Esquimalt Naval Base

Can't speak to the collision last year with Algonquin but with regard to the fire really what can you expect when you are nation that does not make defence spending a priority and in this instance you are swanning about the ocean with a nearly half century old replenishment ship? No other major armed service in the world routinely saddles its armed forces members with such antiquated museum pieces. And along with the Sea Kings, the "new" submarines and most of the armored land force vehicles including our 35+ year old tanks, a museum is where most of our stuff belongs, unfortunately. Its a testament to the skill of our armed forces personnel that they are able to make do with the crap hardware they are stuck with.

Years ago with regard to our surface fleet I was having a conversation with a retired senior naval official and I asked realistically what impact could our small fleet with its older ships and weapons have in the event of a really major conflict where major combatants would be compelled to go "toe to toe". Interesting response but he was free to provide it since he was no longer a serving line officer - in that case he stated emphatically that unless we wanted to commit the personnel to a suicidal mission the best thing they could do was, quote, "run and get the hell out of the way". Not very encouraging.

^ I think the biggest part of the problem is that most Canadians don't really think we'll get in a shooting war, especially one defending our country, anytime soon. The only country we'd really have to worry about is the US, who we have very good relations with. Any other country, the US would be obliged to join in defending for many reasons, including NORAD, NATO...

^ I think the biggest part of the problem is that most Canadians don't really think we'll get in a shooting war, especially one defending our country, anytime soon. The only country we'd really have to worry about is the US, who we have very good relations with. Any other country, the US would be obliged to join in defending for many reasons, including NORAD, NATO...

My issue with that, and interestingly something noted in a UK military journal 20 years ago was that as a result of that attitude Canada, virtually unique among modern nation states has said, in effect, here you guys (US) defend us - we recognize its necessary but we can't be bothered spending the money or expending the effort so "please" do it for us; and in the process by the way we have completely abrogated any responsibility for our own territorial sovereignty (because THAT won't be important in the north in coming decades, right?) or possess anything beyond the most basic of operational capability (I agree a general shooting war is unlikely). And by "sovereignty" I include the ability to conduct basic coast guard or northern surveillance abilities - which is shameful IMO. Our coast guard is also crap with a fleet even older than the navy, with virtually no ability to do anything beyond hoisting a flag, and northern surveillance is even more of a contradiction in terms viz our ability to have a clue what is happening in the arctic. Completely agree we don't need to have the capability to invade China - but at the very least we should be able to effectively conduct both of the latter operations and in the process assume_some responsibility for our own territorial security.

^ I think the biggest part of the problem is that most Canadians don't really think we'll get in a shooting war, especially one defending our country, anytime soon.

We don't need to worry about a shooting war, what we need to worry about is our navy vessels catching fire, our submarines hitting the bottom, foreign fishing trawlers ramming our ships, and our ships ramming each other.

And this while we have a pro-military PM. Can you imagine if JT wins or forms a coalition, what will happen to the armed forces.

The largest private employer is Victoria Shipyards with 23,500 employees.

Ok, that can't be directly employed people, can it?

Ya but there are never 23 500 employess working at any given time. They are usually laid off and on EI.

Helps may need some help with her number crunching.

Can't speak to the collision last year with Algonquin but with regard to the fire really what can you expect when you are nation that does not make defence spending a priority and in this instance you are swanning about the ocean with a nearly half century old replenishment ship? No other major armed service in the world routinely saddles its armed forces members with such antiquated museum pieces. And along with the Sea Kings, the "new" submarines and most of the armored land force vehicles including our 35+ year old tanks, a museum is where most of our stuff belongs, unfortunately. Its a testament to the skill of our armed forces personnel that they are able to make do with the crap hardware they are stuck with.

 

Years ago with regard to our surface fleet I was having a conversation with a retired senior naval official and I asked realistically what impact could our small fleet with its older ships and weapons have in the event of a really major conflict where major combatants would be compelled to go "toe to toe". Interesting response but he was free to provide it since he was no longer a serving line officer - in that case he stated emphatically that unless we wanted to commit the personnel to a suicidal mission the best thing they could do was, quote, "run and get the hell out of the way". Not very encouraging.

they are scheduled for replacement and Seaspan has the contract

http://en.wikipedia....rt_Ship_Project

And this while we have a pro-military PM. Can you imagine if JT wins or forms a coalition, what will happen to the armed forces.

Pro-military? That's a laugh. They make speeches and arrange photo-ops but when it comes to actually supporting the men and women who served it is s deafening silence.

As for Trudeau I think you are, once again, smearing the son with the sins of the father.

Can't speak to the collision last year with Algonquin but with regard to the fire really what can you expect when you are nation that does not make defence spending a priority and in this instance you are swanning about the ocean with a nearly half century old replenishment ship? No other major armed service in the world routinely saddles its armed forces members with such antiquated museum pieces. And along with the Sea Kings, the "new" submarines and most of the armored land force vehicles including our 35+ year old tanks, a museum is where most of our stuff belongs, unfortunately. Its a testament to the skill of our armed forces personnel that they are able to make do with the crap hardware they are stuck with.

