The "Big One"

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

This should be a good wakeup that the port of Prince Rupert should be quadrupled+ in carrying capacity. Along with strengthened rail infrastructure to support shipments. The entire federation shouldn’t be relying essentially completely on one Pacific port in an extremely seismically vulnerable area.

PR has pretty much reached max capacity due to the limited amount of developable shoreline.

[Dengler Avenue]

On that note, I just found out that the distance between Prince George and Prince Rupert is a whopping 710(!) km. I was thinking of something in the range of 100…

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This really isn't the problem. Filling sandbags works well on the side of the highway in BC or for a wall at a combat outpost in the Hindu Kush.

Fundamentally, the problem is that Canadians don't seem to understand that we need a larger and better equipped force. Realistically, if BC was actually hit with "The Big One", we would suffer massively for not having a carrier we could park off the coast. If you want to see what capability is required for a disaster like that, look at the Indian Ocean tsunami or the Haiti quake. The unsaid assumption is that the Americans would show up. The question is, how many lives, are we willing to bet on that, especially if their major cities get hit at the same time?

This is why I brought up the example of the debate we had on the C17. So many folks on the left went nuts over the price tag. The Liberals refused to even consider it till Martin was in power. Even the Conservatives wavered at the potential cost, with even General Hillier personally opposed to the purchase. It took the RCAF over a decade, and three governments to eventually get a real strategic airlift capability. We're now seeing similar opposition across over other capability gaps.

I've been mulling over an idea of a National Service for 18 to 25 year olds. You can have four choices:

1. Environmental Remediation - tree planting, wetlands redevelopment, shoreline clean up, etc

2. Social Services Assistance - LTC facilities support, working with homeless, staffing day cares, youth at risk facilitator

3. Trades Training

4. Military - Army mainly (Infantry, Engineers), Navy (Boatswains). No airforce unless you decide to sign up for 5 years or more.

This is just a back of the napkin idea that has not been fleshed out at all. But there is more than enough to do that there shouldn't be one young adult hiding in their parents basements.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Carriers carry these things called helicopters which can fly over obstacles....

It's a floating airbase, hospital and command post, that can be parked 10 mins flight time offshore.

Nobody suggested we need carriers to help with every flood. Being able to get to areas that are cut off is specifically why we have strategic airlift. Different tools for different situations.

So, spend billions on one thing when a Globemaster can deliver the stuff where ever is needed?

What is the difference between an aircraft carrier and FOB Kandahar? One we have experience with and have the capabilities right now to do. If the military was told to go set up a base to make water, provide a hospital, house thousands, etc. This can be done anywhere in Canada. An aircraft carrier is only good in deep water areas. Not very useful for most of Canada's largest cities.

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

This should be a good wakeup that the port of Prince Rupert should be quadrupled+ in carrying capacity. Along with strengthened rail infrastructure to support shipments. The entire federation shouldn’t be relying essentially completely on one Pacific port in an extremely seismically vulnerable area.

How many railways in BC have been abandoned?
CPR learned quickly in the winter of 2020 that having a singular line that can be blocked connecting Montreal to the rest of Canada is bad. I wonder if any of the rail carriers will be looking for more routes to add to their network.

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

You know that there are different sizes of carriers right? Not all of them are Nimitz Class monsters. But as TN said, they sit off shore to do their business. Also if the big one hits the PNW, the yanks will be much more concerned with Seattle and Portland to be able to give us any assistance.

The PNW issues is not the only reason to have a carrier. If that is the only reason, it is a waste of billions.

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The PNW issues is not the only reason to have a carrier. If that is the only reason, it is a waste of billions.

Don't worry your pretty head about Canada getting any sort of a flat-top. It just isn't in the cards.

[davee930]

Maybe Canada should have a national funded system like the interstate system. It could have been bigger infrastructure that would have likely held up.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

What i have heard mentioned numerous times on the news is that the situation in Abbotsford is they have only ever prepared and planned for the Canadian side and dealing with the Fraser River, they never did much about what could come from the USA side.

There were talks in the past between both the US and Canadian government in regards to this. But like all things with international politics nothing was ever done.

One thing that would help in regards to the Canadian side. Would be to pay and upgrade the dike system. I believe that was talked about as well. Though it was thought that the cost would not be worth it.

The Canadian side really needs to look at upgrading it under the assumption that the Nooksack river may one day change course back to its original course.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Don't worry your pretty head about Canada getting any sort of a flat-top. It just isn't in the cards.

