Canadian navy readies proposal to acquire amphibious assault ships

[EvanL]

HALIFAX (CP) - The Canadian navy is drafting a plan to acquire two large amphibious assault ships capable of transporting thousands of troops and dozens of tanks and trucks across the seas.
ADVERTISEMENT

The idea, which merited a passing reference in last spring's defence policy statement, is expected to go before the federal Treasury Board next year for consideration, said the director of the navy's maritime requirements.

"We're looking at being more engaged on a global scale," said Capt. Peter Ellis.

"I think it's a critical requirement, especially if we're going to conduct operations at short notice."

The acquisition of the ships, that can resemble small aircraft carriers, are in addition to the navy's $2.1-billion project to build three regular supply ships.

As yet, the navy has not come up with a price tag for the landing ships.

Ellis said the amphibious ships and supply boats serve different purposes.

The transports, complete with a detachment of attack helicopters and landing craft, give the army an ability to land on an empty or partially defended beach anywhere in the world.

Regular supply ships require a port to load and unload.

Defence analyst David Rudd said the navy needs to better explain their planned purchase.

"If want to go in this direction and spend quite a bit of money - you would think that the capability would be quite literally leaping off the pages of their defence policy statement," said Rudd, president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies.

Adding to Rudd's concern, the federal Conservatives supported the concept of the landing ships in the last election. But
Prime Minister Paul Martin dismissed the idea during the televised debate, saying Canadians had a choice between a party that supported health care and one that wanted to buy aircraft carriers.

In April, Ottawa laid out a sweeping new plan for its Armed Forces, promising a better-equipped, more efficient and more effective military at home and abroad - all within five years.

The document, which promises to effectively double Canada's overseas capability, includes the purchase of new ships, new aircraft and new vehicles.

But even if the project passes the political hurdles, Rudd says he sees potential problems in selecting a design.

The U.S. is constructing a new class of amphibious assault ships called the San Antonio class, but may not commission all of them. Talk within the Defence industry is that two of the yet-to-be constructed ships could be sold to another country, possibly Canada.

Such a move would be another strike to Canada's struggling shipbuilding industry.

In Rudd's view it would also be a mistake given the size and complexity of the ships, which require a crew of 300 or more to sail.

Ellis said the navy has not settled on any specific design at this timestupid 10 letters extra

[Resevoir Hogs]

I've read some articles recently about the Joint Suppourt ship program. It would replace the fleet resupply capability as well as act as a heavy sealift ship.

But getting San Antonios would be sooo much better. Now that is a beautiful piece of machinery.

[Midav]

the USN is looking at a new class of LHA to be deployed by 2013. Perhaps this could be made into a joint project :)

General Characteristics, LHA(R) Class

Builder: TBD (currently undergoing functional design)
Power Plant: Two marine gas turbines, two shafts, 70,000 total brake horsepower
Length: 921 feet (280.7 meters)
Beam: 116 feet (35.4 meters)
Displacement: Approx. 50,100 long tons (50,905 metric tons) full load
Speed: 20+ knots
Aircraft, Depending on mission:
a mix of: F-35B Joint Strike Fighters (JSF) STOVL aircraft; MV-22 Osprey VTOL tiltrotors; CH-53E Sea Stallion helicopters; UH-1YHuey helicopters; AH-1Z Super Cobra helicopters; MH-60S Seahawk helicopters.
Date Deployed: Scheduled for delivery to the fleet in 2013

http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-lha.html

[Kingswat]

Well, this sounds too good to be true.

[Resevoir Hogs]

Well, this sounds too good to be true.

Yea I concur lol I'm such a pessimist about this stuff.

[kutter]

The way our government spends on defence this will probably end up being a couple of tugboats towing barges.

[Resevoir Hogs]

The way our government spends on defence this will probably end up being a couple of tugboats towing barges.

Sadly that has a bit of truth to it.
One of the ideas with the Joint Suppourt Ship project was to have megafloat barges much like the ones we see with the HMS Ocean at times. They would be towed along with the ship at sea and used to transport vehicles and supplies ashore in large quantities. However this is not for amphibious assaults but simple landing of equipment in a area that has already agreed to have you there.

I hope they go the way of the amphib assault ship though. Having such a capability will prove important in the future.

[b.scheller]

Maybe they should spend on getting helicopters that aren't flying deathtraps, or even, spend a little more on the actual soldiers and not some scrap metal. Stupid way to spend the defense budget, on useless equipment, that will never see any use. When's the last time, Canada has had to invade a state by amphibious assault, unless their planning to invade Greenland? p-)

Then of course they can always break out, the billion dollar canoes. The DND would sure buy for the Canadian forces. p-)

It honestly, makes me mad, the way the DND spends money, on the most useless of things. It's not even the first time, first it was those diesel submarines, now it's this? Why the hell, do we even need submarines for. Diesel submarines...

-b.scheller

[Resevoir Hogs]

Maybe they should spend on getting helicopters that aren't flying deathtraps, or even, spend a little more on the actual soldiers and not some scrap metal. Stupid way to spend the defense budget, on useless equipment, that will never see any use. When's the last time, Canada has had to invade a state by amphibious assault, unless their planning to invade Greenland? p-)

It honestly, makes me mad, the way the DND spends money, on the most useless of things. Sadly, it's not just the morons at the Ministry, it's also the bozos in parliament. Might as well, as open up that underground pass of the DND in Ottawa...

-b.scheller
Well both the things you mentioned are projects that are currently underway. We are replacing the Sea Kings with a Sikorsky helicopter. Buying Chinooks apparently too.
Also our clothe the soldier project to re equip us with kit is coming along nicely. And we are getting new armoured cars ontop of the GWagons and Nyalas we already have. As well as new variations on the LAV 3.
So all those things you mentioned are a coming in due time.
But there is also a need to have this capability because our policy is to be effective in a coalition setting. So considering the US, Spain, UK, Italy and most of our allies have this capability we would like to have it as well to be effective in the alliance.
Navies in the west are shifting their attention to the litoral regions as the new primary theatre of operation. So amphibious operations will prove to be more and more frequent in the future. In my view its good to be prepared and not need something rather than need it and not be prepared.

Also we have in the past had to contract commercial ships to transport our vehicles en mass. Does anyone remember the Katie incident a few years back? Defence planners have long thought we need our own Sealift capability and I'd be happy to finally have it.

[Resevoir Hogs]

B you bring up a good point about the Subs. They were a badly thought out procurement. It would have been better to simply buy brand new ones now that the cost of fixing the old ones has ballooned so much.

But the reason we need to maintain at least a small fleet of submarines is this. We need that nucleus of expertise in the submarine business. So that if any future conflict arose that was serious enough for us to need a larger sub fleet, we wouldn't have to start from scratch.
We'd already have capable people to train more submariners and doctrine for the new fleet to follow. Its the same with most things in the CF such as the reserves. Maintaining a structure from which you can grow and add on to in a time of total war.

[NaOH]

Who remembers the last election when the Conservitive party promised to buy these if elected and Martin kept saying we didn't need them?

Looks who's buying them now.

What a ****.

[Kingswat]

Maybe they should spend on getting helicopters that aren't flying deathtraps, or even, spend a little more on the actual soldiers and not some scrap metal. Stupid way to spend the defense budget, on useless equipment, that will never see any use. When's the last time, Canada has had to invade a state by amphibious assault, unless their planning to invade Greenland? p-)

Then of course they can always break out, the billion dollar canoes. The DND would sure buy for the Canadian forces. p-)

It honestly, makes me mad, the way the DND spends money, on the most useless of things. It's not even the first time, first it was those diesel submarines, now it's this? Why the hell, do we even need submarines for. Diesel submarines...

-b.scheller




shhhhh, denmark will know were coming.

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

For what?? The current state of the Can Navy is pretty depressing. They're not getting enough operating funds so tha they can train properly and sometimes are required to canibalize crews so as to deploy units. Adding new ships is not going to help things.

Canada ought to just use the $$ to increase the budget to train, train, train and operate, operate, operate. If they're going to gut anything it ought to be the Army since it is really an overrated police force. Put your $$$ into the Navy & Air Force (for God's sakes buy some new C-130's and buy back some large helos--CH47).

AND GET RID OF THOSE ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS "KINGSTON" units. What a waste of good money. They're not even good for training!!!

p.s. And watch out for those pesky Danes. They don't play around--which in Europe makes them a rarity along with the UK.

[Resevoir Hogs]

For what?? The current state of the Can Navy is pretty depressing. They're not getting enough operating funds so tha they can train properly and sometimes are required to canibalize crews so as to deploy units. Adding new ships is not going to help things.

Canada ought to just use the $$ to increase the budget to train, train, train and operate, operate, operate. If they're going to gut anything it ought to be the Army since it is really an overrated police force. Put your $$$ into the Navy & Air Force (for God's sakes buy some new C-130's and buy back some large helos--CH47).

