Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20853
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 2:32 pm
 


Quote:
The new recruitment video opens with images of grey and threatening seas. Then, ghostlike, a frigate glides into view from behind an iceberg. “Wanted: The next generation of sailors,” the ad concludes.

But what that next generation of the navy will look like is a troubled question.

As it enters its second century, the Canadian navy struggles to define a future worthy of its past.

The Conservative government has made lavish promises. The Canada First defence blueprint calls for 15 new destroyers and frigates to replace the existing fleet, starting in 2015, to be followed by 10-12 maritime patrol aircraft, which would be integrated into a surveillance “system of systems” employing everything from sensors to satellites to secure Canada’s maritime borders.

“When you look at all that, over the next 10, 15 years of investment, that is giving us that globally deployable, sea-controlled navy that Canada needs in order to do its most fundamental strategic tasks,” said Captain Serge Bertrand, who handles strategic communications for the navy.

And the need for a properly manned, trained, and equipped navy may never have been more acute. As Douglas Bland, chair of the defence management studies program at Queen’s University observes, Canada’s strategic interests are shifting from Europe and Western Asia to our own hemisphere.

Canada has vital security interests in the Caribbean and Latin America; global warming and oil exploration are turning the Arctic into a strategically contested space, while the Pacific Ocean could be witnessing the early stages of an arms race as China expands its navy.

For this reason, “we should be building a navy-centric armed forces, not an army-centric one,” Prof. Bland believes.

But then there is reality. The navy’s ranks are almost 1,000 bodies below its authorized strength of 8,500 souls. Its two supply ships are in the very last days of seaworthiness. Without replacements, ships will not be able to refuel, drastically limiting their range.

The fleet’s three destroyers are also at the end of their lifespan. But although the Conservative government’s strategic defence plan calls for $50-billion in investments over 20 years, actual purchase orders remain elusive.

“The capital budget has enough to do an army and a navy or an army and an air force,” but not all three, said Brian Macdonald, senior defence analyst at the Conference of Defence Associations, a defence-issues think tank.

And there’s nothing more expensive than a navy. Replacing a single destroyer, for example, will set you back $2-billion.

Yet the predictions of doom obscure real accomplishments, Capt. Bertrand maintains.

The refit of the first of the navy’s 12 Halifax-class frigates will begin in a few months; trials are under way with the much-delayed Cyclone maritime helicopter; the Victoria-class submarines that Canada bought from Britain are finally operational. For the first time in years, recruitment targets have been met.

But when it comes to big-ticket items such as supply ships and destroyers and Arctic patrol craft, the navy has to get in line. The army will be leaving Afghanistan next year, and will have to re-equip for whatever lies ahead. And the air force simply must find a replacement for its fleet of CF-18s, the last of which will have to be grounded within the next few years for safety reasons.

“I've got to lay keels for ships,” General Walter Natynczyk vowed in 2008, when he became Canada's new Chief of the Defence Staff. But during his tenure, nary a keel has been laid.

Plans were going ahead for new supply vessels, but they’ve stalled. The Conservative government announced it would acquire Arctic coastal patrol vessels; that’s now on hold.

Our navy’s past has at times been glorious. But its future will see it unable to deploy in distant lands or patrol its northern sea unless the Conservative government decides to lay some keel and soon.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1555694/


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 63744
PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 3:27 pm
 


Quote:
The navy’s ranks are almost 1,000 bodies below its authorized strength of 8,500 souls.


7,500 sailors is what we call a full battle complement on a single carrier. (5,000 crew and 1,500 Marines).

I say that as, no offense intended, even 8,500 sailors is not near the Navy Canada needs to patrol three oceans.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20853
PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 5:47 am
 


No doubt. In my perfect world, we'd have a small army (about the size it is now), but a much larger air force and navy (at least double their current size). I don't think a carrier is necessary, but more frigates, destroyers and subs are needed, especially hulls with Arctic capability.

Unfortunately, Canadian politicians, regardless of party affliation, are cheap bastards (more so because Canadians themselves don't consider the CF a priority), so expensive services like the Air Force and Navy get new equipment once a generation.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23555
PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 6:23 am
 


If I was to vote, simply based on the treatment of the Navy, I'd consider the NDP.

The CPC has done us no favours.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 9:15 am
 


I think a start would be to rename Maritime Command officially the Canadian Navy or the RCN again. Either will do.

We have HMCS but it's the 'navy'. Canada needs to make up it's mind. The RCN was disbanded in 1969, same as the RCAF and all the 'Air Force' silliness in Air Command is just the same. At the moment we don't have an 'air force' either.

Every country has it's national moniker on it's navy and air force, it's time we sorted this name issue out.