I know, but it annoys me when people suggest pie in the sky ideas.

Originally Posted by davee930

Maybe Canada should have a national funded system like the interstate system. It could have been bigger infrastructure that would have likely held up.

I don''t see how there would have been any change. The problem is that our infrastructure isn't able to handle the storm.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, spend billions on one thing when a Globemaster can deliver the stuff where ever is needed?

​

1) Nobody is suggesting buying amphibious carriers exclusively for disaster response. But they most certainly will help for any disasters along coastal areas. This is one among many reasons, why virtually every developed country with a significant coastline fields them. Canada is the exception. An incredible one, given the length of our coastline.

2) Different solutions for different situations. The Lower Maninland is exceptional in Canada, in that it has limited overland approaches and is extremely constrained for aviation. Air Canada, for example, limits the EJets flying over the Rockies, due to one engine inoperative ceiling restrictions. It is exceptionally challenging terrain to work with. So no matter how much strat airlift we have, in any large disaster in that area, we'll be lift constrained. This is not the case for any other major city in Canada, where there's multiple approaches available. The best approach to Vancouver, in any large emergency, is going to be from the Georgia Strait.

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Don't worry your pretty head about Canada getting any sort of a flat-top. It just isn't in the cards.

We won't. But we should. It's stunning how much behind we are peer nations in capability. Forget the ignorant comparisons to the UK and US. But why are we so much behind Spain, Italy, Australia, etc.
​

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

I've been mulling over an idea of a National Service for 18 to 25 year olds. You can have four choices:

1. Environmental Remediation - tree planting, wetlands redevelopment, shoreline clean up, etc

2. Social Services Assistance - LTC facilities support, working with homeless, staffing day cares, youth at risk facilitator

3. Trades Training

4. Military - Army mainly (Infantry, Engineers), Navy (Boatswains). No airforce unless you decide to sign up for 5 years or more.

This is just a back of the napkin idea that has not been fleshed out at all. But there is more than enough to do that there shouldn't be one young adult hiding in their parents basements.

The US has effectively created such a system with the GI Bill and postsecondary being insanely expensive. Serve 5 years and Uncle Sam pays for 4 years of postsecondary that you can use, or transfer to your spouse or kids. And it's 4 years. Not a dollar amount.

It's a tough one. The cost vs. benefits are both tough to define and very much debatable on any sort of obligated national service. My personal idea is to reform the Army Reserves into some combination of homeland guard and civil defence corps, two capabilities we lack. The current weekend warrior stuff they do is effectively Reg Force recruiting. Functionally, it doesn't add much actual capability. And they aren't even organized and structured to respond effectively to local disasters. That said, we all know, how much resistance there is to any idea of reforming the Reserves into something actually useful.....

My other idea is to militarize the Coast Guard, but I'm always careful to never say that in public around any Navy or SAR guys.....

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

​

1) Nobody is suggesting buying amphibious carriers exclusively for disaster response. But they most certainly will help for any disasters along coastal areas. This is one among many reasons, why virtually every developed country with a significant coastline fields them. Canada is the exception. An incredible one, given the length of our coastline.

If most of our population, or if a good amount of our population lived along the coast, I would agree. Reality is, most of our coast is empty. Of the areas that they do have a population, there are very few of our large cities that are there. The cost of a carrier would be about the same cost as the Arctic Patrol vessel program. We are getting more ships that can go into areas our current fleet cant. Most amphibious ships cannot go into areas with ice.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

​
2) Different solutions for different situations. The Lower Maninland is exceptional in Canada, in that it has limited overland approaches and is extremely constrained for aviation. Air Canada, for example, limits the EJets flying over the Rockies, due to one engine inoperative ceiling restrictions. It is exceptionally challenging terrain to work with. So no matter how much strat airlift we have, in any large disaster in that area, we'll be lift constrained. This is not the case for any other major city in Canada, where there's multiple approaches available.

Again, you are wanting to build something for one thing. Where is it going to be supplied from? Currently there is a supply issue in the area where the ship would be based out of? So, if the aircraft cannot fly in, it will run out of supplies too.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

​
We won't. But we should. It's stunning how much behind we are peer nations in capability. Forget the ignorant comparisons to the UK and US. But why are we so much behind Spain, Italy, Australia, etc.
​

Outside of disaster relief, what other use would it have in the last 20 years?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

​
It's a tough one. The cost vs. benefits are both tough to define and very much debatable on any sort of obligated national service. My personal idea is to reform the Army Reserves into some combination of homeland guard and civil defence corps, two capabilities we lack. The current weekend warrior stuff they do is effectively Reg Force recruiting. Functionally, it doesn't add much actual capability. And they aren't even organized and structured to respond effectively to local disasters. That said, we all know, how much resistance there is to any idea of reforming the Reserves into something actually useful.....