AND GET RID OF THOSE ABSOLUTELY WORTHLESS "KINGSTON" units. What a waste of good money. They're not even good for training!!!

p.s. And watch out for those pesky Danes. They don't play around--which in Europe makes them a rarity along with the UK.


You do realise that these new ships aren't intended to "add-on" to the Canadian Navy but to replace our aging Protecteur class suppourt ships.
It would be three replacing two and the newer ships would require less crew as they are more up to date and automated.

Money is now being put into recruiting and expanding the forces. Remember they want to have 3000 more in the reg force and 2000 more in the Reserves on top of simple sustainment recruiting.

Also you mention us buying new C-130s and chinooks. Well its our lucky day because that is a contract that is being rushed through the procurement process. Its a pretty recent development.

The Kingston class aren't without merit. Remember they are used by our Reserves force Navy. Even the UK navy has a patrol ship class in the fleet.
Also with the shift in naval warfare towards the litorals and green and brown water ops as they like to call them, you'll be seeing more and more small sized patrol ships in service with most western navies. (including the USN)

And I certainly take offence to you calling us in the Army a overrated police force. Wanna explain that one? Take a look at what our troops are doing in Afghanistan and you'll see we do the best job we can with what tools and funding we have.

Currently we are enjoying a renewed interest in us by both the public and government. We have boosted spending (of course we'd always like more though). So its promising, but it would be a mistake to gut our army more than already has been, especially now with the mission in Afghanistan.

[Johnny_H02]

That and they are a invaluable asset to patrolling our coast against drug smugglers and illegal fishing that constantly cripples the stocks and damages the industry.

The old Oberon boats were constantly out on patrols befor they were decomm'd

[Kingswat]

Thought the contract to replace the c-130's was already awarded last year for those small ass transports.

[Hellfish]

I always thought the Italian/Japanese San Marco/Osumi-class LSTs were pretty cool. 9000 tons, can carry a mech battalion plus a few helicopters, LCACs and landing craft. Can't imagine Canada needing much more than that - especially a San Antonio class. Those suckers are expensive.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/osumi.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/images/osumi09_h.jpg

[sp2c]

yeah from the description of it I was thinking more along those lines but in the end of the article it mentions the San Antonio class?

awesome as they are, they don't strike me as small aircraft carriers and they can't transport thousands of troops

[sp2c]

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/lpd17/images/lpd17_8.jpg

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

Also you mention us buying new C-130s and chinooks. Well its our lucky day because that is a contract that is being rushed through the procurement process. Its a pretty recent development.

The Kingston class aren't without merit. Remember they are used by our Reserves force Navy. Even the UK navy has a patrol ship class in the fleet.
Also with the shift in naval warfare towards the litorals and green and brown water ops as they like to call them, you'll be seeing more and more small sized patrol ships in service with most western navies. (including the USN)

And I certainly take offence to you calling us in the Army a overrated police force. Wanna explain that one? Take a look at what our troops are doing in Afghanistan and you'll see we do the best job we can with what tools and funding we have.
--Well done on the purchase of new sorely needed a/c. Last time I read an Intell report on the issue (not my area of interest or responsibility), they were considering a mix of C-130/C27J and some large helos (the 47 is the best, but you might as well standardize and keep purchasing EH-101's).

--There is no, I repeat, no merit to the KINGSTON class. They are of no military value whatsoever (your own Navy's assesment). They're beyond excuses. Oh they're a fine CG ship, and they should be turned over to the outstanding CCG, but they're not a naval vessel nor will they ever be, regardless of the modifycations. Get rid of them and use the funds for more viable issues.

BTW, UK has a peculiar need for OPV's due to their Oil/Gas rigs, and the non-existence of a CG which leaves the RN with a large fisheries control responsibility.

--What is your Army doing in Afghanistan? Surely they're not hopping up on the MH-47's and going out to rumble in the sticks! Patrolling Kabul and pulling guard duty around airfields, while absolutely necessary and not very glamorous, is not what an Army exists for. That is a job for a police force.

The Can Army has one humongous achilles heel: The Canadian Government--specifically the Liberal Party Government. It has reduced and gutted the ability of a fine army to the point that it is able to only carry out guard work (re: "peacekeeping"). And we all know from the experience in Rwanda how ill-prepared the "peacekeeping" units are in terms of weapons, op-rules, and political will to engage.

AND I HEARD THEY WILL PROBABLY LOOSE THEIR FEW TANKS!!!!

Don' t take offense at my views, take offense towards what your government has done to what used to be one of the finest armed forces around.

[Resevoir Hogs]

--Well done on the purchase of new sorely needed a/c. Last time I read an Intell report on the issue (not my area of interest or responsibility), they were considering a mix of C-130/C27J and some large helos (the 47 is the best, but you might as well standardize and keep purchasing EH-101's).
Yes I believe its the echo C-130 they have chosen to keep up what airlift we have. The C27J Spartan is still in competition for the SAR role and I do hope it wins, it is a fine machine. We are buying the Chinook for our heavy lift need this is confirmed. The EH101 would have been a nice adition as well but I'm glad we are going with what is proven on the battlefeild.[b]

--There is no, I repeat, no merit to the KINGSTON class. They are of no military value whatsoever (your own Navy's assesment). They're beyond excuses. Oh they're a fine CG ship, and they should be turned over to the outstanding CCG, but they're not a naval vessel nor will they ever be, regardless of the modifycations. Get rid of them and use the funds for more viable issues.
[b]That may have been a assesment some in our navy have made, I am not sure as I have not heard it before. However, why then would they continue to operate them. Someone in the navy must feel they serve a purpose.
Of course they are a fine coastal patrol ship, that is what they were intended for. AS you may or may not be aware though our CG is not a paramilitary service like the US coast guard is. It maintains fisheries enforcement role along with our navy, SAR and transporting goods to some northern communities. It isn't in the business of having armed ships for coastal defence. Whatever name you slap on to the Kingston be it navy or CG it will still be doing the same job and require the same ammount of resources. So to give them to the CG wouldn't lessen the need for fiscal or personal support from the Canadian pocketbook it would simply shift where the funds were going.

BTW, UK has a peculiar need for OPV's due to their Oil/Gas rigs, and the non-existence of a CG which leaves the RN with a large fisheries control responsibility.
I don't suppose you've ever heard of Hibernia or the other offshore rigs close to Newfoundland. Our navy too has the need to patrol offshore facilities and enforce fisheries and drug laws. Most navies in the world do. Our CG isn't like the US CG with armer cutters, and I don't particularily see any reason to arm ours since the Navy does a fine job of enforcing those laws.[b]

--What is your Army doing in Afghanistan? Surely they're not hopping up on the MH-47's and going out to rumble in the sticks! Patrolling Kabul and pulling guard duty around airfields, while absolutely necessary and not very glamorous, is not what an Army exists for. That is a job for a police force.
[b]Your information is a bit out of date. But being a navy guy its understandable. Remember that originally in the beginning of the mission in Astan our PPCLI distinguished themselves in combat along with the Rakasans which was rumbling in the sticks. Today we have Provincial Reconstruction Teams in Kandahar, and the nortern Kunduz province. AS well as personel still in Kabul training the Afghan national army. Our spec forces JTF2 is in the Kandahar region conducting combat operations in suppourt of the ISAF mission. In febuary over 1200 Canadians will be in Kandahar, tasked with both the reconstruction and peace enforcement role as well as the combat role. If you read the news as most do then you'd know that a few weeks ago a suicide bomber blew himself up beside a Canadian convoy injuring three of our troops and killing Afghan bystandards. And a week prior to that a IED exploded and injured two of our troops in a Coyote Armoured Recce vehicle.
And just recently rockets landed at the Canadian ambassadors residence in Kabul. Thats the stuff we do hear about. But frankly our troops are there because we are a long time ally and friend of the US and the attacks on 911 were taken seriously. To mawk and attempt to diminish the contribution Canadian troops have made and continue to make is something I would expect from a teenaged high school punk and not someone who is a serving member of the armed forces. Before you go and insult people who are highly professional soldiers at least understand what it is we are doing.
Also we do ahve RCMP (federal police) who are deployed to Afghanistan to train local police and protect Canadian diplomats. The job of police is to enforce the law and maintain good order in society primarily through the application of reasoning and diplomacy and as a last result the use of deadly force. However the job of the infantry is to close with and detroy the enemy. You see the difference? And the American Bronze and Silver Stars as well as Canadian decorations for courage and bravery sitting nicely on the chests of some of our troops who have served there is testament to that.

