on the frigates, but there will be pressure to come on the government to replace the destroyers, and somehting tells me they will eventually get build--though another problem is lack of personnel to man them.. <br /> <br />Also, again about cost-cutting, aside from the fact that our second batch of frigates was originally supposed to be longer, we also were going to get 22 frigates, then 18--and we ended up with 12. <br /> <br />We also had other ships in the works, and possible several nuclear submarines before 1991's power shift, so you know, we've cut costs before, but we still have the third best navy (according to a book I read a couple of years ago) in the world all-round, with our talent, equipment and training making up for its relatively small size. <br /> <br />Go Navy.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Mr.Can-Euro] It is shameful we don't have the proper equipment to defend ourselves from any enemy that might want to attack us. It is also shameful on how high our unemployment rate is. How do we solve these problems? <br />Some countries do have a higher unemployment rate but they have higher populations than we do![/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />yeah, and some countries like Sweden PAY people to take a year off work, to giv esomeone else a chance. (odd, eh?) <br /> <br />As for being attacked, I'd worry mostly about the U.S., and mostly about improving our air force and especially the size of our army. Troops are the key! <br /> <br />Seeing as reserves are more affordable, and make up a huge portin of armies todaym perhaps we should institute a couple of years of mandatory military service for youth. Even some pretty banal coutnries like Luxembourg, Switzerland and Sweden do this apparently.

[michou]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] Even some pretty banal coutnries like Luxembourg, Switzerland and Sweden do this apparently.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Luxembourg, Switzerland and Sweden are <b>banal</b> countries ? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/eek.gif' alt='Eek!'> <br />You seem to have quite the rating system here perturbed and for just about any country, society and race under the sun. <br /> <br />As for Canada's priority for the navy, we need to defend Canada against whom and what ? The cold war is over, our most probable enemy may lie to the south of us and we have current examples that traditional warfare is on the decline. <br />Americans have the bigger guns, deadly artillery and they still managed to lose Vietnam and are now losing ground in Iraq. Bigger guns and faster boats will never replace adaptation and cunning. <br /> <br />(sorry boys for the interruption. You can now continue with the bigger guns dispute. What does a woman know about that stuff anyway...all I ever did on a destroyer is get married on it. No kidding.)

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= michou] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed] Even some pretty banal coutnries like Luxembourg, Switzerland and Sweden do this apparently.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Luxembourg, Switzerland and Sweden are <b>banal</b> countries ? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/eek.gif' alt='Eek!'> <br />You seem to have quite the rating system here perturbed and for just about any country, society and race under the sun. <br /> <br />As for Canada's priority for the navy, we need to defend Canada against whom and what ? The cold war is over, our most probable enemy may lie to the south of us and we have current examples that traditional warfare is on the decline. <br />Americans have the bigger guns, deadly artillery and they still managed to lose Vietnam and are now losing ground in Iraq. Bigger guns and faster boats will never replace adaptation and cunning. <br /> <br />(sorry boys for the interruption. You can now continue with the bigger guns dispute. What does a woman know about that stuff anyway...all I ever did on a destroyer is get married on it. No kidding.) [/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Michou, what I meant was Switzerland, Luxembourg and Sweden (the first 2 especially) are all relatively small countries, with tiny populations, (under 10 million I believe) and they are not war-like, imperial nations--but they do have mandatory military service. I think Canada would have a better sense of pride, and more money for other things if we expanded our short-term reserves, and offered them benefits of course but no full-time salary for 2 or 3 years of mandatory service. Of course we'd need more kids if we did this. <br /> <br /> <br />As for your assertion that bigger guns will never replace adaptation and cunning--I completely agree with that <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> I mean, Canad's territory is so big, and armies are the only way to hold territory. I agree modern warfare is overestimated in its ability. <br /> <br />So why am I making a big deal about this? Well, partially because the world is stil ruled by men--having SOME military is necessary, if only for the pride and prestige factor. It's very embarrassing for a country as big as Canada to have such a military that has no functional submarines, and is thinking about having no destroyers. Warships (surface and submerged) are useful to deter sumggling, overfishing, and DO help us patrol our northern waters--that is they would if they had thicker hulls. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> <br /> <br />Just to clarify, though not thrilled I am satisfied with our functional military at this point, but having at least SOME destroyers would help demonstrate the fact we take ourselves seriously, and would also demonstrate we are a nation with great technical ability. Most countries don't have the ability to build great miltiary hardware--we are an elite country, and we do some of the best jobs when we want to. <br /> <br />I just want our destroyer capability replaced, even in small quantities. Expanding our naval reserves (throught mandatory service or not) would help us deal with the fact we've had to lay-up a destroyer due to lack of crew. <br /> <br />**Another good reason is to create work for Canadias. Unless we have nationalized shipyards, they aren't going to bother keeping up their facilities if they aren't guaranteed any orders. <br /> <br /> <br />If you were married on a destroyer (Iroquois?) then that's pretty cool. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

