Gun Control is Completely Useless.

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,474
8,085
113
B.C.
Any country looking at a carrier really, really needs to consider cost of upkeep. It's ferocious. And realistically, if Canada had a carrier at all, it would need at least two. Just a consequence of having coasts on two oceans.
I figure three , one for west and east coasts and one free agent . Of course we would also require escorts and oilers etc . . Sadly we just let Americans do it for us .
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Any country looking at a carrier really, really needs to consider cost of upkeep. It's ferocious. And realistically, if Canada had a carrier at all, it would need at least two. Just a consequence of having coasts on two oceans.
P.p.s. We would need four carriers to have one ready on both coasts. For every warship that is operational ...two to three are in various stages of training or re-fit. Got 12 carriers? That means four to six of them are able to fight. The new British carriers are really one, continuous-readiness carrier.

Expensive shyte and it shows how one carrier operations like the Russian and Chinese (and ours used to be) are for show.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
I figure three , one for west and east coasts and one free agent . Of course we would also require escorts and oilers etc . . Sadly we just let Americans do it for us .
Three =1-1/2. The concept is long obsolete for an antisubmarine specialist navy. A helicopter carrier on each coast to support the army makes a huge amount of sense, though and "hitching a ride" with our allies costs us enough money that it might even justify the expense.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,474
8,085
113
B.C.
P.p.s. We would need four carriers to have one ready on both coasts. For every warship that is operational ...two to three are in various stages of training or re-fit. Got 12 carriers? That means four to six of them are able to fight. The new British carriers are really one, continuous-readiness carrier.

Expensive shyte and it shows how one carrier operations like the Russian and Chinese (and ours used to be) are for show.
Up my projections to five no make that six .
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,998
9,369
113
Washington DC
P.p.s. We would need four carriers to have one ready on both coasts. For every warship that is operational ...two to three are in various stages of training or re-fit. Got 12 carriers? That means four to six of them are able to fight. The new British carriers are really one, continuous-readiness carrier.
Expensive shyte and it shows how one carrier operations like the Russian and Chinese (and ours used to be) are for show.
I know, I just didn't feel the need to get into it. Two is impossible for Canada, so why discuss more?

A superpower like the U.S. needs ten, three at sea, one on ready status, though it could get by with six, but much of the savings would be eaten up by the operational tempo necessary to keep three at sea.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Three =1-1/2. The concept is long obsolete for an antisubmarine specialist navy. A helicopter carrier on each coast to support the army makes a huge amount of sense, though and "hitching a ride" with our allies costs us enough money that it might even justify the expense.
it makes no sense whatsoever.

support the army for what? The next time they have to fight off a foreign invader?

its ridiculous
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,998
9,369
113
Washington DC
it makes no sense whatsoever.
support the army for what? The next time they have to fight off a foreign invader?
its ridiculous
Well, well. Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and again.

Hoid's right. The best structure for ground forces in the U.S. and Canada is a small cadre and reservists and state/Provincial militias primarily geared to disaster preparedness/response. In the case of a real war, there's plenty of time to train up an army. Having one sitting around doing nothing just gives the constant temptation to use it.

I call it the "Hey buddy, watch this!" theory of international relations. It's amazing and depressing how much the powers of the world resemble a couple of drunk rednecks figuring out fun things to do with a shotgun and a can of gasoline.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Up my projections to five no make that six .
Make the dippers pay for them.

The Navy considered two Mistral class when they became available a decade back. The type makes sense but the would have had to spend a gizillion dollars re-fitting them for North Atlantic/North Pacific/Arctic operations. It would have been a "hole in the water in which we pour money" repeat of the Upholder submarine saga.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-defence-ships-purchase-france-mistral-1.3435803

The concept makes a whole lot of sense for a country like ours. The Aussies, with a very similar navy, operate the Canberra Class ... much like the Mistrals (although they are having mechanical issues galore with them ...and their Collins submarines too, btw)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra-class_landing_helicopter_dock
 
Last edited:

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Well, well. Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and again.
Hoid's right. The best structure for ground forces in the U.S. and Canada is a small cadre and reservists and state/Provincial militias primarily geared to disaster preparedness/response. In the case of a real war, there's plenty of time to train up an army. Having one sitting around doing nothing just gives the constant temptation to use it.
I call it the "Hey buddy, watch this!" theory of international relations. It's amazing and depressing how much the powers of the world resemble a couple of drunk rednecks figuring out fun things to do with a shotgun and a can of gasoline.
It's "come as you are" nowadays and North America will not stay safe and isolated, for ever.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,998
9,369
113
Washington DC
It's "come as you are" nowadays and North America will not stay safe and isolated, for ever.
Coupled, of course, with powerful full-time navies and air forces.