The Can Army has one humongous achilles heel: The Canadian Government--specifically the Liberal Party Government. It has reduced and gutted the ability of a fine army to the point that it is able to only carry out guard work (re: "peacekeeping"). And we all know from the experience in Rwanda how ill-prepared the "peacekeeping" units are in terms of weapons, op-rules, and political will to engage.
Normally I prefer not to talk politics as it is nothing more than detestable bickering to gain power. However, I will concur that in the past the actions of both the Liberal and Conservative governments has been counter productive to the military. But at the time at the end of the Cold war there was a perception ammong many western nations that now we could relax and let things slide. Obviously the 90s proved that idea wrong, as it was the highest tempo of deployment for the CF in decades. Today however, there is a renewed realisation ammong our politicians and our public that the CF needs to be prepared and invested in. That is why we are procuring so many new vehicles, helicopters, planes and ships. AS well as the new infantry weapons we are carrying which by the way are some of the most advanced and highest quality ammong NATO nations. That is why there is a call to expand the forces initially by 5000 troops over the coming years. And that is why soldiers like me have cause to be a bit optimistic.
Also don't try and preach to us about the Rwanda failure. Everyone knows that politicians at the UN, in Canada and Belgium, and especially in the United States are to blame for the failure to do anything to prevent the genocide. For you to place blame on the shoulders of soldiers and the commanders in theatre is extremely incorrect. They did what they could with what they had, but as everyone knows if there isn't the pollitical will then there won't be the government suppourt needed to make a difference. Again I find it strange that someone who seems to be a serving member of the Armed forces would display such a poor attitude towards the sacrifices troops have made.

AND I HEARD THEY WILL PROBABLY LOOSE THEIR FEW TANKS!!!!
Your information is a bit out of date, we are planning to replace the 115 Leo C2s we had with Stryker MGS, Tow under Armour and the MMEV missile system. IS that something I should be ashamed of? I think not, as a soldier you learn to work with what you have not to be pissed off because you don't have all the latest and greatest shiny kit.
If we ever have the need for tanks again then I'm sure they'll buy them, nuff said.

Don' t take offense at my views, take offense towards what your government has done to what used to be one of the finest armed forces around.
Well you calling us a "overrated police force" is a insult to myself and every Canadian soldier who is training for, engaged in or has died in combat in this war. We are following the doctrine of the 3 block war currently. That means we need to be capable of carrying out Combat, Stabalization and Humanitarian missions concurently and with little transition time between them. Guess where this doctrine was first developed, THE USMC. Gen.Krulak who was the commandant a few years back first coined the phrase three block war and this is the concept we are training for.
About the government, it is my job to serve the government, not agree with every decision it makes. But as I already stated the current policy is one of renewed hope. There IS a influx of new money and there is a renewed respect for what we do which is ultimately killing. If you were up to date on our politics you'd be aware of that.
Kit may have been neglected over the years in the past, but the efforts of Canadian servicemen and women has always been a shinning example. If you pissed off about our governments past misjudgements then attack the polliticians and beauracrats, not the troops.

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

I always thought the Italian/Japanese San Marco/Osumi-class LSTs were pretty cool. 9000 tons, can carry a mech battalion plus a few helicopters, LCACs and landing craft. Can't imagine Canada needing much more than that - especially a San Antonio class. Those suckers are expensive.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/osumi.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/images/osumi09_h.jpg
Honestly, I'll take this over the SAN ANTONIO anyday. I worked with the first of the unit at Sasebo and I was totally impressed with her on/off loading capacity (love the side ramp & turntable). Plus a if you offset the Island and put a full deck, you really have a multi-unit.

[Jobu]

Who is Canada preparing to invade?

[Resevoir Hogs]

Who is Canada preparing to invade?
Is that a serious question?

[Resevoir Hogs]

Honestly, I'll take this over the SAN ANTONIO anyday. I worked with the first of the unit at Sasebo and I was totally impressed with her on/off loading capacity (love the side ramp & turntable). Plus a if you offset the Island and put a full deck, you really have a multi-unit.

Aren't the San Antonios supposed to tansit along with a similar ship as this one, like the USS Bataan? When they are in a MEW I mean.

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

Well you calling us a "overrated police force" is a insult to myself and every Canadian soldier who is training for, engaged in or has died in combat in this war. We are following the doctrine of the 3 block war currently. That means we need to be capable of carrying out Combat, Stabalization and Humanitarian missions concurently and with little transition time between them. Guess where this doctrine was first developed, THE USMC. Gen.Krulak who was the commandant a few years back first coined the phrase three block war and this is the concept we are training for.
About the government, it is my job to serve the government, not agree with every decision it makes. But as I already stated the current policy is one of renewed hope. There IS a influx of new money and there is a renewed respect for what we do which is ultimately killing. If you were up to date on our politics you'd be aware of that.
Kit may have been neglected over the years in the past, but the efforts of Canadian servicemen and women has always been a shinning example. If you pissed off about our governments past misjudgements then attack the polliticians and beauracrats, not the troops.


Rear-Guard Work in Afghanistan.
--I'm quite familiar with the Afghan operation and the Canadian effort--God knows I get tired of reading intel reports. Mostly guard duty, patrolling around the cities, and some convoy work. That's it. Light stuff. Is it dangerous? You bet. Just look at where almost all of our own casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are occurring: CONVOY WORK. But is your army going crazy in the mountains?? No siree, that's not work for the Can Army. You're army is rusty and has lost its edge. Not the fault of the Army personnel mind you, not for one second. It is the fault of Ottowa; therefore the fault of the nation.

An Army Without Tanks.
--My information is 100% correct. You're loosing your complete tank force!! NO MORE TANKS!!! NO MAS!! SAY BYE BYE TO THE TRACS!!! The medium Leps are going to the scrap heap. They're not being replaced!!

Guess what? The tanks in the Can Army? They're being replaced by LAV's. Do you know the difference between a TANK and a truck with wheels and welded aluminum armor??? It ain't the same thing!!! Oh, the government is feeding everyone a bunch of bs line, but it is still a light unit easily punched out of commission. Your army is getting left with its D*CK in the wind and no way to support itself in heavy work. Take a look at our own fiasco in Somalia when Bubba Clinton denied the troops the request for at least 4 lousy Tanks. End result: 18 dead men for lack of heavy firepower support. Thanks Bubba. Rot in hell Les Aspin!!!

Now the LAV's are good for police/peacekeeping work/convoy duty, where you want to look weak and when you're not going to get involved with the local problems (RE: RWANDA...more on that to follow). But is is not a replacement for heavy stuff. Not for one moment.

Rwanda

Cause of the Problem? France & Belgium.
Troops on the ground? Canada & some Belgium.
Command? Canadian & UN.

Mmmmm....that's it.

That's the three countries involved. I know I've not missed anyone.

So why do the Canadians, those mighty experts in non-violence and "peacekeeping", repeatedly try to avoid fault and shift blame for their performance in Rwanda? And shift blame to the US? WE WERE NOT INVOLVED!!!

WE WEREN'T THERE! Canada was.
WE DID NOT HAVE TROOPS THERE! Canada did.
WE WERE NOT IN COMMAND! Canada was.
WERE NOT THE SELF-PROCLAIMED EXPERTS IN "PEACEKEEPING"! Canada is.

Suck it up like a man and take the hit. You guy blew it!!! It's that simple. And if you want to feel all "insulted" and "offended" you're more than welcome to that. But when you get over the hissy fit and stop whinning, accept the fact that you guys fell well short and you cannot shift the blame on anyone else.

BTW, Commanders-in-Theater are the experts on the situation and are 100% responsible for all that goes on. That's a lesson from the first day of officer school. If you ever get commissioned, you'll learn that.

So yes, Dallaire was THE EXPERT in place, yet he stood by and failed to take the initiative not because he was not brave, to the contrary, his bravery is beyond reproach. Dallaire was a victim of a political environment that has created a force that has been stripped of all initiative, whose training is deficient, with weapons at the edge of obsolesence, and who know full well that they will be the scapegoat for anything that goes bad. Dallaire is an officer in the army of a country whose leadership (elected by its citizens so as to reflect their values and beliefs) holds its military corps to a higher standard that they would ever hold themselves.

Dallaire never stood a chance. But he should've done SOMETHING!!!
And Canada cannot hide behind its: Blame the Americans.
The whole World knows who was there and who commanded.

[oldsoak]

Assuming the Canadians go for an amphibious assault ship, whats the largest force they envisage putting on board ? Any idea of the mix ?

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

Assuming the Canadians go for an amphibious assault ship, whats the largest force they envisage putting on board ? Any idea of the mix ?

Well they canned the Airborne Regiment for the actions of a couple of idiots (can you imagine if the US had dismantled Naval Aviation for the stupidity of the jocks at TAILHOOK?). That was a World-Class outfit. And the heavy force in Germany dissapeared a long time ago.

Not much left.

[Resevoir Hogs]

Rear-Guard Work in Afghanistan.
--I'm quite familiar with the Afghan operation and the Canadian effort--God knows I get tired of reading intel reports. Mostly guard duty, patrolling around the cities, and some convoy work. That's it. Light stuff. Is it dangerous? You bet. Just look at where almost all of our own casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are occurring: CONVOY WORK. But is your army going crazy in the mountains?? No siree, that's not work for the Can Army. You're army is rusty and has lost its edge. Not the fault of the Army personnel mind you, not for one second. It is the fault of Ottowa; therefore the fault of the nation.
Good I'm glad you weren't trying to poke fun at us in the army was just unclear about that
An Army Without Tanks.
--My information is 100% correct. You're loosing your complete tank force!! NO MORE TANKS!!! NO MAS!! SAY BYE BYE TO THE TRACS!!! The medium Leps are going to the scrap heap. They're not being replaced!!
I belive that is what I wrote, what I said was IF were ever neeed tanks again, not that we were getting new ones.

