Senator: Navy must be made bigger, better, cheaper

By and large excellent proposals, but the Navy should have arctic icebreakers.

Those damn Liberals are to blame.

Hopefully he can get enough support to have it passed. Canada needs a strong presence on the open water. And having them built in Canada by Canadians is an excellent idea.

lol ya remember the incident with the second hand British sub?

for th single class vessels, i hope they have the same anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-sub capabilities we have now.

also, what anti-ground capabilities do we have? cruise missles, cannons, etc.

Those damn Liberals are to blame.



You mean Kenny is a goddam Liberal!?! Noooooooooooo!!!.......


But Diefenbaker can never be blamed for killing the Arrow..... Mulroney can never be blamed for killing the submarines.....

Those damn Liberals are to blame.



You mean Kenny is a goddam Liberal!?! Noooooooooooo!!!.......


But Diefenbaker can never be blamed for killing the Arrow..... Mulroney can never be blamed for killing the submarines.....

And Harper can never be blamed for no Icebreakers.

Only the Liberals can be blamed.

As an NDP supporter does it make you laugh or offend you when the usual suspects blame the Liberals for your (any NDP) criticism?

Aside from our foreign adventures, I doubt that there's much call for a Canadian naval fleet. We just don't have the requirement to project our forces long distances over water.
Instead, I'd like to see our coast guard actually doubled instead. It's really their job to patroll Canadian waters and Canadians are more worried about human smugglers, illegal fishing and dumping than an invasion armada.

Really? So all this hub-a-bub about arctic waterways is nothing eh?

Your opinion is anti-thetical to what Canada should be pursuing.

We need a very strong defensive force compared to offensive force.

We need to be able to patrol and control our waterways and coastlands far more then retain the ability to invade other countries.

We won't be afraid of an invading armada if we have a strong navy to make such a threat unrealistic. By comparison there are few countries we could overcome with the standing army we can support.

Neither. I`ve come to have pretty low expectations of them.

All the parties and the Canadian public at large have to shoulder some responsibility for the state of our forces, and more specifically the way our defence budget is so often misused.

Neither. I`ve come to have pretty low expectations of them.

All the parties and the Canadian public at large have to shoulder some responsibility for the state of our forces, and more specifically the way our defence budget is so often misused.

Sadly they stand idily by while Harper does exactly what they accuse the Liberals of and nothing changes.

Neither. I`ve come to have pretty low expectations of them.

All the parties and the Canadian public at large have to shoulder some responsibility for the state of our forces, and more specifically the way our defence budget is so often misused.

Sadly they stand idily by while Harper does exactly what they accuse the Liberals of and nothing changes.

Guess I`m still a little naive, but, yeah, their hypocrisy continues to astonish me.

Really? So all this hub-a-bub about arctic waterways is nothing eh?

Your opinion is anti-thetical to what Canada should be pursuing.

We need a very strong defensive force compared to offensive force.

We need to be able to patrol and control our waterways and coastlands far more then retain the ability to invade other countries.

We won't be afraid of an invading armada if we have a strong navy to make such a threat unrealistic. By comparison there are few countries we could overcome with the standing army we can support.

Let�s nail down what we want to do here first.

If we want to project power then we need a stronger navy.
If we want to patrol and defend our coastlines, we need a stronger coast guard.

Reality is we need a mixture of both.

If we want to protect our coastline, why do we need an aircraft carrier? Do we need a Halifax class armed with sea sparrows and harpoons? That�s a massive amount of overkill to protect against the fish boats, freighters or maybe drug runners we find in our waters.

Looking at it, the Kingston class is designed for coastal partol but it could be run by the coast guard just as easy with possibly more efficiency .

The coast guard cutters designed to police the waters, the navy operates warships designed to protect the country. 2 very important and different jobs.

Nobody will repect a nation with a well equiped coast guard but they will with a well equiped blue water navy.



If we want to project power in our own waters we need a strong navy. Post the stats of all coast guard vessels. Even en mass they would be little match for even a few modern frigates. Thats not what they are designed for.



Odd statement for somebody defending military occupation of a foreign country.

Should the US disarm its navy because the kriegsmarine and japanese navy are gone?

We need multi-purpose helicopter carriers and modern frigates because a strong navy projects a strong message without even saying a word.



Point? That seems to imply the kingston class vessels should be shifted to the coast guard and replaced with more powerful vessels.

Strange post from somebody pro-military.

Canada is an all coast country bordering only a country we will never fight.

A strong navy is the cornerstone of our defence followed closely by the airforce.