It might seem a small thing but names hold weight in the military world.


Offline
CKA Elite
CKA Elite
 Calgary Flames
Profile
Posts: 3598
PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 10:33 am
 


BartSimpson wrote:
Quote:
The navy’s ranks are almost 1,000 bodies below its authorized strength of 8,500 souls.


7,500 sailors is what we call a full battle complement on a single carrier. (5,000 crew and 1,500 Marines).

I say that as, no offense intended, even 8,500 sailors is not near the Navy Canada needs to patrol three oceans.


Sailors in the American Navy are very job/task specific. I remember a story my Dad told me once, His ship the Skeena took an American cook onboard on an exchange, my Pop running the galley tried again and again to get this guy to help prepare the meals, fianlly sent him to the PO because the guy was useless in the gally, turns out he was a sausier (spelling?) as in he JUST makes sauces and gravy, his whole purpose was to do this, while the cooks in the galley for this ship are all expected to help in all aspects of the meal.
Same goes for boarding parties, the US has their Navy Seals whereas Canada has anyone qualified onship at the time.
At one time we had the 3rd largest Navy in the world, it's sad that within 100 years it's gotten to this point.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Ottawa Senators


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 17037
PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 10:45 am
 


bootlegga wrote:
No doubt. In my perfect world, we'd have a small army (about the size it is now), but a much larger air force and navy (at least double their current size). I don't think a carrier is necessary, but more frigates, destroyers and subs are needed, especially hulls with Arctic capability.

Unfortunately, Canadian politicians, regardless of party affliation, are cheap bastards (more so because Canadians themselves don't consider the CF a priority), so expensive services like the Air Force and Navy get new equipment once a generation.


Too true. Canada should stick to having an excellently-trained and well-equipped force perhaps a tad larger than what we have now, but our Air Force and Navy need to be a top priority, especially with the Arctic warming up. The Air Force and the Navy are our first lines of defense in Canada and can go farther and for longer than the army. Canada's navy should get some Amphibious Assault Ships at some point. Perhaps we could buy a Mistral-Class from the French like the Russians did...


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20853
PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 11:14 am
 


Choban wrote:
His ship the Skeena took an American cook onboard on an exchange, my Pop running the galley tried again and again to get this guy to help prepare the meals, fianlly sent him to the PO because the guy was useless in the gally, turns out he was a sausier (spelling?) as in he JUST makes sauces and gravy, his whole purpose was to do this, while the cooks in the galley for this ship are all expected to help in all aspects of the meal.


It's actually saucier, which translated literally means sauce chef. It's quite common in large kitchens, as well as better restaurants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saucier

When I was younger and worked at Earl's, we had a baker, a saucier, as well as several other prep cooks. Learning how to make sauces is an important part of becoming a chef.

Choban wrote:
At one time we had the 3rd largest Navy in the world, it's sad that within 100 years it's gotten to this point.


Canada might have had the 3rd largest navy in the world after WW2, but it was mostly small ships, such as corvettes and small frigates. I think at our zenith, we had 2 cruisers and 3 carriers (2 of them escort carriers holding about a dozen planes), and a dozen or two destroyers. We had a corvette navy, while everyone else had a capital ship navy, with plenty of cruisers, carriers and battleships. There's nothing wrong with that, but people read "third biggest navy" and don't realize the context it was in. One WW2 USN/RN battlegroup probably had more firepower than the entire RCN.

It's unrealistic to expect Canada to maintain the world's third largest navy, given that our economy and population couldn't sustain it for very long, but we definitely should have more than 3 DDGs, 12 FFGs, and 4 SSKs for combatants.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 11:16 am
 


Choban wrote:
BartSimpson wrote:
Quote:
The navy’s ranks are almost 1,000 bodies below its authorized strength of 8,500 souls.


7,500 sailors is what we call a full battle complement on a single carrier. (5,000 crew and 1,500 Marines).

I say that as, no offense intended, even 8,500 sailors is not near the Navy Canada needs to patrol three oceans.


Sailors in the American Navy are very job/task specific. I remember a story my Dad told me once, His ship the Skeena took an American cook onboard on an exchange, my Pop running the galley tried again and again to get this guy to help prepare the meals, fianlly sent him to the PO because the guy was useless in the gally, turns out he was a sausier (spelling?) as in he JUST makes sauces and gravy, his whole purpose was to do this, while the cooks in the galley for this ship are all expected to help in all aspects of the meal.
Same goes for boarding parties, the US has their Navy Seals whereas Canada has anyone qualified onship at the time.
At one time we had the 3rd largest Navy in the world, it's sad that within 100 years it's gotten to this point.