Guess what? The tanks in the Can Army? They're being replaced by LAV's. Do you know the difference between a TANK and a truck with wheels and welded aluminum armor??? It ain't the same thing!!! Oh, the government is feeding everyone a bunch of bs line, but it is still a light unit easily punched out of commission. Your army is getting left with its D*CK in the wind and no way to support itself in heavy work. Take a look at our own fiasco in Somalia when Bubba Clinton denied the troops the request for at least 4 lousy Tanks. End result: 18 dead men for lack of heavy firepower support. Thanks Bubba. Rot in hell Les Aspin!!!
If you'll read what I wrote you'll see that's exactly what I said. We are replacing our tanks (leo c2s) with lavs (strykers). I am in the army and I can see what is happening.

Now the LAV's are good for police/peacekeeping work/convoy duty, where you want to look weak and when you're not going to get involved with the local problems (RE: RWANDA...more on that to follow). But is is not a replacement for heavy stuff. Not for one moment.
hey we're not the only nation who is going to be using LAVs in combat. Strykers have been in Iraq for years now. Italy even has their own MGS the Cnetauro deployed over there. I'm not saying they are a adequate replacement for the Main battle tank, but we'll take what we can get. Currently the biggest caliber vehicle mounted munition on dep in Afghanistan with us is the 25mm bushmaster. I'd welcome a 105 or Tow lanucher over there.

Rwanda

Cause of the Problem? France & Belgium.
Troops on the ground? Canada & some Belgium.
Command? Canadian & UN.

Mmmmm....that's it.

That's the three countries involved. I know I've not missed anyone.

So why do the Canadians, those mighty experts in non-violence and "peacekeeping", repeatedly try to avoid fault and shift blame for their performance in Rwanda? And shift blame to the US? WE WERE NOT INVOLVED!!!

WE WEREN'T THERE! Canada was.
WE DID NOT HAVE TROOPS THERE! Canada did.
WE WERE NOT IN COMMAND! Canada was.
WERE NOT THE SELF-PROCLAIMED EXPERTS IN "PEACEKEEPING"! Canada is.
You omit that the United States is a permenant member of the UN security council. Therefore you were involved as were the other members on there. Their refussal to pass the proper resolutions was certainly a deciding factor in the way things played out. We've all heard about the memo the Clinton croneys passed around telling government officials to not refer to the situation as genocide because using that word would mean they'd have to get involved. Canada would have sent whatever troops were needed by Dallaire, however, the UN would not go for the added troops he requested, nor would they give the troops that were there the mandate they needed to be effective.




Suck it up like a man and take the hit. You guy blew it!!! It's that simple. And if you want to feel all "insulted" and "offended" you're more than welcome to that. But when you get over the hissy fit and stop whinning, accept the fact that you guys fell well short and you cannot shift the blame on anyone else.

BTW, Commanders-in-Theater are the experts on the situation and are 100% responsible for all that goes on. That's a lesson from the first day of officer school. If you ever get commissioned, you'll learn that.
Oh I'm quite aware of that, however, knowing what is going on is completely different from having the resources and the mandate to do anything about it. Those two things were not allowed by the UN hence the failure. AM I blaming the US solely? NO, I am saying they were in part responsible as was Ottawa and Brussels and the other members of the security council.
So yes, Dallaire was THE EXPERT in place, yet he stood by and failed to take the initiative not because he was not brave, to the contrary, his bravery is beyond reproach. Dallaire was a victim of a political environment that has created a force that has been stripped of all initiative, whose training is deficient, with weapons at the edge of obsolesence, and who know full well that they will be the scapegoat for anything that goes bad. Dallaire is an officer in the army of a country whose leadership (elected by its citizens so as to reflect their values and beliefs) holds its military corps to a higher standard that they would ever hold themselves.

Dallaire never stood a chance. But he should've done SOMETHING!!!
And Canada cannot hide behind its: Blame the Americans.
The whole World knows who was there and who commanded.
As i stated I'm am not saying Canada is without blame but neither is the US and your perception that just because the US didn't have troops there keeps you from any responsibility is simply false. In fact it can be argued that because US troops weren't sent there and because of the reluctance of US government officials to get involved you are in a worse off position than Canada who at least made some effort.

to reinterate.
1.US was involved because it had the chance to make the difference at the UN security council.
2.US officials could have rallied far more support internationally and could have sent troops but didn't.

Now how weren't you involved at all and how are you innocent in Rwanda?

[Johnny_H02]

damn Hogs how can you keep up with all these debates dude, I simply dont have the energy. ( or the hands on experiance to debate these matters )

hehe its good though, I mean from the little bit I know you both have points.
I just tend to want to agree with you more.

[Resevoir Hogs]

damn Hogs how can you keep up with all these debates dude, I simply dont have the energy. ( or the hands on experiance to debate these matters )

hehe its good though, I mean from the little bit I know you both have points.
I just tend to want to agree with you more.

Thanks man, I honestly don't know I've spent wayy too much time here and in the military culture.

Debating makes the world go round I guess.

Of course he makes some good points and I'm glad he cleared up that he wasn't attempting to attack the efforts of our servicemen and women.

But as for the Rwanada thing I think it's extremely incorrect to maintain the US was innocent and had no involvement in that failure.

[Resevoir Hogs]

Oh Ensign Forever, as for me getting a commision ever lol. I wouldn't dream of it. I prefer to work for a living.p-)

[jizzmonkey]

"HALIFAX (CP) - The Canadian navy is drafting a plan to acquire two large amphibious assault ships capable of transporting thousands of troops and dozens of tanks and trucks across the seas.'

who the fark in Canada going to invade????

not very cost efficient in my opinion.

[Resevoir Hogs]

"HALIFAX (CP) - The Canadian navy is drafting a plan to acquire two large amphibious assault ships capable of transporting thousands of troops and dozens of tanks and trucks across the seas.'

who the fark in Canada going to invade????

not very cost efficient in my opinion.

This question has already been asked repeatedly and the serious answer is no plans to invade anyone. But having the capability to would make us useful in the NATO alliance. Why does Italy and Spain have Anphibious assault ships? Who are they going to invade? The answer is simple. No one can say what the future defence needs will be so a country better have the means to defend itself.

Also transporting a entire battle group by ship is FARRR more cost effective than by air transport. Fitting one armoured vehicle and one Gwagon into a Starlifter or a rented Ukranian jet is very costly on jet fuel, and it won't get any cheaper.

Sea lift has long been the prefered way to transport our vehicles to and from Bosnia and other operational theatres. However, in the past we have chartered commercial ships. After the incident with the Katie refusing to return our equipment until the government paid extra it is clear that commerical shipping is a unreliable and insecure means of transporting valuable equipment in the new security environment.
Having our own sealift capability will free us up to be able to send our troops where they need to go when they need to be there. And not have to rely on contracts or the availability of allied ships. The US government has long maintained Canada should take more responsibility for transporting its forces and this is simply a smart logical decision.

[jizzmonkey]

This question has already been asked repeatedly and the serious answer is no plans to invade anyone. But having the capability to would make us useful in the NATO alliance. Why does Italy and Spain have Anphibious assault ships? Who are they going to invade? The answer is simple. No one can say what the future defence needs will be so a country better have the means to defend itself.

Also transporting a entire battle group by ship is FARRR more cost effective than by air transport. Fitting one armoured vehicle and one Gwagon into a Starlifter or a rented Ukranian jet is very costly on jet fuel, and it won't get any cheaper.

Sea lift has long been the prefered way to transport our vehicles to and from Bosnia and other operational theatres. However, in the past we have chartered commercial ships. After the incident with the Katie refusing to return our equipment until the government paid extra it is clear that commerical shipping is a unreliable and insecure means of transporting valuable equipment in the new security environment.
Having our own sealift capability will free us up to be able to send our troops where they need to go when they need to be there. And not have to rely on contracts or the availability of allied ships. The US government has long maintained Canada should take more responsibility for transporting its forces and this is simply a smart logical decision.

its not more cost efficient....why do you think that military contractors are making a killing right now....its cheaper to contract out on the logistics end of things...it would be more expensive to train a crew and maintain the ships rather than chartering a civilian carrier for a regular deployment...why do you think so many MOS's are going away...and in this day and age I'm fairly sure no one is going to storm any beaches.

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

to reinterate.
1.US was involved because it had the chance to make the difference at the UN security council.
2.US officials could have rallied far more support internationally and could have sent troops but didn't.

