So this is why canada cant afford a navy

[Kapitan]

Canada's navy has seen better days i think we are all quite unanimous on that, whats the reason?

Canada is one of the biggest contributers to aiding the russians scrapping and de fueling programmes for thier nuclear submarines, in terms of money spent they spend more on helping the russians than they do on thier own navy.

This is a video i found on U tube of a canadian company breaking up a sierra class and a victor III class submarine.



Now candians how about having this boat in the navy?

[Oberon]

Does Canada have the facilities to maintain nuke boats? I mean, it could easily be built...but I should imagine these boats need some serious upkeep...plus...the Upholders are probably a lot quieter than a Sierra or Victor. Although really, I guess they could do with at least one nuke, for long range silent missions....the sort of missions that an Upholder couldn't do without snorkelling and betraying its location.

[ReallyDedPoet]

It's to bad considering what our Navy was in WW2, our Navy was a big part of the Battle of the Atlantic.

I actually had a chance recently to speak a Great Uncle of my Wife's, he is retired from the Canadian Navy, served on the Haida during the whole Cold War period. Interesting to know that the Haida also played a big role in WW2 as well.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

It's to bad considering what our Navy was in WW2, our Navy was a big part of the Battle of the Atlantic.

I actually had a chance recently to speak a Great Uncle of my Wife's, he is retired from the Canadian Navy, served on the Haida during the whole Cold War period. Interesting to know that the Haida also played a big role in WW2 as well.

At the start of ww2 your navy was just as bad.
14 Atlantic destroyers?

By 1945 ~50% of destroyers in the north Atlantic where Canadian.

[I-25]

well a victor III i understand but a sierra OUCH! i would have held on to that one a bit longer if i were the russian navy.

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by Letum

At the start of ww2 your navy was just as bad.
14 Atlantic destroyers?

By 1945 ~50% of destroyers in the north Atlantic where Canadian.

as far as it goes we started with a Six reasonably fairly modern destroyers and five small brand new mine sweepers which themselves represented our naval construction efforts ( the ms not the dd ) also two training ships
two relevant naval bases Halifax and Esquimalt. 145 officers and 1674 men.

and as you aluded too at the end there moreso than any other navy US British Japanese italian or Russian the Canadian navy grew during the war
to finish it as the worlds third largest navy at the end. about an hour later
we were back to where we started. but lets not get me started on our
Canadian Support for and understanding the purpose of the military.
albeit theyve been coming along abit since 911 in our forces, but the navy
has special issues, our guys are alot undersupported by the civilian population. MM

[ReallyDedPoet]

Letum: Yeah, that is what I meant, we stepped up to the plate and were a big part of the success in that theatre

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by reallydedpoet

It's to bad considering what our Navy was in WW2, our Navy was a big part of the Battle of the Atlantic.

I actually had a chance recently to speak a Great Uncle of my Wife's, he is retired from the Canadian Navy, served on the Haida during the whole Cold War period. Interesting to know that the Haida also played a big role in WW2 as well.

I think Im going to make a trip to see Haida this summer we should make a day of it for Canookie members of Subsim and those of our cousins to the south that would wish to attend.
what do ya think there RDP

MM

[fatty]

Canada's foreign policy leaves no point for nuclear boats. Our submarines are mainly used for fishery and sovereignty patrols, things for which a nuclear boat would be expensive overkill.

A white paper was put forth in 1987 which did suggest the purchase of 10-12 nuclear subs. This paper was not very forward-thinking IIRC and took an archaic [even for that time] cold war adversarial stance. Needless to say the subs didn't get the green light.

To me, the cost of procurement, training, construction of facilities, and hiring of support staff outweighs the advantage of being able to piddle around underwater in the Persian Gulf all day doing interdictions. Our world-class FFHs already serve in that role impeccably.

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by fatty

Canada's foreign policy leaves no point for nuclear boats. Our submarines are mainly used for fishery and sovereignty patrols, things for which a nuclear boat would be expensive overkill.

A white paper was put forth in 1987 which did suggest the purchase of 10-12 nuclear subs. This paper was not very forward-thinking IIRC and took an archaic [even for that time] cold war adversarial stance. Needless to say the subs didn't get the green light.

To me, the cost of procurement, training, construction of facilities, and hiring of support staff outweighs the advantage of being able to piddle around underwater in the Persian Gulf all day doing interdictions. Our world-class FFHs already serve in that role impeccably.

I understand the limitations of current popular support for the military
but its my subjective opinion that more force capability is necessary
whether or not it would include SSN's vs SSk's

the new york city police dept has more personell and could make a good
argument for some armour.

with forces strength under 70,000 now all branches I feel there are smaller less developed nations that are able and willing to support a more capable soveriegnty force. as far as it goes the trouble people have with the economics of it is that they think of the military as a pricey burden on the
economy not an actual part of it. the truth is that the value of a dollar isnt just based on the resources of country and that countries ability to develop and utilize those resources the strength of a dollar is also based on the security of that country in those capacities and the investment in the military industrial complex is just that an investment not a burden.

to my mind force levels for Canada should be pushed up to 100.000 standing reg forces + 150,000 reservists all branches minimum.

(oops someone got me started.)
MM

[LoBlo]

Great find. That was interesting to watch.

[fatty]

Martin, don't get me wrong, I am simply arguing that Canada has no use for SSNs.

I do concur with your post 100%. I think the underfunding of Canada's military became incontrovertible last month when our ships pulled out of exercises due to budget concerns. Now they're talking about nixing some ships and aircraft to pay for new stuff?

I'm hoping there's a nice fat fiscal injection for the CF coming to make up for these embarrassments.

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by fatty

Martin, don't get me wrong, I am simply arguing that Canada has no use for SSNs.

I do concur with your post 100%. I think the underfunding of Canada's military became incontrovertible last month when our ships pulled out of exercises due to budget concerns. Now they're talking about nixing some ships and aircraft to pay for new stuff?

I'm hoping there's a nice fat fiscal injection for the CF coming to make up for these embarrassments.

I dont disagree with you either its just that we should assess our needs realisticly as you have when you say we currently dont need SSN's
however we should also never assume that what we decide today wont change tommorow. so as far as it goes I dont support the purchase outside of canada of any nuke boats but I dont think we should yank the slowpoke
reactor out of the RMC basement either. and if in the event we ever need to go that way the institutional knowledge should be indigineous not rented from a foriegn power with their own interests and a sense of we owe them
one. besides all that if we are going to make it into an egalitarian world of
equanimity the we as a nation need the type of credibility that brings influence (ie force capability and foriegn policy constistency and resolve)

It is interesting that we think of ourselves as leaders at the UN but I notice that Members of the permanent council have SSBN's

Life is what you make it , even if your a nation.
MM
(pontificating again.sorry)

[Kapitan]

Canada is not a super power nor a regional power not anything, its millatery could realy only be used for defence it hasnt the numbers to launch an attack on say the USA or indeed Britian, because it has no nukes canada has to rely on protection from those who do like japan does.

Canada doesnt need nukes at the moment its not a major player in iternational politics nor a major power that influencies anything on the sea any way so the diesel boats should be around for a fair while.

[ReallyDedPoet]

Don't need nukes to be a major influence on the international scene, there are other ways to influence.

RDP