[Calumny]

michou and Perturbed getting along? <br /> <br />Aaagggghhh.....short of breath....chest pains.... <br />my heart...everything going dark....gasp.....thump. <br /> <br />Oooohhhhh, that was a close one...don't surprise me like that. <br /> <br /> <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/twisted.gif' alt='Twisted Evil'>

[Stymiest]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] [QUOTE BY= z_whalen] Actually there is a big need for these new ships. They are essential to our naval task groups and keeping ships supplied while they are out at sea; therefore they will play a key role in our coastal defense. We also need these ships right now because we are dependent foreign militaries and private transportation to move our troops around the world. Still don't think they're essential? I hope not. Of course, we do need new destroyers too, but I am extremely happy that about these new replenishment ships.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Didn't mean to suggest we didn't need them--we just don't need the troop and equipment carrying aspect in a ship--we could've purchased C-130s or C-17s for that, although this is fine, but more vulnerable than a plane in the air. <br /> <br />What I am mainly trying to get at is the fact that ther eis currently no committment to replace our destroyers at all, let alone build more. <br /> <br /> <br />***There is also a scheme to fully integrate our armed forces into the U.S. military--see notacolony.ca, or the Globe and Mail--Novenmber 10th.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Are you joking plz tell me so. A C-130 is a very poor substitute for a supply ship. I agree we do need some C17's but these are not reliable for transporting heavy equipment such as tanks and vehicles. A c-130 can hold 90 personnel lol thats a pretty shitty substitute for a supply ship. <br /> <br />Also this is not a war ship its a ship which gives the CF an improved logistics capability. Take a look at other ships of similar capabilities in allied navies they are not equipped with any sort of offensive weaponry whatsoever. These ships have no need for that type of weaponry as they would be part of a task force consisting of a destroyer and a couple of frigates. <br /> <br />I am very glad you are not deciding what gets purchased for our troops our troops would probably have to swim across the atlantic to get where they need to go <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/evil.gif' alt='Evil'>

[Stymiest]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] [QUOTE BY= z_whalen] I can see what you are getting at. These ships are supposed to operate in a naval task group, with a fully functional destroyer. Both these new supply vessels and new destroyers are essential to the success of our task groups at sea. But yes, the government is still cutting corners, but something is better than nothing, am I right?[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Yeah, you're right. I'm just confused that a ship neearly big enough to be a medium-sized carrier would only be given a phalanx gun to defend against incoming missiles. That's like buying a mansion and leaving the door open......combine that with no committment to build destoryers to protect these ships, and it looks like they might be relying on the frigates, but there will be pressure to come on the government to replace the destroyers, and somehting tells me they will eventually get build--though another problem is lack of personnel to man them.. <br /> <br />Also, again about cost-cutting, aside from the fact that our second batch of frigates was originally supposed to be longer, we also were going to get 22 frigates, then 18--and we ended up with 12. <br /> <br />We also had other ships in the works, and possible several nuclear submarines before 1991's power shift, so you know, we've cut costs before, but we still have the third best navy (according to a book I read a couple of years ago) in the world all-round, with our talent, equipment and training making up for its relatively small size. <br /> <br />Go Navy.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />You have to be joking right. <br /> <br />Read How to make War by Frank Dunnigan. It gives a comprehensive rating system of where each countries militaries stand. Canada is way down the list as far as "Best" goes.

