Is Canada's 'capability gap' military or political': Terry Milewski

Wow, this Terry Milewski has a hate on for Seaspan. For a respected(??) reporter, he doesn't do much research.

Terry's apparent rants aside, I do like the fact that this minster is stating things pretty clearly. If we don't fix it, we will loose it.

Canada and by extension our political parties have always only done lip service to the military, they talk big but do nothing. Shit or get off the pot already!

Sum: Right now the RCN is not a blue water navy but a coast guard.

Knowing our MOD, they will buy some blue dye after 5 years of study to make sure it's Canadian enough, toss it just offshore and proclaim blue water capabilities.

We do need supply ships. But the bigger question is why blue water navy at all? Is such a thing obsolete? Fighter aircraft can launch anti-ship missiles, if deep ocean combat occurred, wouldn't we send CF-18 fighters? Ships are needed to guard our coast, to deal with pirates, and mine clearing. If we engage in mine clearing beyond our coast, that would be a joint action with allies.

For submarines, current technology is the ASROC. According to Wikipedia, the US navy uses the RUM-139 VL-ASROC, launched from a standard vertical launch system, and delivers a Mark 54 torpedo. The advantage of a missile over an aircraft is it launches faster than an aircraft can get off a ship's deck. But why a ship at all? Why not just drop a Mark 54 torpedo from a fighter?

Lacking a blue water Navy, I think potential enemies are going to be getting a little too close for comfort.

Could just be me.

The lack of tankers has NOT restricted the movements of Canadian frigates. They are still deployed around the world.

We do need supply ships. But the bigger question is why blue water navy at all? Is such a thing obsolete? Fighter aircraft can launch anti-ship missiles, if deep ocean combat occurred, wouldn't we send CF-18 fighters? Ships are needed to guard our coast, to deal with pirates, and mine clearing. If we engage in mine clearing beyond our coast, that would be a joint action with allies.

For submarines, current technology is the ASROC. According to Wikipedia, the US navy uses the RUM-139 VL-ASROC, launched from a standard vertical launch system, and delivers a Mark 54 torpedo. The advantage of a missile over an aircraft is it launches faster than an aircraft can get off a ship's deck. But why a ship at all? Why not just drop a Mark 54 torpedo from a fighter?

The idea of a blue water navy is that it gives you the ability to hit almost any foe anywhere in the world and the fact of that ability deters a potential foe from attacking you at home.

And I don't know how many times I've said it but if Canada is betting your national existence on the USA then you're a bunch of fools.

That's because your national existence hinges on the whims of the American electorate as the current election cycle should clearly illustrate.

You people are always just one US election away from being hung out to dry because any Democrat of the modern era is going to be a shitty ally for you.

Not necessarily because of any animosity to Canada but because of their animosity to the US military. If Hillary wins this election then our military will not just be gutted but its effectiveness will be gutted with more of the Democrats stupid fucking social engineering bullshit that has fuck all to do with fighting readiness.

You'd be fools to depend on an American military that maybe has the tools to defend Canada but that lacks the will to do so.

I never said we should depend on Americans. I ask if the concept of a blue water navy is obsolete. That means we should have more and updated fighter jets, patrol aircraft, UAVs. Should we focus on air force instead of blue navy?

We just need a fleet of attack drones.

That's odd since the only candidate I can think of in my entire existence of being a politics junkie who ever voiced threats over the American commitment to NATO has been Donald Trump. Not Bubba Clinton. Not Obama. Not the Hillarybeast. Not even the old-timey election losers, who the GOP told us were wimps, like Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, or Kerry ever said anything like that at all. Trump is the only one I ever heard who went into some idiotic "pay up or fuck off!" mode in relation to any of the partners in the US's international military alliances.

This is why this buffoon is such a menace to the US. If he wins he'll be an isolationist to the point that he'll make previous American xenophobes like Charles Lindburgh and Pat Buchanan look like internationalist statesmen in comparison. And I say that as someone who hasn't been shy in the slightest about how American desperately needs to re-examine it's alleged "need" to be the primary go-to country when it comes to getting involved in any more of this international bullshit (especially in Muslim countries) when a crisis breaks out.

I think we need a balance between surface combat ships and submarines, as well as the support ships to supply them.

However, I don't think 15 + 4 will be enough. I think given our size and how the world is adjusting politically, 30 combat ships should be our goal. 25 "ice hardened" and 5 that are 30 000+ tonne icebreakers. Save half the fleet for dedicated home defence, and the rest can go about the world as they please helping the British in the Falklands, SE asian nations in the south China sea, and Europe in the Baltic or Black sea.

Like I said, I'd like to see balance with subs. Anywhere from 12-18 decent attack subs on each coast, who's mandate is defence. Maybe throw in a couple subs capable of lobbing cruise missiles at unfriendly nations as well as home defence.

Keep in mind, any offensive tool's purpose wouldn't be invasion. The purpose would be preventing the enemy from invading/striking us. You don't need amphibious ships for that. You do need to be able to strike ports, coastal defence installations, and airfields.

What did he actually say?



Also, in light of the EU wanting to form its own supernational military the NATO treaty would be voided as the member nations hand over their militaries to Brussels.

Trump is right, NATO is either at or near obsolescence as it defends against a Soviet foe that no longer exists and most of its membership will shortly cease to exist as sovereign nations.

That doesn't preclude a new agreement with the European Union.

At the same time, NATO is a drag on the US economy as we continue to hold up the lion's share of the commitment while most of the the Western European countries and Canada continue to fail to meet their obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defense.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

The sad fact is that Canadians decided decades ago that they prefer spending money on health care and other social programs, not the military. Politicians have simply fallen in line with those expectations.

That's why Harper, who sounded like he would actually rebuild the military in 2006, balked at buying three JSS (ordered two less capable AORs), three heavy icebreakers (ordered 1 heavy and 4-6 light AOPS instead) and did not sign a contract for the F-35 (thank the heavens).








Oh please, you make it sound like the RCN is composed only of 40 foot patrol boats with a 50 km range.

Canada's navy may not have blue water navy capabilities to operate independently right now, but it is far from a coast guard.

It still maintains major surface combatants that can operate in blue water as part of international task forces, just like the HMCS Fredicton is doing right now.

http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1045039

And that will change in the next year when a leased AOR comes online and allows independent blue water operations again - and it will happen on both coasts when our new AORs enter service around 2020-21.