That's the way the US forces work. They are very job specific and specialised whereas the Brits, Canadians etc have a more all encompassing job spec but are less specialised.

I suppose it comes from having millions of guys.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20853
PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 11:24 am
 


Arctic_Menace wrote:
bootlegga wrote:
No doubt. In my perfect world, we'd have a small army (about the size it is now), but a much larger air force and navy (at least double their current size). I don't think a carrier is necessary, but more frigates, destroyers and subs are needed, especially hulls with Arctic capability.

Unfortunately, Canadian politicians, regardless of party affliation, are cheap bastards (more so because Canadians themselves don't consider the CF a priority), so expensive services like the Air Force and Navy get new equipment once a generation.


Too true. Canada should stick to having an excellently-trained and well-equipped force perhaps a tad larger than what we have now, but our Air Force and Navy need to be a top priority, especially with the Arctic warming up. The Air Force and the Navy are our first lines of defense in Canada and can go farther and for longer than the army. Canada's navy should get some Amphibious Assault Ships at some point. Perhaps we could buy a Mistral-Class from the French like the Russians did...


I don't see amphibs as a must have right now at all. Amphibs are really offensive weapons, and for defending the Arctic, we need defensive weapons.

I'd prefer more smaller hulls than a couple of large ones. LPDs can be built if we ever go to war and need them, but I see them as a waste of money unless we plan on projecting force somewhere, which I don't see happening for years.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13956
PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 11:37 am
 


Considering we have zillions of miles of coastline on 3 coasts, it really shouldn't take a person with a military background to appreciate the fact that the near decrepit surface fleet and 7500 or sailors we have in the Navy, just don't cut it.
And sure, a new destroyer might cost 2 billion, but if we quit uselessly shipping money off to places like Africa and bailing out grossly mismanaged corporations, we'd actually HAVE the money to buy more than 1 or 2 new destroyers and supply ships.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20853
PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 11:42 am
 


PublicAnimalNo9 wrote:
Considering we have zillions of miles of coastline on 3 coasts, it really shouldn't take a person with a military background to appreciate the fact that the near decrepit surface fleet and 7500 or sailors we have in the Navy, just don't cut it.
And sure, a new destroyer might cost 2 billion, but if we quit uselessly shipping money off to places like Africa and bailing out grossly mismanaged corporations, we'd actually HAVE the money to buy more than 1 or 2 new destroyers and supply ships.


R=UP

Had Harper any foresight, he would have made sure that part of the 'stimulus' package he doled out to corporations last year went to building some ships for the navy. Given that we don't currently have a big enough shipyard to build the JSS, he could have used part of it to build one, so that we could build it here.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 15681
PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 11:47 am
 


The problem is that Canada has historically only invested in defence during times of great peril.

The Afghan mission has meant that the Army and airlift portions of Air Command have got new equipment. It makes sense to equip the guys actually fighting right now with what's needed right now.

The problems are obvious on under funding though. It's a disgrace that our infantry units are not given air support by CF18's and makes no sense to me at all.

I also agree that we need to invest in coastal/arctic defence with tailor made surface ships and maritime strike/patrol aircraft but I don't see any political will for a bigger defence budget from ANY party.

My bet is that things will plod on as usual until the Russians start sailing down our fjords.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Toronto Maple Leafs
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 13956
PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 12:05 pm
 


Sadly Eyebrock, you're all too right. This gov't (previous ones too)and too many Canadians for my liking look at our military like an embarrassing bastard child that no-one wants to admit having, but have no problem "using" that child for it's unique ability(ies) when it suits them.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 20853
PostPosted: Fri May 07, 2010 12:16 pm
 


EyeBrock wrote:
The problem is that Canada has historically only invested in defence during times of great peril.

The Afghan mission has meant that the Army and airlift portions of Air Command have got new equipment. It makes sense to equip the guys actually fighting right now with what's needed right now.

The problems are obvious on under funding though. It's a disgrace that our infantry units are not given air support by CF18's and makes no sense to me at all.

I also agree that we need to invest in coastal/arctic defence with tailor made surface ships and maritime strike/patrol aircraft but I don't see any political will for a bigger defence budget from ANY party.

My bet is that things will plod on as usual until the Russians start sailing down our fjords.


That's for sure. I think Harper was genuinely surprised that his big defence promises (which are just that promises, not action), didn't garner him any more votes. That's probably why he hasn't come through on his expensive promises, like new ships for the navy.

The last politicians to really care about the CF were Liberals (St. Laurent and Pearson), but they had the crucible of WW2 to make them remember why the CF was important. The current crop of Libs has their head too far up the 'Green Revolution' to see anything else unfortunately.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  1  2  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest




 
     
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.