Reserves are useful, but it is more a question of actually using them.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

​
My other idea is to militarize the Coast Guard, but I'm always careful to never say that in public around any Navy or SAR guys.....

Hi, I am ex navy.....
A friend of mine is SAR on the North Shore (currently very busy)...

You don't seem to know much about the limitations of a ship....

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Again, you are wanting to build something for one thing.

Addressed this already:

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

​
1) Nobody is suggesting buying amphibious carriers exclusively for disaster response. But they most certainly will help for any disasters along coastal areas.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Where is it going to be supplied from? Currently there is a supply issue in the area where the ship would be based out of? So, if the aircraft cannot fly in, it will run out of supplies too.

You were in the RCN and don't know how ships are supplied?

Supplying a ship in a disaster area is not some new concept. The RCN won't be the first navy in the world to do this. And if for some reason, we're rusty at this. We can always get lessons from the rest of NATO.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Outside of disaster relief, what other use would it have in the last 20 years?

Haiti, Sri Lanka, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc.

And that's before looking at the ramping threat environment with climate change driving conflict and responds for disaster response and the near-peer threats of a resurgent China and Russia.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Reserves are useful, but it is more a question of actually using them.

A force is only as useful as its equipped, trained and structured to be. We don't train, equip or structure CAF reserves for the Civil Defence role (which would include emergency preparedness and disaster assistance/response).

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Hi, I am ex navy.....
A friend of mine is SAR on the North Shore (currently very busy)...

You don't seem to know much about the limitations of a ship....

What does ship size have to do with militarization of a force? Ever worked alongside the USCG? I have. They seem to be just fine, having militarized organizational structure and doctrine. Also, I suggest you look up the size of vessels they operate and compare to the ones you served on. Should be an eye-opener.

[swimmer_spe]

I will start by saying I have been part of the crews for HMCS Preserver and HMCS Protecteur. Both of those ships were resupply ships. So, I do have just a tiny bit of knowledge.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You were in the RCN and don't know how ships are supplied?

Supplying a ship in a disaster area is not some new concept. The RCN won't be the first navy in the world to do this. And if for some reason, we're rusty at this. We can always get lessons from the rest of NATO.

All ships are supplied from shore. However, that does not mean that ship went into shore. If they did not go in, you are talking a RAS (Replenishment at Sea) That requires a resupply ship to bring it to the ship that needs it. Going in and out of port is time consuming, so in many cases, a resupply ship is the only ones who go to port.

So, really, what we need are better capable resupply ships. On that I would agree.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Haiti, Sri Lanka, Libya, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc.

One one we did disaster relief. I have a friend who was there. The others either we had no involvement in, or we did not land.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A force is only as useful as its equipped, trained and structured to be. We don't train, equip or structure CAF reserves for the Civil Defence role (which would include emergency preparedness and disaster assistance/response).

What skills are specific to a disaster that is not transferable from a war?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What does ship size have to do with militarization of a force? Ever worked alongside the USCG? I have. They seem to be just fine, having militarized organizational structure and doctrine.

I have had members of the USCG on my ship as part of a deployment due to them not having enough ships to patrol an area and them having jurisdiction in the area,

I am not sure how putting a gun on a ship really is going to change disaster response.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

All ships are supplied from shore. However, that does not mean that ship went into shore. If they did not go in, you are talking a RAS (Replenishment at Sea) That requires a resupply ship to bring it to the ship that needs it. Going in and out of port is time consuming, so in many cases, a resupply ship is the only ones who go to port.

So, really, what we need are better capable resupply ships. On that I would agree.

The point here, isn't the minutiae of how specifically to supply a ship. The point is that we buy/acquire capabilities. An amphibious capability would necessarily drive changes to the service support and operating doctrine for the rest of the force. Along with changing requirements for other kit we buy.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

One one we did disaster relief. I have a friend who was there. The others either we had no involvement in, or we did not land.

Look at the list carefully. You might not have personally been involved, but the CAF was involved in every country on the list.

We participated in disaster relief, counter-terrorism, military interventions and non combatant evacuations from the countries in the list. And in most of those situations having an amphibious capability would have brought more to the table.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What skills are specific to a disaster that is not transferable from a war?

