The canadian military-

[Iron Bonny Shades]

the canadian miltiary despite having some of the best trained troops kinda suck due to equipment.

I was brainstorming on another site, and wanted to bounce this off the lot of you

**********************************

I see people grumbling about aircraft carriers for the canadian military, but I kinda see it as a necesity for both defending our huge border and projecting power where needed on behalf of our organizational fullfillment.

The mighty bismark was taken down by a single WWI air craft launched plane that hit the rudder, and forced it into an attack that ultimate stopped it.

Capital ships, like cruisers and destroyers, are pretty much glorified sheepdogs protecting shipping lanes, and are a defensive weapon as best.

However, realize that I'm not refering to the huge aircraft carriers that the states and britain have.

Drawing on canadian heritage, I would recommend a small "corvette-style" air carrier, with a few cruicial defenses, that only carries a small group of planes, and can be easily defended by capital ships. The planes themselves would be modular (in both weapon systems and for packing and transport), and fairly short ranged, yet fast, manueverable, and bristling with enough weaponry to preform their function. These carriers would be linked electronically, acting as a defense "net" allowing for changes over vast distances.

This way we can go for numbers, and spread out and defend our coastline.

Also with the long canadian history of bush pilots and in the military, quality of pilots isn't really an issue and they could probably adapt fairly quickly.

and on top of that, it would provide a chance for some make work projects into British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and the Maritimes. As well as a chance to sell a "scaled down" version to provide revenue for the project.

However, that is not the only thing we should do.

Also, we should start looking at russian equipment and see if there is anything they do more cost effective, then the way we do things. Russians tech, well blocky, is usually redundant, sturdy and cheap, and we could update them with superior western electronics to get the best of both worlds at a fraction of the cost.

We should send them to look at arms conventions not with the idea of buying the latest toys, but to get the most bang for our buck. See what they do well, and what we can do here better.

and Above all else, let's start doing our research to get the most out of our budget so that we can do our jobs effectively.
*********************************************

however, a couple of buddy's brought up the
JSF

www.lmaeronautics.com/products/combat_air/x-35/mediaKit/F-35Review.pdf

what should the canadian military do to get their military up to snuff?

[Chahiero]

Perhaps a Kirov style cruiser? Compact, and also a capable warship. They had their problems, mostly because of technology and some poor constuction, but the design was fairly sound.

Three helicopter capacity isn't that glorious, I know, but we also need some added power to our forces, so here we get both, increased naval aviation power and a nice missile cruiser to boot.

www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jfs/jfs000908_2_n.shtml

Plus, I'm more than sure Russia would be eager to build them at a decent price.

Just one idea of many.

[Challenger]

Take it from someone from a country stuck with these bloody stupid small carriers, they are a bad idea.

The British Invincible class carriers are better than nothing but as the Falklands showed even the 30 odd Harriers both the Invincible and older Hermes could field were woefully inadequate vs even an under equipped air force with inexperienced (though extremely brave) pilots and inexperienced and poorly trained tech crews. (note the 3 Invincibles currently in service can only field 27 all told and as 1 is always out of service 18 is a more realistic number) If the Argentineans had fused their bombs correctly and had more than a hand full of Exocets (and a tech crew trained to fit them) we would have been in serious trouble.

As long as Mr Blair is beaten into submission we're planning on replacing them with much larger ships with around a 40 fighter capacity (Even though 40 fighters on a 40,000 ton ships is very small by my mind)

Damn wandered off subject there sorry anyway if you’re going to have carriers and except for home water defence you need them, you want at least 2 and you want them at least 40,000 tons. Anything else is a waste of time and money.

Don't knock the surface fleet. With over the horizon missiles like Harpoon and good SAMs like Sea Wolf and Standard they can take on independent actions through if the enemy has significant airpower they need air cover or they will be over whelmed. Though for saying that if the latest American ship born SAMs work like they are support to a small fleet should be able to beat off allot of attackers thanks to modern electronics which allow multiply targets to be engaged by one ship. Older systems like Sea Wolf can only engage one target per launcher.

They do have one roll that cannot be replaced however. Shore bombardment is extremely important to the success of landings and Tomahawk cruse missiles and naval gunfire cannot be replace by aircraft if for no other reason than if you fire a shell and it gets shot down my missile defences (possible) you don't lose a pilot like you would if it was a plane.

I wouldn't use Cruisers though. Seems to be little a cruiser can do that a destroyer or frigate can't do just as well for less money.

As tanks I'd recommend against Russian Equipment. Even Israel had trouble getting a decent performance out of the older models and there’s not much to suppose the modern ones are that much better. Heck the old WWII Centurion was giving better performance in its upgraded form than a T 72. Might have allot to do with poor training in Arab countries but poor workmanship is also common.

Personally I'd just bit the bullet and buy fewer of the better tanks, Abram’s, Challengers or Leopard IIs. I'd imagine there are a fair few old Abram M1 and Challengers for sale now that the new models are out. In modern warfare buying second best is asking for trouble. Always a risk of coming up against someone with better equipment who you can't touch.

I do agree that latest is not always best. British Army found that when they received the SA 80. Worse rifle ever created, melts in the sun for crying out loud. However if the best weapon is the latest it is important to have it. Better 10 Challengers than 100 Sherman’s. It’s a matter of striking the balance better buying what works the best and buying what the country can actually afford.

