Quote:
Originally Posted by VIce
I misspoke regarding the Bushmaster; thanks for the correction. But I disagree that it is too little, in that nobody else with a presence in the arctic has nearly as much. No US Navy ships have any icebreaking capability, and their Coast Guard icebreakers are all unarmed. A similar story about Russia - many very capable, unarmed icebreakers. Even Russia's Northern Fleet's new planned icebreakers, which will be in their Navy unlike the Arktika-class, will be unarmed. The only other arctic nations with armed icebreakers at all are Denmark and Norway, which have them in much smaller number than Canada will. This is a vessel that's essentially supposed to take the Kingston Class' capability to the arctic, and it's a hard argument to make that a WWII era Bofors is better than a modern remotely operated Bushmaster. This is a walking cane meant to be leaned on when talking with someone, much more than an actual weapon. I don't think anybody suggests that we're going to get into a shooting match with Denmark over shipping in the arctic. If someone is in Canadian waters unauthorized, the Coast Guard has the authority to ask them if they're doing okay. Doing more than that is not only well outside of their mandate, but would be something a unionized crew would likely refuse to do. Meanwhile, if you look at the only cases where an armed icebreaker outguns the HDW, you're looking at ships from Nordic NATO members sitting across from us. Will the Canadian Navy roll over and just concede defeat because Norway has a 57mm gun? Of course not, that gets elevated to the diplomatic level and they sit tight while their civilian counterparts in Brussels have that argument on their behalf. I don't think we need to get into a shooting match to lay claim to the arctic.
|
Russia has the Ivan Susanin class that is part of its Coast Guard armed with 2 76mm guns and 2 CWIS’. The Norwegian Coast Guard’s Svalbard has a Bofors 57mm and some 12.7mm guns. Couldn’t find much else about Arctic Coast guard armaments. But the Bofors on the Svalbard is the next generation of weapon systems and provides a much greater stopping power than a 25mm Bushmaster. I looked through the various Navies of Arctic Nations and none of them seem to have Ice Breakers, making the RCN a one of a kind. The Canadian Coast Guard is an unarmed force, but does have the right and requirement to attempt to maintain maritime sovereignty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIce
Unless a foreign icebreaker is escorting a regular surface combatant, which we may well do also, the only thing we can expect to actually be capable of bullying a HDW is a submarine. Nevertheless, I was imagining the use of a helicopter in a pretty broad hypothetical since I don't expect that any escalation like this would ever happen. Canada uses a lot of its maritime assets in a much more minimalist method than their hardware provides; the CP-140 only carries lightweight torpedoes despite de facto compatibility with the entire P-3 weapons suite. In that sense I was thinking of the broader threat of that our maritime helicopters could have, in the same sense that a maritime helicopter is a threat that the HDW could have but is unlikely to use.
|
Luckily at least the Sea-King can also drop torpedoes, and I would assume that the Cyclone would also have that capability meaning the navy shouldn’t have to wait for an Aurora.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIce
Canadian submarines in the arctic is something the United States has been openly hostile to, and as such the prospect of Canada procuring submarines capable of operating under ice is essentially naught. Meanwhile, I agree that fighters are an absolutely critical aspect of arctic sovereignty. However, they are expensive and over-committed assets. Part of the rationale for the aerial surveillance system is to provide an awareness and presence which can be used to inform the use of weapons-carrying assets, similar to the use of the Global Hawk in the maritime patrol role. As the NWP opens, we need to be concerned about maritime patrol in the arctic, and, moreover, S&R is ultimately a Canadian Forces responsibility in Canada (which it divests to other agencies case-by-case).
|
It isn’t that they don’t want us to use submarines in the arctic; they don’t want us to use nuclear submarines in the arctic. If we did, we would know that America does A LOT of illicit activities in our waters.
They are over committed, but only since the 90s. Up until the mid-90s we had over 200 fighter aircraft (don’t look at how old or behind they were, just numbers matter for now). We did not replace any of the aircraft that were retired, creating a huge capability gap. So our CF-18 replacement must be a larger purchase than 100 airframes to provide the ability to patrol and defend our airspace.
Yeah, the Global Hawk would be quite useful in combination of other remote sensors. To provide the response time, I would propose a squadron be based in the north, perhaps in Yellowknife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIce
Do you have more information on what modular packages might are available and/or will be developed here? Is CASR a reasonable source here?
|
I consider CASR to be quite reasonable and reliable. CASR mentioned missile pods, cannon pods and potential others once technology was invented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VIce
I know there's no army aviation fleet. That's why I put in quotes, and then mentioned they were all in the RCAF - like you say here. But is this really a reasonable spread in the spectrum of things? Going from a GPMG to an F-35? And UCAVs, despite their unpopularity, seem like a reasonable intermediate - especially given the fact we have an obvious need for surveillance platforms in recent conflicts given the CP-140 deployments. I believe there is a UCAV file on the books no less. But I agree the impending aircraft shortage is cause for concern.
|
If a GPMG or a Mini-Gun cannot take out a target then it would be the time to call in heavier ordinance. UCAV is cost effective, but bad PR. And the CAF doesn’t need any worse PR at this time. There is a UCAV program, but it isn’t being actively pursued as the government hasn’t allocated a budget for it.
Prev
Linear Mode