Now how weren't you involved at all and how are you innocent in Rwanda?
We were not in the field. Your forces were in place and they could've attempted to put out the fire. The could've tried!!! The World would've held such attempt in high regard and the Can Army would not be tormented for what happend. But for a multitidunal number of reasons it did not do anything. And we both know that the events in Rwanda are going to hang heavy over the Canadian Army for a long long long time. Not because of what happened, but because of the failure to act.

In the USN we frown on passing the buck when something goes haywire. One assumes full and complete responsibility, and while you're still getting fired, at least everyone will respect you.

Ex: the CO of the USS SAN FRANCISCO, who IMHO did not err, was summarily relieved of command because his boat hit an uncharted underwater mountain. Unfair? Perhaps. Respected? ABSOLUTELY! He took it like a man!

You know that saying "..don't get into the ring if you can't fight with the big boys"? Canada needs to take that into account every time it deploys significant forces to a dangerous zone--even when all it's doing is a symbolic act such as the reinforced platoon that it has sent to the Darfur problem.

Lastly, Canada always likes to say that the US is not the the World's police force. Well, whether we are or not, that's our call and we're not open to deliberations. In Rwanda we chose not to get involved, but that did not stop the rest of the World from acting, and we were not an obstacle to anyone. France could've rallied, Europe Could've rallied, etc etc., yet they all kept mum. This was not our area of influence, this was France's (something that the French repeat like a broken record) and thus for once Bubba Clinton did the right thing at kept us out.

US responsibility for Rwanda? None. We had no dog in that fight.

Our Armed Forces sleeps well at night over this issue. How about yours?

[oldsoak]

@ ****monkey - There is an argument for Assault ships in that you have a mobile base with good comms kit and pretty much guaranteed security in most circumstances. Canadas not going to be invading anyone unless she's part of a co-alition, and while you cant get a ship to every country, you can get a ship to most . You can land gear without relying on the local infrastructure - assuming a half decent shore. You also have good med facilities on board. You can, if need be, provide troops with things like 'phone/email or shower runs or even 48 hour chillouts where they get from some hot mossie infected mudhole to an air conditioned "hotel" where they get good food, hot showers, a decent bed and maybe a cold beer. And the whole shebang is Canadian, bust and backside.

[Resevoir Hogs]

its not more cost efficient....why do you think that military contractors are making a killing right now....its cheaper to contract out on the logistics end of things...it would be more expensive to train a crew and maintain the ships rather than chartering a civilian carrier for a regular deployment...why do you think so many MOS's are going away...and in this day and age I'm fairly sure no one is going to storm any beaches.

What I actually said was Sealift is far more cost efficient than airlift. And the reason we can't trust Commercial shipping anymore I already gave.
-It is not reliable and ready to go on a moments notice like the military needs to be.
-It cannot be trusted to be secure and to transport our equipment en mass in a day and age when terrorism is the primary threat. Terrorists could plant bombs on board and sink millions of dollars of hardware pottentially. Our brass is not willing to take that risk.
-You cannot charter ships to preposition off the coast of warzones which is part of the job we want these for.
-You'd be wrong to assume anphibious operations are going to go away. In Iraq in 2003 a part anphibious operation was used to capture infrastructure off the coast, and to move into the port of Umm Qasr.
-US navy as well as Canadian and other allied navies have all put out similar reports detailing the shift from blue water(deep ocean) to green and brown water expeditionary warfare as the primary focus of the navy in the near future. Most of the worlds population lives in coastal regions and with fighting more and more predominant in cities, well I'll let you make the connection.

[Resevoir Hogs]

We were not in the field. Your forces were in place and they could've attempted to put out the fire. The could've tried!!!
And they did attempt to but tell me what you expect a few hundred soldiers to do against hundreds of thousands of Hutu military and gangs.
The World would've held such attempt in high regard and the Can Army would not be tormented for what happend. But for a multitidunal number of reasons it did not do anything. And we both know that the events in Rwanda are going to hang heavy over the Canadian Army for a long long long time. Not because of what happened, but because of the failure to act.
My cousin served there and he tells a far different story than you are. So does the press. Canadians attempted to do what they could. having only enough troops to defend UN safe areas where some Tutsi made it to was about all they could do. Again a few hundred men cannot make a dent against a force of hundreds of thousands.

In the USN we frown on passing the buck when something goes haywire. One assumes full and complete responsibility, and while you're still getting fired, at least everyone will respect you.
Hey I'm not the one trying to pretend like my government did nothing wrong and had nothing to do with the situation. I have said that Ottawa shares some of the blame. But the majority of the blame rests on the shoulders of the UN security council. And guess who's a permanent member there, the US. Along with Russia, China, France, and the UK. Canada was unable to convince the UNSC to do anything.
Ex: the CO of the USS SAN FRANCISCO, who IMHO did not err, was summarily relieved of command because his boat hit an uncharted underwater mountain. Unfair? Perhaps. Respected? ABSOLUTELY! He took it like a man!

You know that saying "..don't get into the ring if you can't fight with the big boys"? Canada needs to take that into account every time it deploys significant forces to a dangerous zone--even when all it's doing is a symbolic act such as the reinforced platoon that it has sent to the Darfur problem.

Lastly, Canada always likes to say that the US is not the the World's police force. Well, whether we are or not, that's our call and we're not open to deliberations. In Rwanda we chose not to get involved, but that did not stop the rest of the World from acting, and we were not an obstacle to anyone. France could've rallied, Europe Could've rallied, etc etc., yet they all kept mum. This was not our area of influence, this was France's (something that the French repeat like a broken record) and thus for once Bubba Clinton did the right thing at kept us out.
You seem to really have it in for Canada lol. You just jump from one subject to another. Your(The USA's) refusal to pass the resolution through the security council to send more troops and give a bigger mandate "like stoping the genocide with force" was nothing but a obstacle.
US responsibility for Rwanda? None. We had no dog in that fight.

Our Armed Forces sleeps well at night over this issue. How about yours?
Your own points are suppourting my argument you do realise. You had no dog in that fight, and inaction somehow makes you less culpable? Your own government passed memos around saying "Don't refer to the situation in Rwanda as a genocide like we did with Somalia. Because if we say its a genocide then we might actually have to do something about it."
Don't believe me? fine but I've had plenty of time to listen to people of authority on the matter in both the US and Canada, including general dallaire and they all said the same thing about your government trying so desperately to not get involved.

Well I for one sleep well at night and none of us in the CF feel ashamed of what our brothers did in Rwanda or at least tried to do.
We know that for any difference to be made the proper number of troops need to be in place and the mandate to act needs to be there. Our troops had neither of those. And who do we have to thank, THE UN Sec Council, of which your country is a permenant member.

On April 21 of that year, the Security Council voted to drawn down UNAMIR to a skeletal force of 250. Tell me again how a force of that size is supposed to stop a genocide carried out by hundreds of thousands of hutus? Guess which government pushed for that decision? THE US gov't. Canada didn't even have a temporary seat at the time and even if we did the US has the veto power so what could we have done there hhmmmm. Its all fine and dandy to you to give the clinton admin a clean bill on this one yet blame the troops in theatre. Great point there buddy, I would expect that attitude from the maker of forsakethetroops.com.

You can delude yourself all you want and place blame on the soldiers who were there and at least tried to do something. But by showing nothing but contempt for those who were there you simply articulate my point that you are trying to avoid any responsibility in the matter.

[goldman]

We were not in the field. Your forces were in place and they could've attempted to put out the fire. The could've tried!!! The World would've held such attempt in high regard and the Can Army would not be tormented for what happend. But for a multitidunal number of reasons it did not do anything. And we both know that the events in Rwanda are going to hang heavy over the Canadian Army for a long long long time. Not because of what happened, but because of the failure to act.

In the USN we frown on passing the buck when something goes haywire. One assumes full and complete responsibility, and while you're still getting fired, at least everyone will respect you.

Ex: the CO of the USS SAN FRANCISCO, who IMHO did not err, was summarily relieved of command because his boat hit an uncharted underwater mountain. Unfair? Perhaps. Respected? ABSOLUTELY! He took it like a man!

You know that saying "..don't get into the ring if you can't fight with the big boys"? Canada needs to take that into account every time it deploys significant forces to a dangerous zone--even when all it's doing is a symbolic act such as the reinforced platoon that it has sent to the Darfur problem.

Lastly, Canada always likes to say that the US is not the the World's police force. Well, whether we are or not, that's our call and we're not open to deliberations. In Rwanda we chose not to get involved, but that did not stop the rest of the World from acting, and we were not an obstacle to anyone. France could've rallied, Europe Could've rallied, etc etc., yet they all kept mum. This was not our area of influence, this was France's (something that the French repeat like a broken record) and thus for once Bubba Clinton did the right thing at kept us out.

US responsibility for Rwanda? None. We had no dog in that fight.

Our Armed Forces sleeps well at night over this issue. How about yours?