 

Years ago with regard to our surface fleet I was having a conversation with a retired senior naval official and I asked realistically what impact could our small fleet with its older ships and weapons have in the event of a really major conflict where major combatants would be compelled to go "toe to toe". Interesting response but he was free to provide it since he was no longer a serving line officer - in that case he stated emphatically that unless we wanted to commit the personnel to a suicidal mission the best thing they could do was, quote, "run and get the hell out of the way". Not very encouraging.

Sorry dude but I have to call you on this. How old do you think the hulls are of many of the US combat ships? Would you believe that some active ships are more than 50 years old? The age of the hull is less important then how often and currently the ships are refit and updated.

Even if Canada had every current ship and submarine replaced with a brand spanking new version how long do you think they would last in a "shooting war"? My guess is less than 24 hours. Ships don't go out to sea and fire broadsides across each others bows any more. They are attacked from 50, 100, 500 miles away and are dead before the crews even know what hit them.

For coastal defense, RCMP support and other purposes defined by Government, what we have plus what is in the queue fits the bill.

We don't know what happened on Protecteur yet. I wouldn't want to blame it on the age of the ship before we have the details.

Edited by spanky123, 05 March 2014 - 10:26 AM.

And this while we have a pro-military PM. Can you imagine if JT wins or forms a coalition, what will happen to the armed forces.

Is slamming the door shut in the ace of countless Veterens by closing local offices  and not paying them for long term  medical issues....what you call pro-military?

Just wondering.

Is slamming the door shut in the ace of countless Veterens by closing local offices  and not paying them for long term  medical issues....what you call pro-military?

 

Just wondering.

The veterans offices that were closed all had Service Canada offices close by. The role was transferred and the redundant offices closed. May not have been the best optics but I don't think that any veterans lost services they were already using.

Pro-military? That's a laugh. They make speeches and arrange photo-ops but when it comes to actually supporting the men and women who served it is s deafening silence.

 

As for Trudeau I think you are, once again, smearing the son with the sins of the father.

Well he is the only leader who advocated spending on military hardware and it will happen. There are shipbuilding contracts let.

Re Trudeau, I think he is an idiot lightweight all on his own, he is not half the man his father was

Well he is the only leader who advocated spending on military hardware ...

Yeah, he "advocates" a whole lot but actually doing it, not so much.

Is the news that HMCS Protecteur is being towed back to Esquimalt for repairs just a waste of money and delaying the inevitable? 

Why not tow it to Japan instead and make cars out of it like they did with many of our navy ships in the 1950's.

http://www.timescolo...uimalt-1.899925

Edited by Bingo, 15 March 2014 - 05:59 AM.

I wonder if photos of the damage will be made public

Sorry dude but I have to call you on this. How old do you think the hulls are of many of the US combat ships? Would you believe that some active ships are more than 50 years old? The age of the hull is less important then how often and currently the ships are refit and updated.

 

Even if Canada had every current ship and submarine replaced with a brand spanking new version how long do you think they would last in a "shooting war"? My guess is less than 24 hours. Ships don't go out to sea and fire broadsides across each others bows any more. They are attacked from 50, 100, 500 miles away and are dead before the crews even know what hit them.

 

For coastal defense, RCMP support and other purposes defined by Government, what we have plus what is in the queue fits the bill.

 

We don't know what happened on Protecteur yet. I wouldn't want to blame it on the age of the ship before we have the details.

Sorry dude but I will call you back: first you can't believe I was being literal when I said "shooting war" and take that to mean big gun vs big gun? That hasn't been the case since the late-50's and any military analyst worth their salt knows that, and that "of course" the term shooting war refers to any "hot" war where naval combatants engage directly - these days obviously with missiles. I would have thought that was self explanatory. With regard to the age of USN hulls I can tell you exactly how old they are - and it isn't anywhere near 50 years old although I will grant you there are a few - a very few - ships in their 300-ship fleet that are close to that age. But there are exactly zero of those in a front line capacity a la HMCS Protecteur.

Feel free to peruse the following Congressional report from 2010: Congressional Budget Office, “The Long-Term Implications of Current Defense Plans: Detailed Update for Fiscal Year 2008 (March 2008),” p. 19. To save you the trouble the report authors were concerned that by 2019 the average age of their hulls would be 19 years old - which is a far cry from half a century old.

As for our coast guard I'm glad you feel secure because the time we got into trouble off the west coast of the island 20 years ago it certainly wasn't a maple leaf painted on the aircraft and ship that eventually came to our assistance - they sure looked like stars and stripes to me. Given the extent of our coastline on THREE oceans I will maintain my assertion that the CCG is woefully inadequate, and far too small to provide anything beyond the most basic of coverage. As for "what's in the queue" spanky - dude - when is it exactly that you think these new ships are going to be on station? Not next year. Or the year after that. Or the year after that. If we're lucky they'll be built and in active service - maybe - in a decade.