[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

No party (political or otherwise)has ever really shown that Canada really needs amphib capability, so why buy something that we don't have a need for? The amphib ship is just like the helo carrier, wishful thinking by navy admirals who want the same stuff as our NATO allies.

Yeah, damn our military for wanting similar capabilities to our peers.

What are those ignoramuses thinking?

Having something because some of our allies have them is no reason for us to go out and buy the same thing. I guess your mother never told you the one about all your friends wanting to go jump off a bridge nearby...

Canada needs icebreakers. Are you saying that the Netherlands, Australia and Spain should rush out and buy some too, just to match our capabilities? If not, that's what it sounds like.

Canadian navy admirals are just like our air force generals, constantly wanting to match cocks with our allies. Some of our allies bought C-17s, so we had to too. This is exactly the same thing. Our navy admirals want to match cocks with Australia, Spain and the Netherlands. Nevermind that we don't have the staff to man them or the troops to use them.

Name one real reason to have amphibs. Just one, that's it. And please don't say for aid missions like after the tsunami, because the JSS could that just as well.

Amphibs wouldn't have helped in Bosnia, Kosovo, or even Afghanistan, so what's the point? Hell, we don't even have a force of marines to use it if we did build one.

Canada shouldn't be buying and maintaining ships we might need when we can't afford ships we do need. It's that simple. We should spend our rather limited defence dollars on things that help protect Canada, not fulfill the wishes of our admirals.

Someday, after WW3 starts, then we can build some. Until then, they'll just sit in port and rust. In a perfect world, we'd have 100,000+ troops, 40 ships, a carrier or two, several squadrons of fighters and helo gunships and all the other cool shit the big boys have, but it isn't a perfect world now is it?

[Lemmy]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Having something because some of our allies have them is no reason for us to go out and buy the same thing. I guess your mother never told you the one about all your friends wanting to go jump off a bridge nearby...

Canada needs icebreakers. Are you saying that the Netherlands, Australia and Spain should rush out and buy some too, just to match our capabilities? If not, that's what it sounds like.

Canadian navy admirals are just like our air force generals, constantly wanting to match cocks with our allies. Some of our allies bought C-17s, so we had to too. This is exactly the same thing. Our navy admirals want to match cocks with Australia, Spain and the Netherlands. Nevermind that we don't have the staff to man them or the troops to use them.

Name one real reason to have amphibs. Just one, that's it. And please don't say for aid missions like after the tsunami, because the JSS could that just as well.

Amphibs wouldn't have helped in Bosnia, Kosovo, or even Afghanistan, so what's the point? Hell, we don't even have a force of marines to use it if we did build one.

Canada shouldn't be buying and maintaining ships we might need when we can't afford ships we do need. It's that simple. We should spend our rather limited defence dollars on things that help protect Canada, not fulfill the wishes of our admirals.

bootlegga bootlegga:

Someday, after WW3 starts, then we can build some. Until then, they'll just sit in port and rust. In a perfect world, we'd have 100,000+ troops, 40 ships, a carrier or two, several squadrons of fighters and helo gunships and all the other cool shit the big boys have, but it isn't a perfect world now is it?

As Einstein said "I know not what weapons will fight World War III, but World War IV will be fought with rocks and sticks." Perparing for WWIII is not what we need. We need what we need to do the jobs we need to do NOW.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Canada needs icebreakers. Are you saying that the Netherlands, Australia and Spain should rush out and buy some too, just to match our capabilities? If not, that's what it sounds like.

Aussies may need a few considering their Antarctic claims. The other two have no conceivable need.

$1:

Canadian navy admirals are just like our air force generals, constantly wanting to match cocks with our allies. Some of our allies bought C-17s, so we had to too. This is exactly the same thing. Our navy admirals want to match cocks with Australia, Spain and the Netherlands. Nevermind that we don't have the staff to man them or the troops to use them.

We have more than enough troops to utilize one or two LHD type vessels. As far as sailors to staff them, that is a valid criticism. Last I heard the Navy wasn't doing too bad on the recruiting front, it was the Air Force having problems.

$1:

Name one real reason to have amphibs. Just one, that's it. And please don't say for aid missions like after the tsunami, because the JSS could that just as well.

No, a JSS could not do it just as well. Just a look at some ship specifications would indicate that much.

The JSS is an AOR with some light sealift capability.

That's it.

$1:

Amphibs wouldn't have helped in Bosnia, Kosovo, or even Afghanistan, so what's the point? Hell, we don't even have a force of marines to use it if we did build one.

I didn't know you needed "Marines" to use an amphib.

Saying they "wouldn't have helped" is a pretty strong statement. Extra troop lift and an air wing of transport and attack helicopters (maybe STOVL fighters) wouldn't have helped?

I disagree.

