Bigger army

[aesop081]

The best thing to kill a sub (I know the Air Types would argue this ) is another sub.

1 Mk 46 selected for TACNAV drop........  ;D

As for Re con, just try and see how close you are going to get to the US or British coast line before detection.

I highly doubt you have any knowledge to back that statement up.....

But even you must admit that all forces need to be increased, and I would hope that even the navy has priorities of where large expenditures would go. Problems lies in the problem that most generals want the biggest toy in the sand box (pool), but that isn't what is needed today. What is needed in 10 years from now may change, but we are at this time Peace keepers and so that is where the money should be spent. To do a half job now because we want equipment that might come in handy in some future time is wastfull and also not fair to the troops in harms way, right now.

So, floowing your logic, because there were no fires in ( insert city name here) last week, the money for the fire department should be spent somewhere's else ?  Stop using the term peacekeeper, that is not what we ( at least not me) are.  We cannot pick and chose what capabilities we will have as , the funny thing about alliances is that when you realy need them, the dont show up for the fight.

As for you contention tha 1 SSN would have done the job, well yet again you show you are in the wrong arena.  to keep 1 single SSN on patrol you need at least 3 ( one comming off patrol, one on patrol and one ready for the next patrol) some for training and one in long term maintenance !!  Now exactly where do you think the money for that will come from ?  As ex-dragoon mentioned, naval warfare has 3 dimesions and if you dont have all of them you are setting yourself up for failiure.

 

[Gunner]

Just a question, When was the last time that a Canadian Sub was used in war?

Turbot Wars with Spain?

 

[KevinB]

Turbot Wars with Spain?

 

[Young KH]

Are we having fun yet????????? LOL

Not such a dead subject is it????????


Let me know when we get some of these new Virginia class SSNs that are being launched now, then you might have a point. As for one only being able to be in one place, I will admit that four have been in more places but mostly every dry dock for repairs. Troops are getting lots of training there.

Another question I have is why did they get rid of the FN Rifle and why?

besides why are we talking Navy when the subject is BIGGER ARMY? Ya I know I started it but only because of where the money has and will be spent.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Guy you are so far out of your lane you are on the otherside of the Highway....you cannot admit you really have no clue about naval warfare and you got caught. Stick with what you know.

 

[aesop081]

Are we having fun yet????????? LOL

Not such a dead subject is it????????


Let me know when we get some of these new Virginia class SSNs that are being launched now, then you might have a point. As for one only being able to be in one place, I will admit that four have been in more places but mostly every dry dock for repairs. Troops are getting lots of training there.

Again, your ignorance of all things naval come to the ......er....surface.

Another question I have is why did they get rid of the FN Rifle and why?

Well it has alot to do with those alliances you are so fond of....

besides why are we talking Navy when the subject is BIGGER ARMY? Ya I know I started it but only because of where the money has and will be spent.

Well, because you brought it up.   And of course, its not just the army that could use a increase in size.   Of course i get the impression that you think that only the army has relevance these days.

The choice of subs is debatable...YES.   But the decision to maintain a subsurface capability for canada was a wise one.

 

[Young KH]

If you look back and read what I wrote and not what you want to see I did admit that I and I quote"As for Navy warfair, I admit that I don't know a thing and don't pretend to" and by the looks of things that is all you want to talk aboutare  these subs.

We are not at war and don't have the Army, Navy or Air Force to be at war any time soon, and if we are lucky never will need to be art war. My point was if we don't have the money to buy good stuff why are we spending it on useless stuff. Now come back and say I don't know what I am talking about, and you would be right because it has been a long time sense the Navy has sent me their schedule on the subs. The only thing any of us including you can comment on is what has been on the news.  so move on to something else because you are not going to convince me that we need the subs and I will never or so it seems convince you that we don't need them. So let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

 

[KevinB]

We are official still at was and have been since 9/11.

We got rid of the FN for good reason - please post away in the weapons forum if you wish to debate this.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

We are not at war and don't have the Army, Navy or Air Force to be at war any time soon, and if we are lucky never will need to be art war.

Tell that to the guys from 3 PPCLI in Kandahar right now, or the guys from 1 CMBG and 1 PPCLI that will be joining them in February...

 

[aesop081]

If you look back and read what I wrote and not what you want to see I did admit that I and I quote"As for Navy warfair, I admit that I don't know a thing and don't pretend to" and by the looks of things that is all you want to talk aboutare  these subs.

