CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 2424
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 2:13 am
 


rickc rickc:
No matter what Canada decides to call its Navy,I think some major upgrades are in order.A lot of countries with regional navies can exist with non-nuclear navies.If Canada wants to keep the Maple leaf planted in the Artic,I see no alternative to a nuclear navy.


Active sonar net with a quick response team to intercept anything that sets it off, finding a sub with a sub is nearly impossible and Canada has a lot of political and economic leverage that can be used when a nation refuses to comply, all it takes is a government with a backbone.

$1:
It is a vast amount of water to patrol.There is no way a non nuclear sub force and its refueling demands can stand up to potential nuclear adversaries.


There is no way any force can patrol it all, what we can do is use stationary sonar nets to keep the cost far lower.

$1:
Arm twisting us Americans {while you have a favorable U.S. government in office},buying from France,etc.Canada is going to have to belly up to the bar.Mabey its time for Canada to cut back on "peace keeping" and solving other peoples problems,and start concerning themselves with the upcoming problems of the 21st century.


The main problem of the 21st century is peacekeeping; America and Russia tore apart any country they got involved with and weren't directly allied to, African nations fight genocides and rampant crime, South America fights drug cartels who control large swaths of their countries, Middle East struggles with terror groups that were created by the Russians or Americans, and the list goes on. We are cleaning up a mess that was created because one side decided anything capitalist was evil and the other decided anything communist was evil, if anything not enough is being done to fix the mess the Cold War created.

There is an entire world out there to bring up to livable standards of life, doing so is a thing Canadians take pride in, many countries cannot be left on their own anymore as they are unstable at best in more ways than you can count, they need help.

$1:
Canada is like the European nuetrals in the 1930's.See the handwriting on the wall.Other countries are wheeling and dealing,making treaties to carve up the Artic.Countries are making treaties with each other,and leaving Canada out of the process.


False, Canada is actually actively pursuing control over Arctic areas and we have been included in many proposed treaties over the Arctic. Canada is regularly working with the Americans to gain control over chunks of the Arctic.

$1:
Take some friendly advice from someone who used to live in Canada.Canadians are polite to a fault.Sometimes Canadians would rather lose everything rather than being seen as being rude.The world IS changing.If Canada is serious about keeping the Artic,then Canada is going to have to be taken seriously.


Canadians are very polite, I will give you that, but we do have a backbone and we will stand up to anyone when feel we have been wronged, we regularly call out the USA and get into massive arguments. We may not be seen seriously by some but the world does include us because they show us the same kindness we have shown them and do realize that we will get involved if it effects us. Canada's power is not simply measured by its military, we have control over vast resources, we are on good terms with most countries, and politically we do have a lot of influence when we start talking because our opinion does matter.

$1:
No one is going to take a non nuclear navy seriously.

No one is going to take a country that is unable to change even if it means the collapse of their economy seriously either. Canada does not need to be nuclear, Canada needs to maintain a decent military that is able to perform the tasks that we require, having more would be nice but it is not needed. The greatest threat to our security is whenever a country decides to ignore our sovereignty and send subs into our waters without permission, some are dumb enough to get caught in the act.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35283
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 6:25 am
 


The nuclear option is bogus. AIP and stealth is the way to go, look at the Swedes and Germans:

Visby Class Corvettes

U212/214

Nuke subs make too much noise compared to AIP.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 6:47 am
 


c2shinysea c2shinysea:
$1:
In the military there is a lot in a name and history/heritage. It is the tie that binds our bands of brothers.


With all due respect EyeBrock, why don't I pull up a sand bag and light the old lamp and you can regale me with stories of old naval traditions. Or is my having two generations of Air Force, two generations of Horse Artys, four generations of Royal Marines and seven generations of Naval personnel going to cut short your story time? Shall I take note that the histories of my family and those members that find themselves named on memorials in Ypres, Falklands, Singapore, Burma, Hong Kong, Halifax, Ortona, Malta, Korea and Afghanistan aren't the stuff that binds the bands of brothers?