$1:

Canada shouldn't be buying and maintaining ships we might need when we can't afford ships we do need. It's that simple. We should spend our rather limited defence dollars on things that help protect Canada, not fulfill the wishes of our admirals.

Who decides what we do need? And if we should be spending our defence dollars solely on assets that help protect Canada, what do we need ro-ro capability for? Why do we need resupply ships?

Why are we spending billions crawling all over the bloody Afghan nation?

$1:

Someday, after WW3 starts, then we can build some. Until then, they'll just sit in port and rust. In a perfect world, we'd have 100,000+ troops, 40 ships, a carrier or two, several squadrons of fighters and helo gunships and all the other cool shit the big boys have, but it isn't a perfect world now is it?

I'm sure you understand that considering how long it takes to build modern warships, that if you wait until war breaks out, its far too late to think about building them.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Canada needs icebreakers. Are you saying that the Netherlands, Australia and Spain should rush out and buy some too, just to match our capabilities? If not, that's what it sounds like.

Aussies may need a few considering their Antarctic claims. The other two have no conceivable need.

Exactly. They don't need icebreakers but we do. So why try and match capabilites with them when our needs are different?

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

Canadian navy admirals are just like our air force generals, constantly wanting to match cocks with our allies. Some of our allies bought C-17s, so we had to too. This is exactly the same thing. Our navy admirals want to match cocks with Australia, Spain and the Netherlands. Nevermind that we don't have the staff to man them or the troops to use them.

We have more than enough troops to utilize one or two LHD type vessels. As far as sailors to staff them, that is a valid criticism. Last I heard the Navy wasn't doing too bad on the recruiting front, it was the Air Force having problems.

The navy is so understaffed they paid off one of the four Tribals in 2005. The only service meeting its quotas is the army.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

Name one real reason to have amphibs. Just one, that's it. And please don't say for aid missions like after the tsunami, because the JSS could that just as well.

No, a JSS could not do it just as well. Just a look at some ship specifications would indicate that much.

The JSS is an AOR with some light sealift capability.

That's it.

For tsunami assistance, that's all you really need. You don't need LCACs and other assault craft to give out aid. A freighter could just as easily have docked in port and dispensed aid.

If you really have to get to some remote area, the JSS has four helos to do that.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

Amphibs wouldn't have helped in Bosnia, Kosovo, or even Afghanistan, so what's the point? Hell, we don't even have a force of marines to use it if we did build one.

I didn't know you needed "Marines" to use an amphib.

Saying they "wouldn't have helped" is a pretty strong statement. Extra troop lift and an air wing of transport and attack helicopters (maybe STOVL fighters) wouldn't have helped?

I disagree.

You mis-interpreted what I wrote.

Given that Afghanistan and Kosovo are both landlocked (and Bosnia is damned near totally landlocked too), having amphbs wouldn't have been of use in any of those countries, unless of course you're aware of an LPD that can fly.

The last time I checked, pretty much every nation that owns amphibs uses them in conjunction with their existing marines. I suppose Canada could buy them and let the RCR or PPCLI train on them once every couple of years, but that sounds like a titanic waste of money to me.

Marines, on the other hand, could have been useful as ground troops to give the RCR/PPCLI/22e longer breaks between deployments.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

Canada shouldn't be buying and maintaining ships we might need when we can't afford ships we do need. It's that simple. We should spend our rather limited defence dollars on things that help protect Canada, not fulfill the wishes of our admirals.

Who decides what we do need? And if we should be spending our defence dollars solely on assets that help protect Canada, what do we need ro-ro capability for? Why do we need resupply ships?

Why are we spending billions crawling all over the bloody Afghan nation?

We need AORs if we want to maintain any sort of blue water capability. If Canada is happy with its navy being a strictly a coastal force, than we don't need them, just like we don't need new destroyers or even new frigates. All we really need is a dozen subs and more patrol vessels (something better than the MCDVs).

The RO-RO capability was added to help the JSS support forces shore with resupply (presumably in a low threat/peacekeeping environment).

We're spending billions in Afghanistan because our NATO ally (the US) was attacked and asked for our assistance. The government of the day (Liberal) sent troops at their request. The current government continued with that deployment, which is scheduled to end in less than a year.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

Someday, after WW3 starts, then we can build some. Until then, they'll just sit in port and rust. In a perfect world, we'd have 100,000+ troops, 40 ships, a carrier or two, several squadrons of fighters and helo gunships and all the other cool shit the big boys have, but it isn't a perfect world now is it?

I'm sure you understand that considering how long it takes to build modern warships, that if you wait until war breaks out, its far too late to think about building them.

Yes, it takes time to build ships in peacetime, but something tells me if WW3 starts, it'll either be over in an afternoon (at which point we don't need to worry about whether we have amphibs or not) or will be a long drawn out proposition like WW2, and we'll have time to convert to wartime production.

