|
|
|
The helicopters and those search planes regularly carry torpedos and missiles. Age of hulls isn't a huge concern, they're being replaced to gain way more capabilities in the air defence space, which requires way more power.the only aircraft our navy has is search and rescue.
Our submarine force has been more about training our own forces and the Americans how to hunt diesel subs. Our planned order of up to 12, that is changing our why.And don't get me started about our submarines, or rather lack of submarines...
As for Canada vs. USA, it matters little. Dreams of some sort of maple dawn are just that.
The good news is that we are about to start building destroyers for the Navy, will be probably 10 years before the first is ready though.
An incoming missile is an incoming missile. The nap of the earth and the sea state provides a whole lot of stealth. Keeping active defences on all the time, for a ten day sprint across the north pacific (add more time for at least two replenishments going at that speed), things are going to break or go down for maintenance. All those active emissions can be monitored from space and various collection sites.Oh I couldn't agree more, but the things one hears these days...
Still, a prop plane with vintage missiles is a poor replacement for a 5th gen fighter with stealth munitions.
Like it or loathe it, the F35 is the right aircraft for the RCAF. This trade 'war' will be long resolved by the time the first frames are delivered.
The VLS depth is an over blown issue, with little accounting for what taking the capabilities that SeaRAM and NSMs provide out of the VLS provides for depth. Does each River seen the capacity to take out an entire carrier group worth of air wing and offensive missiles?I really want to like the new destroyers, but apparently someone in Ottawa thinks magazine limits apply to warships too.. The type 26/river class is tragically slim on VLS, they should have double if not triple the amount.
My other concern is how well the British ships have performed lately, one only has to look at the recent red sea blockade to see who's navy actually has functional assets...
Whatever Canada ends up working with, there obviously needs to be more real world training with missiles. And as they aren't exactly cheap, it'd be nice to have a Canadian option there. I don't expect they'd be cheaper, but it would be nice to have that money recirculate in the Canadian economy instead.
The helicopters and those search planes regularly carry torpedos and missiles. Age of hulls isn't a huge concern, they're being replaced to gain way more capabilities in the air defence space, which requires way more power.
Blue water Navy power projection isn't just about tonnage, VLS cells and age. Frankly, we're far away from China, and there is a lot of exposed battle space across multiple choke points before they could get anywhere close in a confrontation situation. We'd be helping to contain fighting to (likely) between the 1st and 2nd island chains, if not within the 1st. The Chinese aim is area denial within the chains for surface combatants, supported by ultra long range precision weapons (accuracy and reliability to be determined, the kill chain of striking moving ships with ballistic missiles is a hard one). The allies aim is to first contain the ability to power project with strategic surprise -- take out all the oilers.
Despite everything, Canada does have an entire kill chain available to us and is more than capable of pressing an active defence at a time and place of our choosing.
Our submarine force has been more about training our own forces and the Americans how to hunt diesel subs. Our planned order of up to 12, that is changing our why.
The VLS depth is an over blown issue, with little accounting for what taking the capabilities that SeaRAM and NSMs provide out of the VLS provides for depth. Does each River seen the capacity to take out an entire carrier group worth of air wing and offensive missiles?
What we do know is that the River hull has room for 60 or so more VLS cells (offered as the Type 83 to the UK), but that that would involve choices, reducing the multi-mission bay for one.
www.twz.com
The defender only has to get it right once. The attacker needs to get it right every minute of every day.
It depends. The attacker in this case is at the end of a 7000 nm logistics chain. They are the defender of themselves until they get within 1000 km of the coast.Um, that sounds a bit reversed to me.. Defender has to take out very incoming threat, attacker only has to get lucky once.
And if your adversary excels at mass production, its reasonable to expect ordnance spam.
depends if people can do their paper work correctly fast enough.Does this still mean a 10% tariff on energy?