WTF?!! You're kidding right? So we can also blame the Dutch Peacekeepers in Srebrenica as well? When General Dallaire requested for more personnal in the security security council it was vetod by United States ,Russia and China. Belgium also was the largest troop contributer in Rewanada but they chickened out and left. So don't try to pin this on us bud.

[Resevoir Hogs]

Basically buddy what we are trying to get you to see is that the problem of Rwanada was a international failure. Not that the US was soley responsible but like the governments of Canada, Russia, and so on it played a role in the failure. That it was a general failure of the international system.

Even President Clinton said in Rwanda that he and others had failed to appreciate the gravity of what was going on and apologized for that and the lack of action. Why can't you give one inch and realise the full picture of that situation?

[Kingswat]

Damn, go Goldman and Resevoir, too bad we can't beat an education into him.

[Roy Batty]

As one of those "police" type members of the Canadian Forces let me say that I sleep very well at night and I'm g0ddamn proud of what I did in Afghanistan (did'nt feel like police work at the time), and Resevoir thank you for being so eloqeunt because my responses to our fine naval friend would have all been four letter words! If you really want to ask someone about this Ensign why don't you find a Rakkasan to ask about our forces abilities in combat.

[Resevoir Hogs]

Damn, go Goldman and Resevoir, too bad we can't beat an education into him.

I know man I know.
All I ask is that people pay attention to what others have written and at least try to understand it. Then if they have been proved wrong through facts and common sense to at least have the manhood to admit it.

He seems to think that because there were no US forces there as part of the UN mission, that that excludes the United States from any involvement in the Affair. Dispite, the fact Former Pres. Clinton has admitted to not doing enough and appologized, as well as the US voting down a motion to send more international troops in, and then later voting for a draw down of the existing force to only 250 members. These are all facts and still he persists in saying the US has clean hands when it comes to Rwanda. I think everyone here can see whats what. Sad that you can't seem to get the point Ensign.

[Kingswat]

Yeah, I agree with what you said, in rwanda if we actually desided to try to do something other then protect a few areas it would have been a slaughter of 250 peacekeepers. Him saying canada should have done more then we did is a pretty good joke and I am still laughing at it.



It is great to see some interest in the cf again. It's nice to know I picked a good time to actually join. yay for Med-A

[Johnny_H02]

I am sorry in adv, if this strays off topic.

I normally stay out of debates, not because its not my kind of playground but because enough of it gos on around here, I simply dont have to speak up. I am not a soldier, and I am not any sort of military analyst.

I am however a huge enthusiest/military history buff so its of major interest to me. I will not post opinions that are not backed up. The easy explanation for Rwanda is that the world failed to act, the UN which stands for the preservation of human rights. Failed to act as a whole to stop the genocide.

Ensign I do respect your opinion because I have never seen someone outside of Canada with knowelege or the CF as you do. You have obviously looked into the situations that are being discussed. A few things you have said I will disagree with and the reasons why are as follows.

Calling our Army a over glorified police force is just downright disrespectfull.
if Canada wanted to send policemen then we send the RCMP which we have.
They might not be the USMC with a mandate to level everything they contact into the ground although what makes you so sure our troops are so incapable? So .... "Rusty" or "Lost thier edge" is it because they dont have a recent combat resume? (despite actions against the taliban in recent years) the Canadian military is more equipped/prepared for a conflict now then it ever has been in the history of this nations seperation from England.

Leading up to WWI and WWII our military was was not even a mention in the grand scheme of things, before WWI our army and navy used to have a defensive mandate to fend off a possible invasion from the United States over 100years after the war of 1812. Before WWII our army was still training with WWI weapons and equiptment it was a logistical nightmare with ill equipped troops who went over to england in 1939 the vast majority of which didnt know how to operate a light machine gun. After the second world war again the government disbanded most of the army and began again downsizing and by the time Korea came about again we were ill prepaired.

What I am trying to illustrate for you is the fact that Canada started out with a barely operational military of only a few thousend troops and 1 Navy Vessel ( HMCS NIOBE ) to a nation that has a very capable military that is doing its best to keep up with the leading allied nations in the modern technological era of warfare we live in.
Also would like to say that with the exception of WWII Canada has never been nor taken the role as a world superpower. None the less we have a reputation for giving our best with what we have, you can go as far back as the war of 1812 ( 1813) at Châteauguay, Quebec where Charles de Salaberry and his Canadian Voltigeurs held off a full american army comprised of at least 4000 men strong, you can crawl up the history ladder up to and including the Princess Pats in afghanistan. I know military history of the past is not the issue in this thread, I just want to get my point across in a friendly but informative manor.

Our forces were asked by your government to go to afghanistan in 2001 for a recce role that they do extremely well with fully operational equiptment such as the coyotes with high tech survelience capabilities not to mention again that PPCLI snipers got tangled in a engagement with Taliban Jihadis for which they were nominated for the bronze star. The Princess Patricias Canadian Light infantry are sitting on TWO US presidential Citations for Valour and bravery in face of the enemy ( 1 in Korea at Kap'yong and one in the Balkens in the 90's ) JTF2 was also awarded a US presidential Citation although the Canadian gov would not release info in specific circumstances of what granted that award. So if these troops arent capable or rusty? .... you really have to show me rather then giving us generalizations of what a handfull of Canadians in Rwanda who had to follow orders "Should have done"

If you want to just discount me "Because im not in the military" Go ahead but I know a few people in the Navy and in the Army who are dumb as rocks and couldnt tell you anything about thier services respective history.

So as is often the case here service status dosnt always give you the privelage of knowing what your talking about, especially when you are commenting/criticizing other nations armed forces.

Again I respect your opinions and the points you have made, I simply just chose to disagree with them.
And I am not going to get into a prolonged debate over this, I am home sick from work feeling like sh*t I just wanted to toss my 2cents in, Its not perfect but its my opinion and I stand by it.

[EvanL]

wow someones touching a bit too much knob.

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

[quote=Resevoir Hogs]Your own points are suppourting my argument you do realise.

--You have the logic of the ranks.

BTW, the US government memo to state spoke of "incidents of genocide." Which begat the running joke in DC towards the Clinton Administration which said "how many incidents of genocide do you need to say that genocide is occuring?"

See the difference? If not, hit the books.

[EvanL]

[quote=Resevoir Hogs]Your own points are suppourting my argument you do realise.

--You have the logic of the ranks.

BTW, the US government memo to state spoke of "incidents of genocide." Which begat the running joke in DC towards the Clinton Administration which said "how many incidents of genocide do you need to say that genocide is occuring?"

See the difference? If not, hit the books.
If you wanna blame people for not getting involved with genocides, we could definately point the finger at the states as well!
Whats your fascination with trying to make us Canadians look responsible for the Rwanda debacle, when it was a Canadian General in the first place trying to get other countries involved...including the U.S.
Now take your petty arguments to another thread instead of raping the one i started, which has nothing to do with your trite in the first place.

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

Basically buddy what we are trying to get you to see is that the problem of Rwanada was a international failure. Not that the US was soley responsible but like the governments of Canada, Russia, and so on it played a role in the failure. That it was a general failure of the international system.

Even President Clinton said in Rwanda that he and others had failed to appreciate the gravity of what was going on and apologized for that and the lack of action. Why can't you give one inch and realise the full picture of that situation?

The "action" that you speak, led by the US (again), would've been to late to have mattered. Forces are not moved overnight. Specially to a completely unfamiliar terrain and event.

An "action" from Europe, like always, would not have occurred. Period.

The "action" was needed at the moment the fireworks started, and should've come from the sufficiently strong and well-trained forces that were already in place. A fine example of "action" was made by the courageous fight put by the tiny Belgian Para detachment until it was overlwhemed (their repeated calls for assistance went unheeded). That Belgians demonstrated "ACTION".

The "action" that should have occured, by the force in place, never took place.

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

[quote=ENSIGN FOREVER]
If you wanna blame people for not getting involved with genocides, we could definately point the finger at the states as well!
Whats your fascination with trying to make us Canadians look responsible for the Rwanda debacle, when it was a Canadian General in the first place trying to get other countries involved...including the U.S.
Now take your petty arguments to another thread instead of raping the one i started, which has nothing to do with your trite in the first place.

Avoidance of responsibility is usually answered with hostility and denials. Don't blame others for your errors.

We don't blame the French/Germans for our errors in Iraq. They are our, solely ours, and we assume all responsibility (regardless of the negative involvement of other parties).

Now go cry me a river.

[EvanL]

[quote=EvanLloyd]

Avoidance of responsibility is usually answered with hostility and denials. Don't blame others for your errors.

We don't blame the French/Germans for our errors in Iraq. They are our, solely ours, and we assume all responsibility (regardless of the negative involvement of other parties).

Now go cry me a river.
So its suddenly our fault for not doing anything in Rwanda, yet you have a cleaner slate that makes you morally superior to us?
Waiting out 3years while the Japanese wrecked havoc on asia, and the germans wrecked havoc in Europe isn't an avoidance of responsibilty according to you then eh?