[Canadian_Mind]

I don't understand the point of paying for kit the government wouldn't use when it would be useful anyways. Consider the F-18s that had their avionics and weapons systems upgraded; wasn't cheap. Will they be put to use before they are retired? Maybe, but I doubt it, considering they aren't being used over here ATM. Can never have too much air power.

And boots, I have to disagree with you on the point of WWIII being long and drawn out. The only reason wars are long and drawn out are because both contenders are of equal power, or there is a persistent insurgency. If we don't have an initial capability, the war could potentially be lost in a day. Can't always rely on allies.

Example: If someone invades your home intending to bring harm to your family, steal are your possesions, etc. If your kitchen knife is inadequate to fend them off, you have to take the time to drive to the local gun shop to get a 12 guage in order to counter the home invasion. Not happening, family will be raped and dead, and all your shit stolen, house burned, etc.

Even if you called the cops or a well armed neighbour, their response will still take time, as would an allied response if our territory is attacked or invaded.

However, if you have that 12 guage at home, you can defend yourself, atleast initially, until the cops arrive, just as if the country has even a small capacity to initially defend itself, it can ward off the attack until more well armed and prepared allies can arrive.

And don't take this as support for amphibious capability. I personally think that, once the Afghan mission is over, any money spent on anything but something which would directly contribute to the domestic defence of Canada would be a waste of money. I don't think buying one or two ships whose purpose is to deliver troops to foreign soil is the best use of our resources.

[saturn_656]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Exactly. They don't need icebreakers but we do. So why try and match capabilites with them when our needs are different?

The Navy is (was) planning to acquire amphibs. The project is in development hell like so many Navy programs.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml- ... sp?id=2053

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The navy is so understaffed they paid off one of the four Tribals in 2005. The only service meeting its quotas is the army.

So I guess we should hold off on building any new ships since its pain to find sailors to man them?

$1:

For tsunami assistance, that's all you really need. You don't need LCACs and other assault craft to give out aid. A freighter could just as easily have docked in port and dispensed aid.

If you really have to get to some remote area, the JSS has four helos to do that.

Areas hit by natural disasters may lack ports able to recieve freighters.

Amphibs don't need ports.

$1:

You mis-interpreted what I wrote.

Given that Afghanistan and Kosovo are both landlocked (and Bosnia is damned near totally landlocked too), having amphbs wouldn't have been of use in any of those countries, unless of course you're aware of an LPD that can fly.

The last time I checked, pretty much every nation that owns amphibs uses them in conjunction with their existing marines. I suppose Canada could buy them and let the RCR or PPCLI train on them once every couple of years, but that sounds like a titanic waste of money to me.

Marines, on the other hand, could have been useful as ground troops to give the RCR/PPCLI/22e longer breaks between deployments.

The Army trains in amphib operations



Someone had better tell these Canadians they are not Marines.

But if you are hung up on the idea that to use an LPD or an LHD you need a Marine Corps we do have a Marine Commando Regiment in the pipeline.

LHD type ships carry a signifigant air wing. You don't have a beach? Just use your Chinooks and drop in by air.

$1:

We need AORs if we want to maintain any sort of blue water capability. If Canada is happy with its navy being a strictly a coastal force, than we don't need them, just like we don't need new destroyers or even new frigates. All we really need is a dozen subs and more patrol vessels (something better than the MCDVs).

The RO-RO capability was added to help the JSS support forces shore with resupply (presumably in a low threat/peacekeeping environment).

We're spending billions in Afghanistan because our NATO ally (the US) was attacked and asked for our assistance. The government of the day (Liberal) sent troops at their request. The current government continued with that deployment, which is scheduled to end in less than a year.

My point was that we already spend considerable defence dollars on items not strictly needed to defend Canada. Like blue water naval capability.

$1:

Yes, it takes time to build ships in peacetime, but something tells me if WW3 starts, it'll either be over in an afternoon (at which point we don't need to worry about whether we have amphibs or not) or will be a long drawn out proposition like WW2, and we'll have time to convert to wartime production.

So when war breaks we'll be caught with our pants down and have to play catch up?

Not the way I'd do it.

[bootlegga]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I don't understand the point of paying for kit the government wouldn't use when it would be useful anyways. Consider the F-18s that had their avionics and weapons systems upgraded; wasn't cheap. Will they be put to use before they are retired? Maybe, but I doubt it, considering they aren't being used over here ATM. Can never have too much air power.

And boots, I have to disagree with you on the point of WWIII being long and drawn out. The only reason wars are long and drawn out are because both contenders are of equal power, or there is a persistent insurgency. If we don't have an initial capability, the war could potentially be lost in a day. Can't always rely on allies.

Example: If someone invades your home intending to bring harm to your family, steal are your possesions, etc. If your kitchen knife is inadequate to fend them off, you have to take the time to drive to the local gun shop to get a 12 guage in order to counter the home invasion. Not happening, family will be raped and dead, and all your shit stolen, house burned, etc.