Lecture all you'd like on the traditions and snot rendering cliches, decry all those who fail to comprehend the importance of antiquated terms and please by all means, feel free to gloss over that most folks in the CF don't give a rats ass about what name we operate under as long we have the bodies, equipment and transport to do our jobs. The days of hanging out in the messes are over. Folks nowadays just want to go home at the end of the day whether that day extends to 6-12 month deployments or it's a 7-4 day at the base. My day does not end with sitting around with the boys telling a ditty or two over a tot or seven, but beetling on home to spend what precious time I have left with my family before I dig into my briefcase for the notes I need to prepare for yet another Briefing on what we need to do to make something else better or struggle with tearing apart another fiscal budget because it has to be reduced by another 15% and I have to decide that it's either training or operational money that has to go.

What I find with most of the old 'n bold is that they miss the days of old, God love them for it, but they can't or won't comprehend that things have changed in the CF that they once knew. Sadly, those days of old where Zulu warriors were danced on tables of NAAFI and pub crawls meant days not a few nods at the local are long gone and most of the old 'n bold won't admit it.

So please do tell me what traditions I need to know that are going to make me a better sailor and part of that band of brothers you speak of. Tell me how renaming an element is going to assist units like mine to scrape together funding to keep some of the Class B's employed for another year and how do we keep our valuable pers from jumping ship because they've done more than their share of duty and they are tired, worn out physically and want to know who their kids are before they have grandkids. I'm all ears.


The fact that you don't seem to give a toss about those days says it all mate.

I did ten in and most of my mates are still in. Esprit-de-corps and a knowledge of where you came from and those who went before won't replace family time but it does make sure that units know why they are there.

If you and others see service as just another job then Hellyer did more damage to the CF than we all thought.

Mates of mine in the PPCLI and RCR don't see things quite your way thankfully.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
 Ottawa Senators
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7684
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 7:11 am
 


Scape Scape:
The nuclear option is bogus. AIP and stealth is the way to go, look at the Swedes and Germans:

Visby Class Corvettes

U212/214

Nuke subs make too much noise compared to AIP.


AIP is great for stealth... not so great if you have to get anywhere in a hurry.

I could spit faster.

I suppose which option is best depends on what we want to do with them.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 7:20 am
 


Get those U-Boats from the Box-Heads. They will do the job.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 8:51 am
 


EyeBrock EyeBrock:
Even the US Navy celebrates it's Brit heritage.


Well, more to the point, the US Navy celebrates its heritage of being the first naval force in the world to give pause to the Royal Navy. The USS Constitution is a living legacy to the fact that the Royal Navy made as policy for its ships not to tangle with US ships unless the odds were at least 3:1 in their favor. And that's because in any even match the Brtish knew the outcome before the battle was joined. Five successive 1-on-1 battles were won by the Constitution before the British gave up the notion of a fair fight.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 9:00 am
 


That too!


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23084
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 9:51 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I'm all for calling it the Royal Canadian Navy when it deserves such a name. Until such time, the more appropriate name would be the Royal Canadian Task Force.


Seriously not cool, man.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 9:57 am
 


EyeBrock EyeBrock:
That too!


"Purser! A double ration of rum for this man!"

[B-o]


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23084
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 9:58 am
 


EyeBrock EyeBrock:
And we should disband proud regiments instead of court-martialling the bad apples too.

Hellyer had a bad attitude along with a record of zero combat while he was in. He just hated the historical links to the UK that the CF had. Add in the 1960's, Trudeau, Vietnam and we have a purely political decision to break up the Services.


That was tried and the CAR was still full of bad apples. They had people setting fire to other members cars for fucks sake, nevermind the hazing BS and torturing Somali kids. Their discipline issues went back to the 80s. It wasn't anything that just popped up because of a few bad apples. They needed a tough hand, which HQ wasn't willing/refused to provide.