[Stymiest]

[QUOTE BY= Perturbed] [QUOTE BY= michou] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed] Even some pretty banal coutnries like Luxembourg, Switzerland and Sweden do this apparently.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Luxembourg, Switzerland and Sweden are <b>banal</b> countries ? <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/eek.gif' alt='Eek!'> <br />You seem to have quite the rating system here perturbed and for just about any country, society and race under the sun. <br /> <br />As for Canada's priority for the navy, we need to defend Canada against whom and what ? The cold war is over, our most probable enemy may lie to the south of us and we have current examples that traditional warfare is on the decline. <br />Americans have the bigger guns, deadly artillery and they still managed to lose Vietnam and are now losing ground in Iraq. Bigger guns and faster boats will never replace adaptation and cunning. <br /> <br />(sorry boys for the interruption. You can now continue with the bigger guns dispute. What does a woman know about that stuff anyway...all I ever did on a destroyer is get married on it. No kidding.) [/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Michou, what I meant was Switzerland, Luxembourg and Sweden (the first 2 especially) are all relatively small countries, with tiny populations, (under 10 million I believe) and they are not war-like, imperial nations--but they do have mandatory military service. I think Canada would have a better sense of pride, and more money for other things if we expanded our short-term reserves, and offered them benefits of course but no full-time salary for 2 or 3 years of mandatory service. Of course we'd need more kids if we did this. <br /> <br /> <br />As for your assertion that bigger guns will never replace adaptation and cunning--I completely agree with that <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/exclaim.gif' alt='Exclaimation'> I mean, Canad's territory is so big, and armies are the only way to hold territory. I agree modern warfare is overestimated in its ability. <br /> <br />So why am I making a big deal about this? Well, partially because the world is stil ruled by men--having SOME military is necessary, if only for the pride and prestige factor. It's very embarrassing for a country as big as Canada to have such a military that has no functional submarines, and is thinking about having no destroyers. Warships (surface and submerged) are useful to deter sumggling, overfishing, and DO help us patrol our northern waters--that is they would if they had thicker hulls. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/smile.gif' alt='Smile'> <br /> <br />Just to clarify, though not thrilled I am satisfied with our functional military at this point, but having at least SOME destroyers would help demonstrate the fact we take ourselves seriously, and would also demonstrate we are a nation with great technical ability. Most countries don't have the ability to build great miltiary hardware--we are an elite country, and we do some of the best jobs when we want to. <br /> <br />I just want our destroyer capability replaced, even in small quantities. Expanding our naval reserves (throught mandatory service or not) would help us deal with the fact we've had to lay-up a destroyer due to lack of crew. <br /> <br />**Another good reason is to create work for Canadias. Unless we have nationalized shipyards, they aren't going to bother keeping up their facilities if they aren't guaranteed any orders. <br /> <br /> <br />If you were married on a destroyer (Iroquois?) then that's pretty cool. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'> [/QUOTE] <br /> <br />You know what I like some of what u are saying perturbed. I think you make some good points. The problems with our armed forces is the government has let our military policy slide under the table for so long we know have more needs then what our resources can provide us.

[Perturbed]

[QUOTE BY= Stymiest] [QUOTE BY= Perturbed] [QUOTE BY= z_whalen] Actually there is a big need for these new ships. They are essential to our naval task groups and keeping ships supplied while they are out at sea; therefore they will play a key role in our coastal defense. We also need these ships right now because we are dependent foreign militaries and private transportation to move our troops around the world. Still don't think they're essential? I hope not. Of course, we do need new destroyers too, but I am extremely happy that about these new replenishment ships.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />Didn't mean to suggest we didn't need them--we just don't need the troop and equipment carrying aspect in a ship--we could've purchased C-130s or C-17s for that, although this is fine, but more vulnerable than a plane in the air. <br /> <br />What I am mainly trying to get at is the fact that ther eis currently no committment to replace our destroyers at all, let alone build more. <br /> <br /> <br />***There is also a scheme to fully integrate our armed forces into the U.S. military--see notacolony.ca, or the Globe and Mail--Novenmber 10th.[/QUOTE] <br /> <br />Are you joking plz tell me so. A C-130 is a very poor substitute for a supply ship. I agree we do need some C17's but these are not reliable for transporting heavy equipment such as tanks and vehicles. A c-130 can hold 90 personnel lol thats a pretty shitty substitute for a supply ship. <br /> <br />Also this is not a war ship its a ship which gives the CF an improved logistics capability. Take a look at other ships of similar capabilities in allied navies they are not equipped with any sort of offensive weaponry whatsoever. These ships have no need for that type of weaponry as they would be part of a task force consisting of a destroyer and a couple of frigates. <br /> <br />I am very glad you are not deciding what gets purchased for our troops our troops would probably have to swim across the atlantic to get where they need to go <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/evil.gif' alt='Evil'> [/QUOTE] <br /> <br /> <br />I said it wasn't a priority--and it isn't. Why are we sending troops overseas in the first place? It's not our God-given job to do that. <br /> <br />The biggest priority is our ARMY.