Mostly disaster planning and ops. Units like DART have specific skills on how to operate and organize in a disaster area. The average militia unit can't do much other than dig ditches and fill sandbags. Useful in specific circumstances. But they aren't skilled or equipped to do the full Civil Defence role including infrastructure protection and recovery, urban rescue, firefighting, Hazmat handling and decontamination, mass casualty management, etc.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am not sure how putting a gun on a ship really is going to change disaster response.

Militarization of a force isn't about putting a gun on a ship. It's about organizational and doctrinal changes of a force, along military lines.

Another analogy would be to compare the RCMP to the Gendarmerie Nationale in France. They are both called "Gendarmerie". Their roles, organization, structure and equipment is very different.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is one among many reasons, why virtually every developed country with a significant coastline fields them. Canada is the exception. An incredible one, given the length of our coastline.

On the other hand, our geography works against us getting a carrier: our main two areas of populated coastline are really far away from each other, cannot be reliably traveled to and from unless by a long trek far away from the country, and the other area that would benefit from a Navy presence (the North) is also really far away from both of these. Further, the "halls of power" aren't "coastal" in our country (a relative rarity). The Toronto-Montreal-Ottawa Triangle won't ever need or have an aircraft carrier nearby, emergency or not.

Say Halifax gets hit by a hurricane that changed course and strengthened at the last minute (i.e. early warning of a couple days max) while our carrier is docked in Vancouver, or Vancouver gets hit by a Cascadia megaquake while the carrier happens to be in Halifax, aren't we going to just immediately borrow something from our allies in Boston or Seattle rather than wait for... weeks, I'm guessing?

Hard to justify such an astronomical expense when you add the factor that that carrier has a 50% chance of happening to be on the wrong coast when the next disaster hits.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The point here, isn't the minutiae of how specifically to supply a ship. The point is that we buy/acquire capabilities. An amphibious capability would necessarily drive changes to the service support and operating doctrine for the rest of the force. Along with changing requirements for other kit we buy.

PRE and PRO could carry 3 Helos in their hanger, plus at least 1 more on deck. How many more do you need? The Current MV Astrix can carry 2.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Look at the list carefully. You might not have personally been involved, but the CAF was involved in every country on the list.

We participated in disaster relief, counter-terrorism, military interventions and non combatant evacuations from the countries in the list. And in most of those situations having an amphibious capability would have brought more to the table.

What exactly is lacking from the ships we had active during the last 20 years?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Mostly disaster planning and ops. Units like DART have specific skills on how to operate and organize in a disaster area. The average militia unit can't do much other than dig ditches and fill sandbags. Useful in specific circumstances. But they aren't skilled or equipped to do the full Civil Defence role including infrastructure protection and recovery, urban rescue, firefighting, Hazmat handling and decontamination, mass casualty management, etc.

Everyone cannot be DART, just like everyone cannot be JRT2. Most of what you describe is not done by one person, but many SMEs. For instance, Firefighting is a skill that all Naval personnel must know. However, we still have trained fire fighter trade on board.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Militarization of a force isn't about putting a gun on a ship. It's about organizational and doctrinal changes of a force, along military lines.

Another analogy would be to compare the RCMP to the Gendarmerie Nationale in France. They are both called "Gendarmerie". Their roles, organization, structure and equipment is very different.

What do you men by along military lines?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lio45

On the other hand, our geography works against us getting a carrier: our main two areas of populated coastline are really far away from each other, cannot be reliably traveled to and from unless by a long trek far away from the country, and the other area that would benefit from a Navy presence (the North) is also really far away from both of these. Further, the "halls of power" aren't "coastal" in our country (a relative rarity). The Toronto-Montreal-Ottawa Triangle won't ever need or have an aircraft carrier nearby, emergency or not.

For some reason people seem to be fixated on the idea that we'd be procuring an amphibious capability exclusively for disaster response. That would be dumb. If we're procuring an amphibious capability, it's for so much more. But it does add tremendous ability to being able to respond to incidents along coastal areas.

Originally Posted by lio45

Hard to justify such an astronomical expense when you add the factor that that carrier has a 50% chance of happening to be on the wrong coast when the next disaster hits.

Australia has two. They have the combined population of Ontario, Quebec and BC, and a slightly higher GDP than the three provinces combined. Even countries with a lower GDP than Canada, like Spain, South Korea and Turkey can afford it. Heck, Russia has a smaller GDP than us. We're actually the only G7 country without an amphibious capability.