[Resevoir Hogs]

Lets recap what you Ensign Forever wrote:

The "action" that you speak, led by the US (again), would've been to late to have mattered. Forces are not moved overnight. Specially to a completely unfamiliar terrain and event.
And yet there was enough time to pull out the 850 Belgians before the bulk of the genocide occured as well as for every nation with foreign nationals there, to send their own military contingents to remove their citizens. Let me present you with a well known fact, It was January 11, 1994 when the UN received a urgent message from Dallaire requesting permission to act on information he recieved about a large Hutu arms cache. Kofi Annan who was then the man in charge of peacekeeping refused him and told him to tell the president of Rwanda (who was part of the conspiracy for the genocide) of his informant. Susequent requests for more troops and a expaned mandate that week were denied at the table of the Security council and by Kofi.

So explain to me if that request was made in Jan 11 of 1994 and the killing didn't begin until April 4, 1994 then how in the lords name did the US not have time to do something? hmmmm, I rest my case.

An "action" from Europe, like always, would not have occurred. Period.
All that was needed from Europe was for UK and France to push for a new resolution to be passed. And if you don't recall most of Europe was at the time fixated on the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans. AS was most of the Western world sadly.

The "action" was needed at the moment the fireworks started, and should've come from the sufficiently strong and well-trained forces that were already in place. A fine example of "action" was made by the courageous fight put by the tiny Belgian Para detachment until it was overlwhemed (their repeated calls for assistance went unheeded). That Belgians demonstrated "ACTION".
As previously stated the force there under Dallaires command was 250 troops once the Belgians pulled out when the killing started. How can you call THAT a sufficiently strong force?! The Belgian troops did indeed perform with courage under fire, however, their government did not back them up and they were soon after that withdrawed.

The "action" that should have occured, by the force in place, never took place.
You still haven't explained to us how a force of 250 troops against a mob of hundreds of thousands of Hutus was supposed to take action to prevent the genocide. I would love to see your tactical "genius" at work on that one.
You seem to have avoided this question entirely because you don't want to lose face. Good thing everyone here can see through your crummy interpretation of events and aren't fooled for a second by what you have written.

[Resevoir Hogs]

[quote=Resevoir Hogs]Your own points are suppourting my argument you do realise.

--You have the logic of the ranks.

BTW, the US government memo to state spoke of "incidents of genocide." Which begat the running joke in DC towards the Clinton Administration which said "how many incidents of genocide do you need to say that genocide is occuring?"

See the difference? If not, hit the books.

This is a laughable peice of pollitiking if I ever saw one. First off that is only one of many memos that were circulated in Washington that have now come to the attention of the public and the media.
Secondly the one I was refering to SPECIFICALLY says "Do not refer to this as a genocide, as that will require us to take action"

Maybe I have the logic of the ranks because I am in the ranks. But as we see here my logic seems to be accepted by far more people than your unsupported rhetoric.

Your own former president has appologized for not doing what needed to be done and admitted their role in the security council was counter productive. That you a citizen of the US can't follow your former presidents example and accept you share of the cake is simply sad.

[GrimmyRX]

We don't always agree about every thing Resevoir Hogs, but in this you're spot on.

Although, I must say, I was under the impression that Canada didn't actually have any troops in Rwanda besides the General.

[Resevoir Hogs]

We don't always agree about every thing Resevoir Hogs, but in this you're spot on.

Although, I must say, I was under the impression that Canada didn't actually have any troops in Rwanda besides the General.

Yes there were a few hundred Canadians troops there. Not sure of their exact number but I do know they comprised the bulk of the 250 man force; that was left after the Belgian withdrawl.

added on:
Here I've found the figures for you on Canadian involvement in the mission at the time of the genocide. Op Lance, included two CC-130 aircraft, and approximately 60 Canadian military personnel.

Well thank you for the support, although I must say I can't remember ever having disagreed with you but whatever it was, I'm sure it was only for the sake of argument.

[GrimmyRX]

Yes there were a few hundred Canadians troops there. Not sure of their exact number but I do know they comprised the bulk of the 250 man force; that was left after the Belgian withdrawl.

Well thank you for the support, although I must say I can't remember ever having disagreed with you but whatever it was, I'm sure it was only for the sake of argument.

I've probably disagreed with everyone on this board at one time or another, so it's quite possible, lol.

A few hundred cdn troops there? huh, guess I'll have to start reading about that again, ^_^

[Resevoir Hogs]

Well actually I added on to my post and according to the source I used there were less than a hundred Canadian troops there. And a whole bunch of them were chair force so its not like there was a large ground contingent of Cdns at that time.

[sp2c]

this is idiotic, you can't blame a couple hundred peacekeepers for hundreds of thousands of people cutting eachother op with machetes, what would you have them do? move from their protected compounds (swarmed with civilians) and go out and do custers last stand somewhere?

of course not, these troops were their to monitor what happened and brief the UN about it, if the UN is then unwilling to take action then it's the UN's fault not the troops, there's no such thing as a peacekeeping army they are all meant to fight a war but you have to give them a chance to do so without being suicidal.

about the ships, it's not cheaper to use an LPD to transport troops to and from the battlefield by default, it's safer but not cheaper, you will however start to save money if you keep them in the area because of the hangar, the helo spots and the hospital and what not these are all facilities you don't have to rent from the locals. For instance when we went to Ethiopia/Eritra (UNMEE) we send hrms Rotterdam to bring the marines there and house the Chinooks unfortunately there was no more room for the Apache's who had to be stationed in Djibouti which cost us an arm and a leg. On the other hand when the Iraq war was looming around the corner the Turks requested two Patriot batteries from us to keep them save (with german PAC3 missiles) but since they weren't needing helicopters or medical facilities it was cheaper to rent a civilian RORO ship

and about the mobile Gun thing not being meant for war ...the French never had a problem with it, they've been using their AMX 10 RC's in combat since the 1980's including Desert Storm

[Roy Batty]

Think I found somebody's motive for this argument.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=59420

Seems somebody does'nt like "you-know-who".

[Hawaii_Light]

Ensign cracks me up, not only does he lack logic in his Rawanda debate, but also his open support for the danes when he in fact has this under his avaitar "On watch ready to crush adventurist European Neo-Colonialism."
You do know that if the Danes do get the Island, and it is a economic jackpot as some suggest, then Danish companies would obviously get the rights to drilling, ect. isn't that technically Neo-Colonialism.

but my point of this thread is not that particular debate but...

I'm a Canadian working as a contractor/student/partier on the U.S Navel Base Sasebo. Now whats so intreasting about Sasebo is that it is in fact the frontline amphibous invasion force with the capabilities to land and support thousands of Marines in the face of an invasion from North Korea. In our harbour as i type are the USS FortMchenery, USS Essex, USS Juneau, along with a couple other ships that are hardly worth mentioning.

I have worked on two Essex class ships (the USS Essex, and the USS Boxer) which are LHD-2 and LHD-4

I have also worked on the USS Juneau which is a LDP-10.
im tired of typing so i'll get to what i want to say.
the fact is, I believe that Canada should buy acouple of LHD-4s like the Boxer, these things are absolute, I can imagine the danes just quiveiring in their horned helmets
;-)
I would tell you my reasons but im to tired to write them down, and i figure if you want to look into it more then just research it yourself.

[Hawaii_Light]

also how did you get out of the Navy as a JO ensign? did you work your way up from the enlisted rates?

[sp2c]

I think that's a bit much for Canada, I was thinking more along the lines of HMS Ocean or something like that

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ocean/images/ocean1.jpg

[Hawaii_Light]

yeah your right, maybe an LDP-10 like ship, I've enjoyed working on the Henry.

Propulsion system: four Colt Industries 16 Cylinder Diesels
Propellers: two
Length: 610 feet (186 meters)
Beam: 84 feet (25.6 meters)
Draft: 21 feet (6.4 meters)
Displacement: approx. 16,000 tons full load
Speed: 22 knots
Well deck capacity: four LCAC or 21 LCM-6 (on deck: one LCM-6, two LCPL and one LCVP)
Aircraft: none, but two landing spots allow for operation of aircraft as large as the CH-53E
Crew: Ship: 20 Officers, 25 Chief Petty Officers, 302 Enlisted

Crew: Marine Detachment: approx. 400 + approx. 100 surge
Armament: two 20mm Phalanx CIWS, two 25mm Mk-38 guns, six .50-calibre Machine guns, two Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) systems
Cost: $272 million


thats more like it, Canada dosn't even have Harrier capabilities anyways so there would be no need for LHD-4

[sp2c]

I don't know it and I can't find anything under LDP-10 or Henry

[sp2c]

USS fort mchenry??
http://www.c7f.navy.mil/images/2001/08/fortmchenry-m.jpg

[Resevoir Hogs]

I'm glad you brought this up Hawaii. I too am of the belief that if we are to buy a transport/helicopter support vessel then a ship like the LHDs would be the best choice.

Of course not a used one.