I didn't care for integration (sailors wearing army fatigues - WTF), but from a logistical standpoint, it made a lot of sense. Why should each service need its own medical and dental services? Integration, cock-up that it was, still removed a lot fo redundancies.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23084
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 10:00 am
 


c2shinysea c2shinysea:
Tell me how renaming an element is going to assist units like mine to scrape together funding to keep some of the Class B's employed for another year and how do we keep our valuable pers from jumping ship because they've done more than their share of duty and they are tired, worn out physically and want to know who their kids are before they have grandkids. I'm all ears.


Good point. Changing a name won't do fuck all if there isn't money to replace worn down ships and retiring crew.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 65472
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 10:35 am
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I'm all for calling it the Royal Canadian Navy when it deserves such a name. Until such time, the more appropriate name would be the Royal Canadian Task Force.


Seriously not cool, man.


You're not quoting the part where I said 'no offence'. I truly mean no offence.

You probably missed the 100 to 500 posts I've made on this site over the years agitating for Canada to have a Navy worthy of the name and, more importantly, capable of protecting Canada without US help. I can say this with authority that there is no greater advocate of a Canadian Navy than myself.

But I also stand by what I said in that the Royal Canadian Navy was a Royal Canadian Navy worthy of the name. Calling today's maritime force a 'navy' is an act of braggadocio or hubris, not a statement of fact.

Canada needs a navy that can, at a rational minimum, control the seas around Canada 24/7/365.

As I posited a few years ago, the US Navy is going to be far smaller and weaker when Obama gets through with it and that means Canada will, of necessity, need to shoulder more of the burden of patrolling Canadian waters. Granted, the Atlantic and Pacific are adequately patrolled by the CF. But the Arctic is patrolled exclusively by US nuclear subs in the winter.

I've noticed no one calls me 'paranoid' any more when I mention the Russians as a threat to Canada in the Arctic and that's because the Russians have made it abundantly clear that they are a threat to Canada's interests in the Arctic. And Russia has a navy to enforce their claims while Canada, so far, has the US Navy to protect Canada's claims. Obama is going to cure Canada of having the US Navy to run interference so that means Canada needs attack subs that can patrol under the ice for extended periods. Canadians might be averse to a nuclear navy, but it is apparent you need one in a post-American 21st Century.

I also support Canada having at least two (preferably three) small carriers sporting VTOL jet fighters and attack helicopters - somewhat cheaper than fleet carriers - to make Canada the blue water navy it needs to be in order to protect fishing rights and etc. in a resource hungry world.

When it comes down to it, I support Canada's building a navy, not just calling a glorified coast guard service a navy.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23084
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 11:19 am
 


BartSimpson BartSimpson:
bootlegga bootlegga:
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
I'm all for calling it the Royal Canadian Navy when it deserves such a name. Until such time, the more appropriate name would be the Royal Canadian Task Force.


Seriously not cool, man.


You're not quoting the part where I said 'no offence'. I truly mean no offence.

You probably missed the 100 to 500 posts I've made on this site over the years agitating for Canada to have a Navy worthy of the name and, more importantly, capable of protecting Canada without US help. I can say this with authority that there is no greater advocate of a Canadian Navy than myself.

But I also stand by what I said in that the Royal Canadian Navy was a Royal Canadian Navy worthy of the name. Calling today's maritime force a 'navy' is an act of braggadocio or hubris, not a statement of fact.

Canada needs a navy that can, at a rational minimum, control the seas around Canada 24/7/365.

As I posited a few years ago, the US Navy is going to be far smaller and weaker when Obama gets through with it and that means Canada will, of necessity, need to shoulder more of the burden of patrolling Canadian waters. Granted, the Atlantic and Pacific are adequately patrolled by the CF. But the Arctic is patrolled exclusively by US nuclear subs in the winter.

