# France-Canada to revive Atlantic battle for seafloor



## McG (5 Dec 2005)

> *France-Canada to revive Atlantic battle for seafloor*
> St-Pierre-Miquelon given exclusive rights to ring of sea in 1992
> Randy Boswell
> CanWest News Service
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2005)

US - Dixon Channel, Beaufort Sea, Northwest Passage, Georges Banks
Denmark - Hans Island
France - Seabed claims....

Come one come all. Step right up and stake your claim......   What was that Navy for again?

Oh.  I forgot about Russia.  Both she and Denmark are contesting ownership of the North Pole with Canada -  Sea bed resources are at stake.


----------



## KevinB (5 Dec 2005)

Well as long as we are fighting in Afghan -- I would bet the USN will have our back...

 France  ???  What has it done for anyone recently...


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (5 Dec 2005)

Since February 10th, 1763, France sailors have the right to fish in the 'grands bancs' (Traité de Paris).
France only kept the iislandsSt.-Pierre and Miquelon so their fishermans could dry their fish. They have absolutely no right to exploit the sea bed ressources. Shame on us if we back down (I wish we don't).
And I don't think we need the USN to back us up, we have 6 frigates, 2 destroyers and 3 subs wich will be operational in 2007.
                                                                                                                      Clément


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2005)

Vive Clement.


----------



## KevinB (5 Dec 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Navy

FS Charles de Gaulle - 40 aircraft, including 
Rafale 
Super Étendard 
E-2C Hawkeye 
SA365 Dauphin helicopters

Mistral and the Tonnerre
The Mistral type is a class of assault helicopter carriers of the French Navy, capable of deploying 16 NH90 or Tigre. They have amphibious capabilities, and carry four landing barges and 40-tank Leclerc squadron. They also have a fully capable 50-bed hospital.


Submarines
[edit]
SNLE (SSBN)

Redoutable class submarineRedoutable class - 1 ships 
S615 Inflexible 


Triomphant - 3 ships 
S616 Triomphant 
S617 Téméraire 
S618 Vigilant 
S619 Terrible (to be commissioned in 2008) 


SNA (SSN Nuclear attack submarines)

Rubis class submarineRubis class - 6 ships 
S601 Rubis (ex-Provence) 
S602 Saphir (ex-Bretagne) 
S603 Casabianca (ex-Bourgogne) 
S604 Emeraude 
S605 Améthyste 
S606 Perle 
S607 Turquoise (canceled) 
S608 Diamant (canceled) 


-------------

  I wont bother going into their other stuff.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2005)

Should be a fair fight. No?


----------



## Infanteer (5 Dec 2005)

I love all this saber-rattling at the European allies; people start the penis-measuring contest right away here.  First Denmark, now France - are you guys expecting pit-fighter matches between their military and ours?


----------



## KevinB (5 Dec 2005)

Well considering the French have been known to blow up people's boats that disagreed with them cough Rainbow Warrior cough.


My point was simply they could take whatever they want from us and w/o the USN we could be unilingually francais


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2005)

Infanteer, its the nautical version of "muddy boots".

In the absence of said boots we are at a decided disadvantage when somebody else plants their own boots on the ground.   If we are there first with one pair of boots then that forces the other guy to either escalate to a confrontation or go home (or as Kevin suggests remove the boots by subterfuge and hope nobody notices).   On the other hand, if the other guy gets there first and can put many boots on the ground our adoption of the "confrontation" option becomes something of a non-starter.

A Major of my acquaintance was reminding me of a Wellington/Napoleon tale.     Ownership of a bridge in France was in question.   Wellington wanted to keep it standing, other elements (either Allied or Enemy) wanted to have the bridge brought down.   Wellington's solution was to park one soldier with musket in the middle of the bridge and keep changing him out every two hours.   When it was pointed out that those that wished to bring down the bridge could easily remove one soldier Wellington's response was that it wasn't what one soldier could do.   It was what that single red coat represented - an incredibly high political barrier.

In the absence of Canadians working the territory under dispute a government presence is required: Navy, Coast Guard or RCMP launch.   Giving the "leap frogging" claim I am going to assume that the waters are too great for the RCMP and the Navy is probably a better bet.   Even one Halifax is enough to make the point that we are serious about the claim.   That forces the other side to up the ante.   A dangerous proposition if we have friends.   Less so if we are isolated.

If on the other hand we let the other side plant its own frigate in those waters, and we can't offer more back up than they can, then once again we are reliant on "friends" to establsh our claim.   What was a squabble between two "friendly" governments then becomes something much more interesting.   

And in all circumstances we lose - face, sovereignty, control, resources.

This is not about penis-measuring.   This is about how do you deal with situations that see submarines playing tag for 30 years or Islandic Coast Guard Cutters cutting fishing nets and being shelled by Royal Navy Vessels.   Or closer to home its about Captain Canada shelling and boarding Spanish and US fishing vessels.   

All of this happened and no "wars" were declared.

EDIT:   The Propaganda Wars Begin?   Brigitte Bardot tied to the bow of the Charles de Gaulle coming to save the seals from those nasty Canadians.   They obviously can't be permitted stewardship over any more of the ocean. ;D

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/051205/w120552.html


----------



## Infanteer (5 Dec 2005)

Figuring out a "muddy boots" equation based upon tonnage displaced our how many baguettes the French Navy can dredge up is just silly.  I doubt the French are googling the specs on the Canadian Navy when they consider how to approach this situation.  This situation (and any conflict/trouble that could come out of it) is immeasurably more complex then that.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2005)

How much does a baguette displace?

