- Reaction score
- 4,073
- Points
- 1,120
Roadracer said:Canada's national defence depends on having a balanced capability on land/sea/air. The naval component is relatively easily deployable to anywhere in the world (North Korea next?) and provides a defensive capability in national waters. You were obviously not in during the Turbot War if you feel the CCG is the ONLY answer to defence of national interests in Canada's littoral.
And we are waaaaaaayyyy off topic. The Phalanx debate does continue. Part of the discussions are apparently the actually utility of such things in theatre and how they would be supported. Originally it was felt that some army trades could get by with a little extra training on the units (!). Cooler heads have prevailed and it is now realized that (for Canada) use of these in AFG will require a significant naval footprint on the ground for a protracted time.
Also, what does this do to the fighting efficiency of the fleet? How many ships can remain fully deployable (i.e. at high readiness)? Where will the navy require their units next (again the NK thing is one example)?
Turbot War....almost forgot about that one. It was an interesting time on the Gotta-go when I was out there. CCG got the credit, but from what I heard, we were ordered not to go into Newf, so the CCG could get the PR boost.
From the open source stuff on the web, it's obvious to me that the US have continued to have a naval presence with their C-RAM's, as some of the quotes in the stories are from "Petty-officer" so-and-so, or Chief so-and-so.....
I'd heard rumors of Cadpat people sitting in on courses at NAD, but for at least a while, the experienced bodies would have to be sailors I think.
As for dropping a CIWS onto an armoured chassis, well, I don't think that'd go too far, too much bulk to fit easily. It takes up (from the pics I've seen) the greater part of an 18 wheeler flat-bed.
Oh, and the rumbles I've heard might involve new purchases, instead of borrowing from active units in the fleet.
NS