Broadsides Discussion Forum

787 posts

Debating Defence and Naval Policy (XXVII)

With all due respect I think you are overlooking a couple of key points. A “simple” ship is just that — a simple ship, able only to do simple tasks. The operational requirements (perhaps imperatives) of the north, based on the high probability that those waters will slowly open-up for […]

Share

Debating Defence and Naval Policy (XXVI)

The corvette analogy is correct, but only insofar as the corvette goes. The long-range escort of that day was the sloop, with the aforementioned USCG cutter having even better endurance due to their innovative turbo-electric propulsion systems. Both sloops and cutters had cruiser-like endurance on far less displacement and were, […]

Share

Debating Defence and Naval Policy (XXV)

I too am a subscriber to the “tyranny of distance” thesis, as well as that “size matters” in providing seakeeping platform stability for systems effectiveness as well as creature comforts. However, there is also much to be said for Ken Hansen’s thesis, if I may paraphrase, that “good enough is […]

Share

Debating Defence and Naval Policy (XXIV)

Small may make sense in some respects, but if one is serious about national maritime security then endurance trumps size. There is a myth that the WWII corvettes were tactically useful all the time; in reality, in any heavy sea they were utterly useless because survival became the driving force. […]

Share

Debating Defence and Naval Policy (XXIII)

The obvious answer to this problem is the high/low fleet mix that I proposed at the CFPS conference two years ago. Gold-plating by the navy (and coast guard) results in these astronomical costs. Norman Friedman said it best at last year’s Maritime Security Conference. There is absolutely no point in […]

Share

Debating Defence and Naval Policy (XXII)

David Perry: A new dimension was literally thrown into the debate when Ken Hansen passed around the report of the U.S. Navy’s woes from the San Diego Union-Tribune of 1 February, 2007: “Bedeviled with cost overruns, the navy’s shipbuilding program is in danger of sinking under its own weight. Navy […]

Share

Debating Defence and Naval Policy (XXI)

David Perry: Ken Hansen, the Defence Fellow at Dalhousie, joined the debate:  “One thing I think is being overlooked here is that ice-capable patrol ships can have valid tasks in joint warfare and in service-specific naval tasks. The best example is the USCG Lake- and Tampa-class cutters of Second World […]

Share

Debating Defence and Naval Policy (XX)

David Perry: Commenting on Rob Huebert’s draft editorial, Rich Gimblett said: “I think the important linking idea is that sovereignty-building in the arctic is a whole-of-govt activity; the CF (in this case navy) does nation-building as a result of what we do defending the nation; however, it is not the […]

Share

Debating Defence and Naval Policy (XIX)

David Perry: Then, Rob Huebert re-entered the debate, circulating a draft editorial for the national media, the key points of which were: “If the leaked reports are true, the Harper Government is about to announce that it has changed its mind about three new ice-breakers, deep-water port and replacements of […]

Share

Debating Defence and Naval Policy (XVIII)

David Perry: Ian Parker fired off a letter to the editor of the Globe and Mail which also went unpublished, making the point that: “We are a self-declared arctic nation that cannot exercise our sovereignty, and, despite the protestations of the MND, seem to have no tangible means now or […]

Share