I've noticed no one calls me 'paranoid' any more when I mention the Russians as a threat to Canada in the Arctic and that's because the Russians have made it abundantly clear that they are a threat to Canada's interests in the Arctic. And Russia has a navy to enforce their claims while Canada, so far, has the US Navy to protect Canada's claims. Obama is going to cure Canada of having the US Navy to run interference so that means Canada needs attack subs that can patrol under the ice for extended periods. Canadians might be averse to a nuclear navy, but it is apparent you need one in a post-American 21st Century.

I also support Canada having at least two (preferably three) small carriers sporting VTOL jet fighters and attack helicopters - somewhat cheaper than fleet carriers - to make Canada the blue water navy it needs to be in order to protect fishing rights and etc. in a resource hungry world.

When it comes down to it, I support Canada's building a navy, not just calling a glorified coast guard service a navy.


A navy is a navy regardless of how many ships it has.

Our 'glorified little coast guard' as you call it, has 12 excellent frigates (so good that they are the only non-US frigates in the world that can be slotted into a US carrier group), three very good anti-air defence destroyers (despite the hulls being old, the electronics and weapons are quite modern), and 4 SSKs, one of which was capable enough to sneak through a British task group's defences and get into position to sink an aircraft carrier.

Does our navy need some new ships? Sure, but who's navy doesn't these days. Hell, you've been bitching in another thread that the Gates might not fund 11 supercarrier groups. If the USN shrinks to 4 or 5, is it too a glorified coast guard?

And yes, I've read your proposals for Canadian carriers and amphibs and all that. That still doesn't justify calling another nation's navy a task force.

You can say 'no offence', but whether or not you intend it, it is still there.

I could just as easily say American soldiers are a bunch of war-mongering hormone-driven assholes, and then add in some BS qualifier afterwards about a handful of US troops, and you'd still be right to take offence at that statement (not that I'm saying that, it's just an example).

Why? Because I'd be slandering the entire US Army.

The fact is you're smearing an entire service and it's not cool.


Offline
CKA Super Elite
CKA Super Elite
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 7710
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 11:33 am
 


Gunnair Gunnair:
Royal Canadian Navy is preferred.


:rock: R=UP


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2010 11:42 am
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
And we should disband proud regiments instead of court-martialling the bad apples too.

Hellyer had a bad attitude along with a record of zero combat while he was in. He just hated the historical links to the UK that the CF had. Add in the 1960's, Trudeau, Vietnam and we have a purely political decision to break up the Services.


That was tried and the CAR was still full of bad apples. They had people setting fire to other members cars for fucks sake, nevermind the hazing BS and torturing Somali kids. Their discipline issues went back to the 80s. It wasn't anything that just popped up because of a few bad apples. They needed a tough hand, which HQ wasn't willing/refused to provide.

I didn't care for integration (sailors wearing army fatigues - WTF), but from a logistical standpoint, it made a lot of sense. Why should each service need its own medical and dental services? Integration, cock-up that it was, still removed a lot fo redundancies.


See, I just think that this was a cop-out. I've seen and been involved in a few courts-martial with very similar incidents of unruly behaviour in the British Army. Offenders were dealt with severely, jailed, kicked out etc.

To say the CAR couldn't have been dealt with the same way is a cop-out.

On intergration, it was a purely political decision. Pissing on a proud history may not seem like a big deal to the guys in the CF who just see it as a job but I've met many guys who value their regiment's history and tradition.

Saying we are all has-beens from the Naafi just smacks of a bad attitude. I have commonality with vets from WW2, Korea etc.

I've never heard anybody diss heritage and tradition before and to the guys I've met and served with, the name of the Service, Squadron, Regiment etc that they serve in is very important.

If this sort of thinking is standard in Maritime Command, then they have real issues. I had thought Canadian sailors were similar in outlook to the RN. It would appear not on the face of it.

I don't get this kinda of PP attitude from Gunnair. Must be all that Jock blood in him......


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 100 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.