The best defense of North America is the difficulty of getting here. There is no way to get a substantial number of troops here that does not involve large numbers of troop-carrying ships or aircraft.

Or, as we call them in navy/air force lingo, "targets."
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Coupled, of course, with powerful full-time navies and air forces.
The best defense of North America is the difficulty of getting here. There is no way to get a substantial number of troops here that does not involve large numbers of troop-carrying ships or aircraft.
Or, as we call them in navy/air force lingo, "targets."
It's worked for the British since 1067.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
we are well into the unmanned flight phase of aviation.

there is no need for traditional aircraft carriers. The hangars on our current frigates could easily be configured to hold many many drone aircraft.

the aircraft carrier is like the pilot - its something that used to be used in air ops.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,998
9,369
113
Washington DC
It's worked for the British since 1067.
Replace "26 miles" with "3000+ miles" and you start to see the scope of the problem.

Our Framers knew this, and it is why they set up our military that way to begin with. A small Federal cadre supplemented by state militias, and as large and powerful a purely-Federal navy as we could afford at any given time.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Replace "26 miles" with "3000+ miles" and you start to see the scope of the problem.
Our Framers knew this, and it is why they set up our military that way to begin with. A small Federal cadre supplemented by state militias, and as large and powerful a purely-Federal navy as we could afford at any given time.
Yeah, but how do we defend ourselves against your framers? The Great Lakes proved themselves to be a highway for invaders, not the moat that we would have hoped for.
 

spilledthebeer

Executive Branch Member
Jan 26, 2017
9,296
4
36
Well now we know where hoid gets his "facts" from.




What?????????????????????????


you did not know already.................................


that hemer-HOID picks his ideas OUT OF THE TRASH barrel of history??????????????????????????????





I am quite sure he has the autographed first edition of the published wit and wisdom..............................


of Nazi Joseph Goebbels!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


And he probably has the "Little Red Book of chairman Mao" as well!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,998
9,369
113
Washington DC
Yeah, but how do we defend ourselves against your framers? The Great Lakes proved themselves to be a highway for invaders, not the moat that we would have hoped for.
Well, of course if you anticipate invasion from the U.S., it's a different problem. But why on earth would we invade you? We need 35 million whimpering socialists shrieking about their free health-care like we need the proverbial hole in the head. You do what we tell you, we smile at the occasional finger-wag from your alleged scholars, and we bump along quite nicely.

The hypothetical Martian explorer would not recognize the existence of two countries north of the Rio Grande.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Well, of course if you anticipate invasion from the U.S., it's a different problem. But why on earth would we invade you? We need 35 million whimpering socialists shrieking about their free health-care like we need the proverbial hole in the head. You do what we tell you, we smile at the occasional finger-wag from your alleged scholars, and we bump along quite nicely.
The hypothetical Martian explorer would not recognize the existence of two countries north of the Rio Grande.
Imagine what 30 million fresh Democrat voters would do to your political scene (assuming, of course, that you give us the vote after you've spread your "freedom" to us)? The GOP might wither and die forever with Greater Calgary being their only center of interest in your newly acquired Canadian territories.
 

Hoid

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 15, 2017
20,408
4
36
Well, of course if you anticipate invasion from the U.S., it's a different problem. But why on earth would we invade you? We need 35 million whimpering socialists shrieking about their free health-care like we need the proverbial hole in the head. You do what we tell you, we smile at the occasional finger-wag from your alleged scholars, and we bump along quite nicely.

The hypothetical Martian explorer would not recognize the existence of two countries north of the Rio Grande.
yes because all those border crossings are made out of the same invisible material that Wonder Woman's airplane is made out of.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
59,998
9,369
113
Washington DC
Imagine what 30 million fresh Democrat voters would do to your political scene (assuming, of course, that you give us the vote after you've spread your "freedom" to us)? The GOP might wither and die forever with Greater Calgary being their only center of interest in your newly acquired Canadian territories.
Probably the same thing as the 30 million Democratic voters who elected Donny Dodger by the simple expedient of sitting on their couches pouting instead of going to the polls.