Lake ontario

[guns_and_roses]

Is it posible to build a naval port in Lake Ontario. Like at Toronto? Or is it not deep enough?

 

[bwilliams]

I would think because some of our ships have been docked down by Ontario Place that it would be possible, but the question would be - why?  What would be the strategical advantage of a port in Lake Ontario - or for that matter in Toronto?

 

[Danjanou]

Aside from the why bother aspect already noted, I think you'll also find there is a treaty with the US limiting the numbers and sizes of warships from both countries on the Great Lakes.

 

[JBoyd]

My question is, how are they going to get through to the ocean? is the st lawrence wide enough the entire way? and is the locks (if any, i can not remember) long enough

 

[Strike]

Considering the size of the tankers that sail the waters there's no problem when a Frigate comes for a visit.  They do it quite frequently.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

My question is, how are they going to get through to the ocean? is the st lawrence wide enough the entire way? and is the locks (if any, i can not remember) long enough

As was mentioned by bwilliams our ships have been to Ontario Place (Toronto). guns and roses I would be curious though on why you feel we need a naval presence in the Great Lakes.

 

[Danjanou]

As was mentioned by bwilliams our ships have been to Ontario Place (Toronto). guns and roses I would be curious though on why you feel we need a naval presence in the Great Lakes.

Ok once more,  aside from the why bother stationing some of our rather limited Naval Assets a couple of thousand kilometers from the ocean, one of three we technically have to patrol and assert our sovereignty over, and of course the infrastructure and costs  ( money, manpower and materials) to establish a base to support this new naval force we as I said run into some legal complications.

The Rush Bagot Treaty of 1817 stipulates how many warships of type and/or tonnage are allowed by both Canada and the United States on the Great Lakes.  Basically it makes the area a demiliatirzed zone. Police, Coastguard and other law Enforcement Vessels are not included. As far as I know our limits include the couple of unarmed reserve training vessels already there, and adding even one CPF because of its size would mean a change in the treaty.

Rush Bagot is by the way a result of the War of 1812, and designed to prevent another build up of naval forces/arms race on the lakes as was seen during that war.

http://www.aandc.org/research/rush-bagot_agreement.html
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/britain/br1817m.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush-Bagot_Treaty
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/project_pride/history/history_e.asp?section=1&category=3&title=2

 

[jimb]

For those that don't know.......

Ocean going vessels are able to go as far as the "head of the Lakes " at Thunder Bay, or Duluth Minnesota, thru the St Lawrence Seaway,  and the canal at Welland, Ontario and the locks at Sault St Marie .  Some of those ships are more than 250 metres in length. The Great Lales are  know as an "inland sea "  both for the size of the waterway, as well as the size of the ships that traverse them.

Jim B.

 

[Civvymedic]

Hmmm I was still thinking about the Bagot treaty after reading it in this post as I scanned the thread on the LCS Littoral Combat Ship and saw a pictutre of it as a model in front of the Detroit skyline. Between Windsor and Detroit obviously. Just thought it was a strange coincidence..... ;D

No I dont think we need a Naval presence on the great lakes unless it was to furthur assist with law enforcement or SAR.

 

[Bandit1]

Granted I'm an AF type, but I think that with the Police presence on our side (especially here in Toronto) I don't think a full blown frigate would be necessary in the Great Lakes, save for the occasional PR visit.  With SAR being done by 8 Wing, we have assets that are easily accessed should they be necessary.

Cheers, Bandit

 

[Civvymedic]

I agree. You do an awesome job. We have possibly worked on the same calls a few times near Toronto.

I also dont think we need a Frigate on the Lakes. All I meant was in rare circumstances where resources are overwhelmed could I see a Naval presence here.

You know in T.O. anything is possible......we did call out the Army during a snow storm.... ;D

 

[George Wallace]

You know in T.O. anything is possible......we did call out the Army during a snow storm.... ;D

Are you anticipating a flood?  ;D

 

[geo]

Toronto has the Haida.
That's about as much permanent Navy presence as you'll ever get.

Remember 1 or 2 yrs ago, the US Coast Guard caused a tempest (in a tea pot) when they started to exercise their personnel on the .50 cals in the great lakes...  No navy ship will ever be permitted to exercise it's main guns.

 

[George Wallace]

Sorry geo, but Shelia Copps had that moved to Hamilton.  The HMCS Haida now sits outside HMCS Star.

 

[geo]

well OK... she's still on the lake though

 

[medaid]

Geo do tell about the .50s and the lake? What happened?

 

[OnTrack]

No navy ship will ever be permitted to exercise it's main guns.

I was the Nav Officer on the Ottawa and we conducted a live fire NGFS exercise on the Meaford Range - that was in 1990.

 

[Danjanou]

Geo do tell about the .50s and the lake? What happened?

One of thr links I posted earlier has the details. Basically after 9/11 the USCG ships on the lakes were equipped with .50 cals ( or maybe they already had them?) and wanted to do some live fire training. IIRC it wa smore an envirimental outcry by the usual suspects (NDP and their cheerleaders :) then  a "the yanks are breaking the treaty thing."

There was a thread on here when the story broke.

 

[geo]

As Danjanou has said, a post 9/11 thing. The  Rush Bagot Treaty of 1817 was cited and the US was simply told to cease and desist... and they did.

 

[medaid]

Okay. Roger that. Thanks to you both!