We are not at war and don't have the Army, Navy or Air Force to be at war any time soon, and if we are lucky never will need to be art war. My point was if we don't have the money to buy good stuff why are we spending it on useless stuff. Now come back and say I don't know what I am talking about, and you would be right because it has been a long time sense the Navy has sent me their schedule on the subs. The only thing any of us including you can comment on is what has been on the news.  so move on to something else because you are not going to convince me that we need the subs and I will never or so it seems convince you that we don't need them. So let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Actualy, i will agree to disagree.  But since i hunt subs for a living , i'm sure i'm in a good position to comment on our subs and other countries as well, without using what you see in the news.  That is why YOU are out of your lane and i am crusing in mine just fine.  It is your opinion tha money for subs was a waste...thats fine.  You can say that because you have no understanding of what they bring as far as capabilities to the navy and the training oportunities they bring to ASW forces in this country.  Therfore it is your opinion, and yours only, that is based on less than all the facts.  You have so far only demonstrated a lack of depht in strategic thinking and a very "army-centric" narrow field of view.

I fully recognise the army's challenges , having been in the army for 11 years.  Unfortunately we cannot afford to be a large player but that does not absolves us from the responsability to provide a wide range of capabilities in the service of canadians at home and abroad.  The army needs all sorts of new equipment,  i beleive that it should get it.  But dont dilute yourself by thinking that the army is the only game in town because you think we should be peackeepers and not soldiers.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Actualy, i will agree to disagree.  But since i hunt subs for a living , i'm sure i'm in a good position to comment on our subs and other countries as well, without using what you see in the news.  That is why YOU are out of your lane and i am crusing in mine just fine.  It is your opinion tha money for subs was a waste...thats fine.  You can say that because you have no understanding of what they bring as far as capabilities to the navy and the training oportunities they bring to ASW forces in this country.  Therfore it is your opinion, and yours only, that is based on less than all the facts.  You have so far only demonstrated a lack of depht in strategic thinking and a very "army-centric" narrow field of view.

I fully recognise the army's challenges , having been in the army for 11 years.  Unfortunately we cannot afford to be a large player but that does not absolves us from the responsability to provide a wide range of capabilities in the service of canadians at home and abroad.  The army needs all sorts of new equipment,   i beleive that it should get it.  But dont dilute yourself by thinking that the army is the only game in town because you think we should be peackeepers and not soldiers.

Amen.   And if I (for some reason) find myself embarked on the new "joint" ship with CEFCOM HQ and the high readiness battle group, I will be more than grateful for the air defence, sub defence, point defence and sheer firepower represented by the 280s, Halifax frigates, and (yes) submarines that will be part of the task group.   In the same vein, I'm sure that the doorkickers going into some s**thole in Afghanistan will be more than grateful for the Aurora that could well be circling overhead, providing overwatch and intelligence, for the close air support that may come from the CF-18s and, especially, for the helicopters that may lift them out of there.

No one in this day and age works alone - its one team and people have to start getting used to that.  

 

[scm77]

I won't comment since I don't even have a lane to stray out of, but did anyone else notice this thread was started 5 years ago and just bumped up today?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

If you look back and read what I wrote and not what you want to see I did admit that I and I quote"As for Navy warfair, I admit that I don't know a thing and don't pretend to" and by the looks of things that is all you want to talk aboutare  these subs.

You brought them up so I called you on it.

We are not at war and don't have the Army, Navy or Air Force to be at war any time soon, and if we are lucky never will need to be art war. My point was if we don't have the money to buy good stuff why are we spending it on useless stuff.

Are you qualified to judge on what is and not useless for the CF based on experience rather then the newspaper?

Now come back and say I don't know what I am talking about, and you would be right because it has been a long time sense the Navy has sent me their schedule on the subs.

Not likely to happen because the movements of a nations subs are one of the closest guarded secrets a nation has.

The only thing any of us including you can comment on is what has been on the news.

Wrong again, I do this for a living so I know a heck of a lot then what is stated in the news, I work with these guys everyday so I know I have a better idea what they can or cannot do.

 so move on to something else because you are not going to convince me that we need the subs and I will never or so it seems convince you that we don't need them. So let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Maybe next time you will pick an area you know more about.

 

[Young KH]

Well said. fact is I'm not even interested in being on the road at all.

Sorry if I hurt some feelings saying that we have not been at war, But until the Canadian Government formally declares WAR we aren't. The fact that other people feel like they are at war with us does not make it so. I have nothing but respect for all of our troops on station. Fact remains that we are on a UN action. The last time that Canada actually declared war (and yes this is going to brown some people off once again) was when they declared The War Messures Act in Oct. 1970 against the FLQ., but that is another topic.

Now on to some other topics. Fire Engines, If we live in a small town that can't afford to buy fire equipment, we don't. You lose some houses maybe or make an agreement with a neighbouring town or pool the resources of 5 or 6 comunities to fight fires. But to buy a (or 4) nice big Fire Engine just like the big City, only to have snow removal, road repair and so on fall by the way side is dumb. Most small towns have those smarts, why doesn't Canada.