Even if you called the cops or a well armed neighbour, their response will still take time, as would an allied response if our territory is attacked or invaded.

However, if you have that 12 guage at home, you can defend yourself, atleast initially, until the cops arrive, just as if the country has even a small capacity to initially defend itself, it can ward off the attack until more well armed and prepared allies can arrive.

And don't take this as support for amphibious capability. I personally think that, once the Afghan mission is over, any money spent on anything but something which would directly contribute to the domestic defence of Canada would be a waste of money. I don't think buying one or two ships whose purpose is to deliver troops to foreign soil is the best use of our resources.

I never said WW3 would be long and drawn out, I said it could be (or it could be over in an afternoon if the nukes start flying).

Your point about the CF-18s is exactly my point about the amphibs.

Yes, they are great and in a world where Canadian defence spending was unlimited, I’d like to have some. I’d also like Arctic capable subs (nuclear or otherwise), a couple of STOL carriers, a few hundred tanks and a few wings of Apaches and a few wings of the latest air-superiority fighter.

However, we live in the real world and defence spending in peacetime has limits (yes, even with the Conservatives in office), so we must choose only those things that will get the biggest bang for the buck (no pun intended).

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

bootlegga bootlegga:

Exactly. They don't need icebreakers but we do. So why try and match capabilites with them when our needs are different?

The Navy is (was) planning to acquire amphibs. The project is in development hell like so many Navy programs.

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml- ... sp?id=2053

Yes, they’ve planned for all sorts of things, it doesn’t mean the government can or will buy them. And you have never answered the question, why do we need to match the capabilities of allies who have different defence needs than us?

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

The navy is so understaffed they paid off one of the four Tribals in 2005. The only service meeting its quotas is the army.

So I guess we should hold off on building any new ships since its pain to find sailors to man them?

Not at all, but buying ships that won’t go to sea is a waste of time and money. Better to spend it on ships we can use for 100 days a year instead of 10 days a year.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

For tsunami assistance, that's all you really need. You don't need LCACs and other assault craft to give out aid. A freighter could just as easily have docked in port and dispensed aid.

If you really have to get to some remote area, the JSS has four helos to do that.

Areas hit by natural disasters may lack ports able to recieve freighters.

Amphibs don't need ports.

That’s a foolish reason to spend a billion or two for ships IMHO.

And like I said, neither does the JSS, it has four helos.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

You mis-interpreted what I wrote.

Given that Afghanistan and Kosovo are both landlocked (and Bosnia is damned near totally landlocked too), having amphbs wouldn't have been of use in any of those countries, unless of course you're aware of an LPD that can fly.

The last time I checked, pretty much every nation that owns amphibs uses them in conjunction with their existing marines. I suppose Canada could buy them and let the RCR or PPCLI train on them once every couple of years, but that sounds like a titanic waste of money to me.

Marines, on the other hand, could have been useful as ground troops to give the RCR/PPCLI/22e longer breaks between deployments.

The Army trains in amphib operations



Someone had better tell these Canadians they are not Marines.

But if you are hung up on the idea that to use an LPD or an LHD you need a Marine Corps we do have a Marine Commando Regiment in the pipeline.

LHD type ships carry a signifigant air wing. You don't have a beach? Just use your Chinooks and drop in by air.

Really, I never knew that…

Of course our troops have trained occasionally (very occasionally at that) in that capability, that doesn’t mean we need to spend a couple billion dollars so they can train like that once a year. Again, I’d rather the navy have ships that are used for a 100 days a year instead of 10.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

We need AORs if we want to maintain any sort of blue water capability. If Canada is happy with its navy being a strictly a coastal force, than we don't need them, just like we don't need new destroyers or even new frigates. All we really need is a dozen subs and more patrol vessels (something better than the MCDVs).

The RO-RO capability was added to help the JSS support forces shore with resupply (presumably in a low threat/peacekeeping environment).

We're spending billions in Afghanistan because our NATO ally (the US) was attacked and asked for our assistance. The government of the day (Liberal) sent troops at their request. The current government continued with that deployment, which is scheduled to end in less than a year.

My point was that we already spend considerable defence dollars on items not strictly needed to defend Canada. Like blue water naval capability.

Don’t convince me, talk to Harper and your MP if you want an amphib.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

$1:

Yes, it takes time to build ships in peacetime, but something tells me if WW3 starts, it'll either be over in an afternoon (at which point we don't need to worry about whether we have amphibs or not) or will be a long drawn out proposition like WW2, and we'll have time to convert to wartime production.

So when war breaks we'll be caught with our pants down and have to play catch up?

Not the way I'd do it.

Not the way I prefer either, but defence spending has its limits, even under Harper (otherwise we wouldn’t even be having this conversation).