Challenger

[Challenger]

Chahiero said:

Perhaps a Kirov style cruiser? Compact, and also a capable warship. They had their problems, mostly because of technology and some poor constuction, but the design was fairly sound.

Three helicopter capacity isn't that glorious, I know, but we also need some added power to our forces, so here we get both, increased naval aviation power and a nice missile cruiser to boot.

www.janes.com/defence/naval_forces/news/jfs/jfs000908_2_n.shtml

Plus, I'm more than sure Russia would be eager to build them at a decent price.

Just one idea of many.

Err those arn't cruisers. They are nearly Battle Cruisers and don't they have nuclear reactors or something. These are not cheap ships. The electronic sweet for all those missiles is going to be extensive and thus expencive.

Also I would imagine much of their workings is extremely obsolete and probably not compatable with what systems you already have.

Challenger

[Chahiero]

Sort of like the subs we got from the British?

Actually, the Kirov is powered by a combination nuclear/diseal engine. They were designed in a time when a full nuclear reactor was not a feasible idea.

They would be cheap empty, you'd just have to buy the missiles, those are the expensive bit.

The thing with a cruiser is that it offers more bang for your buck. Sure, a destoryer is cheaper, but the cruiser in general has a lot more guns for only a little more cash.

I'm just repeating one of my dad's ideas that I agree with on the Kirov, I don't have all the details, but from what I understand, they're a very capable ship.

On the note of obsolescence - the Russians keep their Kirov-class cruisers (they have 2) relatively up to date, not the latest tech, but newer than what we're using, except for the navigation systems.

We have a pretty decent suite package - I cannot say much in that area without heads rolling, but rest assured we could do the electronics ourselves. Remember that Britain and the US are using our electronic suites and navigation systems.

The Invincible class carriers weren't too bad, IMHO, but they were overextended and used well beyond their operating life. They were built in a time where entire battle groups could accompany carriers around. Nowadays, a carrier has to be capable of at least some decent degree of self-defense to be feasible.

[Chahiero]

Another idea would be to refit our entire fleet with the newest tech, too, because many ships are behind on the tech curve significantly and need updated. The Athabaskan and Protector are in need of refit for that reason, I understand, and the Algonquin probably will need it soon as well.

As well, it would not hurt a single bit, if we had the money, to build 5-10 new Tribal class destroyers, to build up the fleet.

[Challenger]

Given that the class of subs sold to Canada were not only brand new but also a bargin its hard to compare them to a 25 year old nuclear powered battlecruiser. I don't have the figures on hand but for the class of 4 I believe you paid about the same as it cost us to build and outfit 1.

Your information on the Invincible class is unfortunatly wrong. They were created at a time when the British high ups believed the missile had made the fighter obsolete and as such the carrier battle group obsolete. They didn't realise their mistake until it was far to late. Unless I'm mistaken an Invincible until recently carrier an extremely heavy densive missile battery for its size with capasity for long range defence unmatched by that of a modern super carrier (Do any US carriers carry Standard missiles?) Aside from Phalax and similar close range weapons and missile defences a carrier shouldn't be heavily armed, that is its support groups job and a heavy armorment will only get in the way of launching and recovering aircraft. (Which I imagine is one of the reasons why Sea Dart was removed from the Invincibles, you can't exactly fire it when launching aircraft.)

Challenger

[Hussar]

Guys, I'm sorry, but our military is an absolute joke. It is. Total force, regular force and reserve for all three branches is a grand total of 60 000 personnel. And that was a few years ago. It's probably less now. There are so many things wrong with our military that, without a MASSIVE influx of cash, we might as well scrap the whole thing and let the Americans handle it.

We've gutted our military for decades and now, we don't have a military left. It's pretty sad when my friends on parade had two or three UN peacekeeping ribbons, and they were reserve corporals. Watch a reserve parade sometime. You'll see more bubble gum wrappers on chests than a WWII vet. That's because we keep sending troops on every bloody UN mission available and our troops have absolutely no downtime.

Never mind the poor reg force guys. Cripes, their uniforms are starting to look like and American's. Except we only give medals for UN tours and dying. It's not unusual to find 5 and 6 year corporals who've spent more than 4 years overseas in war zones.

Before we fiddle around with the navy, who are bloody useless anyway, let's get our army sorted first.

[Challenger]

I had avoided commenting on your army as to be honest I have little to no idea what it has and how it is intended to operate.

But more men are a definite requirement. The British army has similar (though not so big) problems. We've got territorials out in Afghanistan. These men are part timers who as far as I was aware were there for home defence and we've been forced to deploy them over sea’s due to lack of budget to keep regulars. Really stupid thing is on the eve of the Iraq War, the army was told it was going to have to cut more personnel.

Is this sort of stupidity something that only governments can't see?

Challenger

[Jorghnassen]

Yes, Canada needs to increase military spending and start recruiting again, and buy actually new equipment instead of used British junk...

-"And the controls on the sub are bilingual..."
-"So francophones will be able to use it as well."
-"Well, only if those francophones happen to speak Welsh".

/paraphrasing Canadian Air Farce, back in the purchasing of old submarines fiasco...

[Challenger]

Lol why doesn't it supprise me we put Welsh on the controls. Not like the Welsh speak English or anything.

BTW we are talking about the Upholder class here right?

Challenger