Fact is the Ground troops are the ones that are needed at this time and to send them into any posting with anything but the best of equipment in getting very close to murder. We don't have enough ground troops to be safe at any postings. I am talking Infantry , armored and artillery and their support. They are at this time over worked and have very little time left for training or advancement, let alone a personal life. If that browns people off, Tough, learn to live with it.

Yes I noticed that this was a dead posting and was warned that nobody had posted here for over 100 days. I just wanted to see what would happen.

Maybe the only good suggestion is that all forces should get a percentage of the Military budget and if one group wants a whole bunch of new toys and there is no money left to use them, so be it.

 

[Teddy Ruxpin]

Fact remains that we are on a UN action

And you get this where?  Afghanistan is NOT a UN mission, and there are no blue berets to be seen.

Similarly, declaration of the War Measures Act does not equal a declaration of war.  The last time Canada declared war was on 10 Sept 1939.  Period.

The CF has engaged in combat operations on several occasions since then, including Korea, the Balkans (OP ALLIED FORCE) and, most recently Afghanistan.  Operation APOLLO was certainly war operations, as will be the upcoming Operation ARCHER missions.  To me, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck...

Fact is the Ground troops are the ones that are needed at this time and to send them into any posting with anything but the best of equipment in getting very close to murder. We don't have enough ground troops to be safe at any postings. I am talking Infantry , armored and artillery and their support. They are at this time over worked and have very little time left for training or advancement, let alone a personal life. If that browns people off, Tough, learn to live with it.

You're way out of your lane here; how do you know that we "don't have enough ground troops to be safe"?  Have you deployed recently?

 

[Acorn]

Ken, the modern reality is you don't need a declaration of war to be at war. Korea wasn't declared, it was a UN-sanctioned war though (edit: Teddy R has listed the others). Invoking the War Measures Act is not a declaration of war either.

Ex-Dragoon,

How is it the Navy is the only service that has managed to not only retain capabilities in the past 30 years, but to increase capabilities? The Army looses tanks - the Navy gains new subs. The Air Force loses (effectively) Tactical Aviation - the Navy gets first rate AAW ships (albeit refits of older ships). The Army reduces it's artillery capability drastically - the Navy transitions from an almost pure ASW force to a truly multi-purpose surface fleet. The only capability the Navy has lost (and I would argue the Navy chose to discard it) is NGFS.

How'd you do it when you haven't had a CDS that lasts longer than the Joe Clark government?

Acorn

 

[Infanteer]

My guess is that, for defence planners, naval capability offers the most "bang for the buck" in terms of manpower, resources, and political capital.   We can send ships with a few hundred sailors to the Persian Gulf or we can have thousands of soldiers and airmen with big footprints operating on land where the potential for casualties is much higher.  Since nothing the CF can do with our current Force Structure and Defence Posture will prove to be decisive, we have to send our military to earn the seat at the council fires, and the Navy seems to be the most economical way of doing so.

Not a sleight to our Naval brethren, only a recognition of what Maritime projection offers strategists.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ken, the modern reality is you don't need a declaration of war to be at war. Korea wasn't declared, it was a UN-sanctioned war though (edit: Teddy R has listed the others). Invoking the War Measures Act is not a declaration of war either.

Ex-Dragoon,

How is it the Navy is the only service that has managed to not only retain capabilities in the past 30 years, but to increase capabilities? The Army looses tanks - the Navy gains new subs. The Air Force loses (effectively) Tactical Aviation - the Navy gets first rate AAW ships (albeit refits of older ships). The Army reduces it's artillery capability drastically - the Navy transitions from an almost pure ASW force to a truly multi-purpose surface fleet. The only capability the Navy has lost (and I would argue the Navy chose to discard it) is NGFS.

How'd you do it when you haven't had a CDS that lasts longer than the Joe Clark government?

Acorn

I wish I knew Acorn and I wish the other elements did the same. Believe me no one in the navy gloats when someone else looses out. Maybe its because we have been doing Joint Ops with the AIr Force since Unification for us to realize that the loss of a capability helps no one in the CF. As for the NGS its a capaibility we want back.

 

[Old Sweat]

And we will all (well, most of us) agree that our navy has performed superbly. However, once, as John Manley alluded, the bill arrives, we cannot go to the washroom to avoid the casuatlies and trauma of closing with and destroying the enemy. MacKenzie King tried it in 1939 and had to revamp his policy after the fall of France in 1940. To buy a place at the table requires 21-year old platoon commanders saying "follow me," and a whole bunch of kids standing up, hunching their backs and walking into the gates of hell.

Sorry if I got emotional, but that's the price of nationhood.

 

[aesop081]

Sorry if I got emotional, but that's the price of nationhood.

And IMHO, after years of neglect, canada has run out of room on its credit card.