news Canadian News
Good Evening Guest | login or register
  • Home
    • Canadian News
    • Popular News
    • News Voting Log
    • News Images
  • Forums
    • Recent Topics Scroll
    •  
    • Politics Forums
    • Sports Forums
    • Regional Forums
  • Content
    • Achievements
    • Canadian Content
    • Famous Canadians
    • Famous Quotes
    • Jokes
    • Canadian Maps
  • Photos
    • Picture Gallery
    • Wallpapers
    • Recent Activity
  • About
    • About
    • Contact
    • Link to Us
    • Points
    • Statistics
  • Shop
  • Register
    • Gold Membership
  • Archive
    • Canadian TV
    • Canadian Webcams
    • Groups
    • Links
    • Top 10's
    • Reviews
    • CKA Radio
    • Video
    • Weather

Arctic security improvements recommended

Canadian Content
20666news upnews down
Link Related to Canada in some say

Arctic security improvements recommended


Misc CDN | 206655 hits | Jun 18 12:14 am | Posted by: Hyack
22 Comment

Canada should take a greater interest in its stewardship of the Arctic and move ahead with measures to strengthen its ability to exercise security and control over the region, a Commons committee says.

Comments

  1. by avatar bootlegga
    Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:22 pm
    The ships originally were to be delivered between 2012 and 2016, but the process seems to be in limbo since August 2008 when all bids received exceeded the amount budgeted, the committee noted.


    Sigh...

  2. by avatar saturn_656
    Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:33 pm
    "bootlegga" said
    The ships originally were to be delivered between 2012 and 2016, but the process seems to be in limbo since August 2008 when all bids received exceeded the amount budgeted, the committee noted.


    Sigh...


    I hope JSS gets tossed in the garbage bin of naval designs.

    Much better to procure 2-3 dedicated AOR and 1-2 LHD type ships.

  3. by avatar bootlegga
    Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:35 pm
    "saturn_656" said
    The ships originally were to be delivered between 2012 and 2016, but the process seems to be in limbo since August 2008 when all bids received exceeded the amount budgeted, the committee noted.


    Sigh...


    I hope JSS gets tossed in the garbage bin of naval designs.

    Much better to procure 2-3 dedicated AOR and 1-2 LHD type ships.

    Yeah, well given that Harper is too cheap to spend $3.2 billion on the JSS, I can't imagine him spending even more on that either.

    Frankly, I think the JSS is a good compromise for us.

  4. by avatar martin14
    Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:45 pm
    "bootlegga" said
    The ships originally were to be delivered between 2012 and 2016, but the process seems to be in limbo since August 2008 when all bids received exceeded the amount budgeted, the committee noted.


    Sigh...



    For a change booty, agreed R=UP



    That Committee is a joke. The recommendations are a joke.

    New vessels need to proceed right away, and armed.
    Put a ficking Bofurs 40mm on them ferchrissake. ;)

    People living in the North should be getting winter fighting training and equipment, along with the CF.

    A decent radar system, and regularly publicized air patrols over our territory,
    along with a whack of new ships for interception duties.

    I mean, for the love of God, my father worked on the design of the
    Louis St. Laurent.. she's getting old.


    If we were Commies, we could establish whole populations of Canadians up there,
    new towns, resource development, the works.

    But I guess everyone needs to live in Toronto for some reason.. :(

  5. by avatar saturn_656
    Fri Jun 18, 2010 4:48 pm
    "bootlegga" said
    Yeah, well given that Harper is too cheap to spend $3.2 billion on the JSS, I can't imagine him spending even more on that either.

    Frankly, I think the JSS is a good compromise for us.


    No well deck, no full length flight deck.

    You can just about write off any serious amphibious capability with that design.

    It is a poor compromise.

  6. by avatar bootlegga
    Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:35 pm
    "saturn_656" said
    Yeah, well given that Harper is too cheap to spend $3.2 billion on the JSS, I can't imagine him spending even more on that either.

    Frankly, I think the JSS is a good compromise for us.


    No well deck, no full length flight deck.

    You can just about write off any serious amphibious capability with that design.

    It is a poor compromise.

    It was never intended for use as an amphibious assault ship, it was intended for use as; an AOR, a command and control ship, a medical/dental facility, some ability to sealift ground units (transferring them in port, not at sea), with some added helo capability. Anyone using a ship loaded with ammo and fuel as an amphib would have to be insane.

    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.