This argument speaks to how cheap Canadians are, in general. Aside from an underfunded military, we're also the only G7 country without high speed rail and universal school lunch programs. When I talk about Canadians just not understanding the capabilities we should have, this is sort of what I'm getting at. There's a reason every other G7 country fields those military capabilities. The reason we don't, is almost exclusively because we've tacitly subcontracted our sovereignty to the US. If we were an ocean away from the US, like Australia is, nobody would be saying it's too expensive. Heck, they're now buying nuclear submarines. The difference between a country that has to take care of themselves and a de facto American dependency....

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

PRE and PRO could carry 3 Helos in their hanger, plus at least 1 more on deck. How many more do you need? The Current MV Astrix can carry 2.

For an actual amphibious capability? A lot more than the det you have on a frigate or oiler. Most amphibs have at least half a dozen helos, or if it's a flat top, the ability to launch STOVLs.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What exactly is lacking from the ships we had active during the last 20 years?

The ability to launch more than two aircraft and conduct mass amphibious manoeuvres.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Everyone cannot be DART, just like everyone cannot be JRT2. Most of what you describe is not done by one person, but many SMEs. For instance, Firefighting is a skill that all Naval personnel must know. However, we still have trained fire fighter trade on board.

Correct. Nobody is suggesting that a single reservist be trained across all those skills. I am suggesting that the reserve FORCE be organized, trained and equipped to fulfill those roles as part of a civil defence mandate. That way when the local militia is called out to a disaster they bring more than just ditch digging and sandbag filling capabilities.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What do you men by along military lines?

What was the difference between the training you received and organization of the RCN vs. the CCG? Understand that, and you'll get what I mean.

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

On that note, I just found out that the distance between Prince George and Prince Rupert is a whopping 710(!) km. I was thinking of something in the range of 100…

thats cause no one relizes how big canada realy is its nuts

[1ajs]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

PR has pretty much reached max capacity due to the limited amount of developable shoreline.

bast away more of that mountain..

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

For some reason people seem to be fixated on the idea that we'd be procuring an amphibious capability exclusively for disaster response. That would be dumb. If we're procuring an amphibious capability, it's for so much more. But it does add tremendous ability to being able to respond to incidents along coastal areas.

You still have not clearly said how it would be useful. You are sounding like a politician.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Australia has two. They have the combined population of Ontario and Quebec and a slightly higher GDP than both. Even countries with a lower GDP than Canada, like Spain, South Korea and Turkey can afford it. Heck, Russia has a smaller GDP than us. We're actually the only G7 country without an amphibious capability.

This argument speaks to how cheap Canadians are, in general. Aside from an underfunded military, we're also the only G7 country without high speed rail and universal school lunch programs. When I talk about Canadians just not understanding the capabilities we should have, this is sort of what I'm getting at. There's a reason every other G7 country fields those military capabilities. The reason we don't, is almost exclusively because we've tacitly subcontracted our sovereignty to the US. If we were an ocean away from the US, like Australia is, nobody would be saying it's too expensive. Heck, they're now buying nuclear submarines. The difference between a country that has to take care of themselves and a de facto American dependency....

Most of their population live on the coast. List the top 10 cities by population of each country, and then list how many of those cities are on the coast and it becomes even clearer. We also have a bigger problem - manpower. Recruitment is too low to support the crews of an amphibious ship, let alone 2.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

For an actual amphibious capability? A lot more than the det you have on a frigate or oiler. Most amphibs have at least half a dozen helos, or if it's a flat top, the ability to launch STOVLs.

And what does that capability do for a warzone?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The ability to launch more than two aircraft and conduct mass amphibious manoeuvres.

PRE and PRO could carry 3 in the hanger, but only sometimes carried one. They saw the lack of need that you don't.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Correct. Nobody is suggesting that a single reservist be trained across all those skills. I am suggesting that the reserve FORCE be organized, trained and equipped to fulfill those roles as part of a civil defence mandate. That way when the local militia is called out to a disaster they bring more than just ditch digging and sandbag filling capabilities.

You know very little about them if you think what you do about it all. You insult the reservists in uniform.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

What was the difference between the training you received and organization of the RCN vs. the CCG? Understand that, and you'll get what I mean.

My ships had the capabilities to make things go boom. Theirs don't have that capability. Some of theirs could go in ice. None of mine could. There isn't much of a difference more than that.

[SpongeG]

how common are hovercrafts in Canada?

I know the coast guard here has at least one.