Unfortunetly that was the type of ship our Conservative party was intent on buying were they to be elected. However, the liberals then painted them as wanting to buy aircraft carriers. The Canadian public being the great defence geniuses they are for the most part bought into that and saw the Cons as being warmongers.

Just another example of why I dislike politics.

Anywho back to the ship. I would think two of these types of ships would be perfect for Canada, we will soon have Chinooks again along with new Sikorsky naval helicopters. Also Canada is a member of the Joint Strike Fighter project and whenever we get to replacing the Cf-18s, they could be used off of a ship such as this.

[sp2c]

you will soon have chinooks again???

great!!! buy ch47F's keep them in service for 3 weeks and sell them to us cheap... again
we are in need of 8 more ;)

[Resevoir Hogs]

you will soon have chinooks again???

great!!! buy ch47F's keep them in service for 3 weeks and sell them to us cheap... again
we are in need of 8 more ;)

Hahaha ohhh you dutch always got a wisecrack ehhh.

Yea I'm thinking this time we keep em, our troops took a few rides on the Chinooks we sold to you in Astan and realised we missed the darn things.

[sp2c]

hehehe couldn't help myself ;)

[Resevoir Hogs]

Think I found somebody's motive for this argument.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=59420

Seems somebody does'nt like "you-know-who".

Not only does he seem to just generally have it in for Canada, as you point out Canadian Sig.

But he also seems to lack a basic understanding of current realities inside the closest nation to the US as well as its #1 trading partner.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=59445

Martin, a graduate of the "Schroeder Stupid School of Politics", uses these loony rants to try to deviate attention away from the repeated failures of his bare majority government that survived because of some uneducated blonde billioinare (a very hot looking one I'll admit). It's SOP in canadian Liberal Politics. Nothing to be loose any sleep over.

Gotta love it, people who are biased AND ignorant of the facts. They will someday inherit the garbage heap.

[Dexx]

Ensign Forever, I would suggest that you change the way you are posting (ie more reasonable, less insults). Otherwise you may get banned soon. You have already come into the spotlight in the "German threads".

[Resevoir Hogs]

LOL looks like I touched a nerve.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=59445&page=3

Hey dumb **** from the ranks,

The discussion revolved around why make the threat of witholding oil knowing full well that Canada can never carry out such threat. So why even insinuate it?? It ends up making you looking weaker than you already are.

Crying wolf does not work in foreign relations (or in fables). If you make the threat, be prepared to carry out the threat and to pay for the consenquences, whatever those may be.

Can't get enough of the dribble this guy believes. I bet he was strangled by his umbilical cord at birth.rofl

[memphiz]

Wow this guy went from haveing semi aggressive posts to outright being a bumbling asshat.

Haha I love how he feels he outranks everyone

[Resevoir Hogs]

Wow this guy went from haveing semi aggressive posts to outright being a bumbling asshat.

Haha I love how he feels he outranks everyone

Yea lol I bet he's a teeenager pretending to be a USN officer.

[GrimmyRX]

Yea lol I bet he's a teeenager pretending to be a USN officer.

Hey now, lots not level accusations at anyone, ;) after all, he might have actually been an Officer from the USN. We can't exactly say now can we and nor should we.

His "ability" to argue facts and offer well based opinion however... :P

[memphiz]

Yea lol I bet he's a teeenager pretending to be a USN officer.
Sea Cadets!!

[ENSIGN FOREVER]

Yea lol I bet he's a teeenager pretending to be a USN officer.

Nope. LCDR-USN.

How bout you? LCPL-Can Resv?

[Resevoir Hogs]

Nope. LCDR-USN.

How bout you? LCPL-Can Resv?

Ha Lance Corporal isn't even a rank in the army. Love your fact checking skills. I can assure you I have served in the infantry A LOT longer than you have ridden a desk.
CPL here too, and wouldn't change a thing right now.

Again how bout you answer the question about the crap you wrote about Rwanda. Or is avoidance a skill your "hard" Navy training taught you.

[Roy Batty]

Nope. LCDR-USN.

How bout you? LCPL-Can Resv?

Please carry on Sir. There are tons of us Dumb **** from the ranks awaiting you next pearls of wisdom. Perhaps you could regal us with stories of all the rat infested sh!tholes of the world you have seen down the barrel of your assault rifle? No? Well then maybe you could tell us about the school supplies you delivered (at great personal risk)to orphans in a war ravaged country? No?... We go where most fear to tread Sir and I would hope you might recognise that. In this Great country that kind of recognition of your troops is taught as a basic principal of leadership. Maybe you were sick the day of that class so I will offer you the benifit of the doubt...more than I expect to get in return.

CPL (and God-Dam&d proud of it Sir!)

[GuiltySpark]

My new favorite "LCDR" beating up on Canadian sailors

http://theworstpageintheuniverse.com/images/irate_kick1.jpg

All kidding aside though, derailment aside this was a pretty interesting thread. I do think Ensign should answer Resevoir Hogs questions other wise it looks like he's just ****ting on the deck and waiting for someone to step in it.

[Roy Batty]

My new favorite "LCDR" beating up on Canadian sailors

http://theworstpageintheuniverse.com/images/irate_kick1.jpg

All kidding aside though, derailment aside this was a pretty interesting thread. I do think Ensign should answer Resevoir Hogs questions other wise it looks like he's just ****ting on the deck and waiting for someone to step in it.


Sailors?Sailors? We are'nt sailors. We are army my good man...lol

[GrimmyRX]

Nope. LCDR-USN.

How bout you? LCPL-Can Resv?

LCPL? huh... I don't believe we've had a LCPL in over 50 years eh?

Judging from R.H's attitude and forsight, I'd give him at least 3 hooks and a Leaf.


Sailors?Sailors? We are'nt sailors. We are army my good man...lol

Yep, thank god for the infan... er.. *cough* army, :D

[Resevoir Hogs]

LCPL? huh... I don't believe we've had a LCPL in over 50 years eh?

Judging from R.H's attitude and forsight, I'd give him at least 3 hooks and a Leaf.



Yep, thank god for the infan... er.. *cough* army, :D

Ha thanks for the promotion man I do appreciate it. I'm actually corporal though, but someday...perhaps.

[NavalITman]

Good day,

This is an interesting topic. I am presently posted to Base Information Services located at CFB Esquimalt, in an IT position. I have recently been posted ashore from the West Coast Command Platform of the MARPAC region, HMCS Algonquin. I have been aware of the procurement of these ships for several months. I have also seen drawings of these vessels and was under the impression that they were going to replace the "Tankers". Not to sure at this time, seems to be alot of hearsay.

I initially came to this site seeking additional info on the recently announced CANSOFCOM agenda. I have been approached by supervisors to submit requests for this project. Apparently there is a need for IT support personnel in the JATF component. I believe that the intentions of the CDS is to allow recruitment from across the CF in attempts not to "break" the Army. I have also been training in SAR for several years in hopes of remustering to SAR Tech. I have completed the SAR prelims and and have just completed my 4th submission. This recently announced CANSOFCOM initative "sparked" my interest and I would be interested in pursuing the opportunity.

Have a good one

Leading Seaman NavalITman



stupid 10 letters extra

[EvanL]

Good day,

This is an interesting topic. I am presently posted to Base Information Services located at CFB Esquimalt, in an IT position. I have recently been posted ashore from the West Coast Command Platform of the MARPAC region, HMCS Algonquin. I have been aware of the procurement of these ships for several months. I have also seen drawings of these vessels and was under the impression that they were going to replace the "Tankers". Not to sure at this time, seems to be alot of hearsay.

I initially came to this site seeking additional info on the recently announced CANSOFCOM agenda. I have been approached by supervisors to submit requests for this project. Apparently there is a need for IT support personnel in the JATF component. I believe that the intentions of the CDS is to allow recruitment from across the CF in attempts not to "break" the Army. I have also been training in SAR for several years in hopes of remustering to SAR Tech. I have completed the SAR prelims and and have just completed my 4th submission. This recently announced CANSOFCOM initative "sparked" my interest and I would be interested in pursuing the opportunity.

Have a good one

Leading Seaman NavalITman





nice introduction man.
welcome

[Ericsson]

it is to good to be true
Canada as no Money $
remember are disreputable subs
who !!!buy stuff made in England anyway !!!....
when you buy a sub you buy German .....

[NavalITman]

Hello,

I am not entirely familiar with the layout of this forum. I am a VERY novice chat/forum person. I work in IT servers, networks etc but do not carry it over when I get home :) I am interested in what is unveiled in this new CANSOFCOM agenda, and the opportunities for those other than Army personnel.



nice introduction man.
welcome

[memphiz]

it is to good to be true
Canada as no Money $
remember are disreputable subs
who !!!buy stuff made in England anyway !!!....
when you buy a sub you buy German .....
Stop talking, unless your in the Navy and were personally affected by those subs, otherwise shut up because no one cares and its been said.

And once again you prove my point about knowing nothing about anything to do with the military