  7. by avatar saturn_656
    Fri Jun 18, 2010 7:55 pm
    "bootlegga" said
    Yeah, well given that Harper is too cheap to spend $3.2 billion on the JSS, I can't imagine him spending even more on that either.

    Frankly, I think the JSS is a good compromise for us.


    No well deck, no full length flight deck.

    You can just about write off any serious amphibious capability with that design.

    It is a poor compromise.

    It was never intended for use as an amphibious assault ship, it was intended for use as; an AOR, a command and control ship, a medical/dental facility, some ability to sealift ground units (transferring them in port, not at sea), with some added helo capability. Anyone using a ship loaded with ammo and fuel as an amphib would have to be insane.

    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.

    If it wasn't intended to operate as an Amphib, then what does it carry LCVPs for?

  8. by avatar bootlegga
    Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:06 pm
    "saturn_656" said

    No well deck, no full length flight deck.

    You can just about write off any serious amphibious capability with that design.

    It is a poor compromise.


    It was never intended for use as an amphibious assault ship, it was intended for use as; an AOR, a command and control ship, a medical/dental facility, some ability to sealift ground units (transferring them in port, not at sea), with some added helo capability. Anyone using a ship loaded with ammo and fuel as an amphib would have to be insane.

    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.

    If it wasn't intended to operate as an Amphib, then what does it carry LCVPs for?

    They were to be used for supporting forces ashore, not assault landings. The JSS was initially designed to replace the Protecteur class, and had a few capabilites added to them because of their large size.

    It was never intended as an amphibious assault ship. Two LCVPs would land what, a platoon or two? What good would that do? If you wanted to insert a small force like that, the four Cyclones it carried would be a better option.

    Like I said, who would be dumb enough to use a ship loaded with 1000+ tonnes of ammo and 10,000+ tonnes of fuel to launch an amphibious assault from? I would hope our admirals would be smarter than that...

  9. by avatar saturn_656
    Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:20 pm
    "bootlegga" said
    They were to be used for supporting forces ashore, not assault landings. The JSS was initially designed to replace the Protecteur class, and had a few capabilites added to them because of their large size.

    It was never intended as an amphibious assault ship. Two LCVPs would land what, a platoon or two? What good would that do? If you wanted to insert a small force like that, the four Cyclones it carried would be a better option.

    Like I said, who would be dumb enough to use a ship loaded with 1000+ tonnes of ammo and 10,000+ tonnes of fuel to launch an amphibious assault from? I would hope our admirals would be smarter than that...


    So you agree that the LCVPs are pointless deck ornaments on a ship with no real amphibious capability?

    Why even bother? A couple ro-ro's could be bought for a heck of a lot less than the JSS.

  10. by avatar KorbenDeck
    Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:23 pm
    Just buy some freaken nuclear subs. Russia is downsizing get those ones!

  11. by avatar saturn_656
    Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:25 pm
    "bootlegga" said
    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?

  12. by DerbyX
    Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:27 pm
    "saturn_656" said
    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?

    That Canada doesn't actually have to pay for stuff using tax revenues?

  13. by avatar saturn_656
    Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:32 pm
    "DerbyX" said
    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?

    That Canada doesn't actually have to pay for stuff using tax revenues?

    Amphibious assets are not "rich mans toys". Aussies just bought two, the Dutch have two, Spaniards have two or three.

    Significant navies have these assets.

  14. by avatar bootlegga
    Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:48 pm
    "saturn_656" said
    They were to be used for supporting forces ashore, not assault landings. The JSS was initially designed to replace the Protecteur class, and had a few capabilites added to them because of their large size.

    It was never intended as an amphibious assault ship. Two LCVPs would land what, a platoon or two? What good would that do? If you wanted to insert a small force like that, the four Cyclones it carried would be a better option.

    Like I said, who would be dumb enough to use a ship loaded with 1000+ tonnes of ammo and 10,000+ tonnes of fuel to launch an amphibious assault from? I would hope our admirals would be smarter than that...


    So you agree that the LCVPs are pointless deck ornaments on a ship with no real amphibious capability?

    Why even bother? A couple ro-ro's could be bought for a heck of a lot less than the JSS.

    JSS was going to have RO-RO and LO-Lo capability. That was the sealift I was talking about.



view comments in forum
Page 1 2

You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news.

  • Login
  • Register (free)
 Share  Digg It Bookmark to del.icio.us Share on Facebook


Share on Facebook Submit page to Reddit
CKA About |  Legal |  Advertise |  Sitemap |  Contact   canadian mobile newsMobile

All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net