It is more complex agreed.  But at the same time it can be as simple as a case of Akvavit and a Flag.  It is about demonstrating intent and part of that demonstration is a realistic capability to back up symbolic gestures with the ability to impose the will of the nation against interlopers - not necessarily all-comers - just against most.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Dec 2005)

I think a more important question to ask is what would be the consequences of a European military vessel firing on a Canadian one in North American waters.   I don't care if it is a rubber dingy or the _Charles de Gaulle_, things like that are larger factors than any numbers comparison.

Anyways, I'm going with square F-7.   You got anything there?     >


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Dec 2005)

There goes the Kingston.  You Win. ;D


----------



## KevinB (5 Dec 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> There goes the Kingston.   You Win. ;D



 ;D  Cute 

I don't see the French actually gunning for us.  The simple fact that THEY CAN place a greatly superior force where they wish within our claimed oceanic zone is a victory for them.  They don't need to sink any of our Navy to simply show the flag with a visit and prove to the world that they can exercise control of their claimed water ways (and sea floor).

 We can't even patrol our claimed territory at the best of times (or did I sleep through a Nuclear Sub or Nuke Ice Breaker purchase)

Any claim Canada wishes to put out is empty - for we cannot do anything about it if we are ignored.  

Big Lessons Learned to all the Sovereignty activists out there - you have to back up hot air...

Possession is 9/10th the law -- Armed Possession is the other 10th...


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (6 Dec 2005)

KevinB, if we are able to keep an armed presence in the area all year long, it remains ours. We are not able to do this for Hans island, so we can not back up our claims in the north. Not the same case for Saint-Pierre et Miquelon. It changes nothing if the french navy is bigger than the Canadian navy. They are not going to send the Charles de Gaulle and order it to tell us 'I am bigger than you so get out!' Anyways the Charles de Gaulle only embarks 7 Rafalle, which are only able to perform air to air missions. They had to report its date of commission because the flight deck was 5 m to short for the E-2 to take-off. I laugh every time I think about it.
The Étandard..... nothing compared to the CF-18 Hornet. If they land some Leclercs on Miquelon island, what will it change to one of our ships miles away in the ocean?
                                                                                                                          Clément


----------



## geo (6 Dec 2005)

For what it's worth...
France sold out Quebec & Canada a long, long time ago.
They did it then..... and they'd do it again if given half a chance.

The french citzens of St Pierre & Miquelon aren't all that happy a bunch.
not well looked after and if it wasn't for the fact that they'd have to pay Cdn taxes, on all that booze and ciggies that are smuggled thru the islands, they'd prolly be interested in joining Canada anyway... just like the Grand Turks & Caicos tried about 15 yrs ago.


----------



## KevinB (7 Dec 2005)

The CD can take more than 9  -- it can take over 20 --  all depends on how many helo's they embark and E2's...
  The CD was not built for the Hawkeye -- hence why they had to extend the runway deck.


 My point on all this is that the Cdn gov't should put its money wear its mouth is wrt sovereignty issues.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2005)

> My point on all this is that the Cdn gov't should put its money wear its mouth is wrt sovereignty issues.



While I agree whole-heartedly with this the government doesn't need to spend a lot of money on this.  Despite my comment about Infanteer sinking the Kingston the riposte wouldn't have to be a Naval Task Force.

The guys out of Bagotville and Greenwood, them could probably handle anything of the sort described IF they were appropriately armed with quantities of something like Harpoon and the CP-140s surveillance suites were all up to snuff.

The fact that we don't have long range ASMs (we don't do we?), a relatively cheap solution to defending the approaches, says more to me about willingness to act than willingness to spend.


----------



## Zartan (7 Dec 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Well considering the French have been known to blow up people's boats that disagreed with them cough Rainbow Warrior cough.



We have the Estai http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War

I was wondering though, about air superiority, wouldn't a CF-18 from Newfoundland be within flying range of a French fleet in the west Atlantic?

Addendum: I'm a dumbass for comparing the Estai to the Rainbow Warrior.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Dec 2005)

Piper - I think you are right but air delivery from shore offers a number of advantages not least of which is that the "magazine" from which the CF-18s and CP-140s might reload could be essentially unlimited in size.  The ships only have what they have on board then have to take a long time off station to reload.  As well the CF-18s, and even the CP-140s are significantly smaller targets than ships,  much more manoeuverable than ships and don't have to expose themselves for as long - in fact if I understand the current generation of the Harpoon /SLAM-ER they don't need to get any closer than 280 km and the missile will designate its own target.

I would be inclined to think those shipboard missiles, when the ships are operating under allied aircover, may be better held in reserve for self-defense or for defense of the task-force if air cover goes away.

This is getting seriously off topic though -  as Infanteer rightly points out - we're not going to having these discussions with the French......

Harper IS talking about extending jurisdiction to the Nose and Tail and the Flemish Cap though...


----------



## KevinB (7 Dec 2005)

Zartan said:
			
		

> We have the Estai http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbot_War



- Are you seriously equating bombing a vessel in a friendly port and killing a civilian, with the seizure of the Estai (which was guilty)?


----------



## geo (7 Dec 2005)

Piper....
the trouble with your post is that....
It can be a magnet for all the "quebec bashers" out there.
I live there - don't want to hear about it

that's it for me on this thread

Bye!
'


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Dec 2005)

> I believe the Halifax class frigates are still equipped with Harpoon ASMs.



ASM is Air to surface missile (I believe some are confusing it to mean anti-ship missile). Harpoon is an SSM (ship to ship missile)

It is made for killing ships but for the sake of clarification....


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Dec 2005)

Ex-dragoon:

Those Harpoons - are there reloads on board? If not can you cross-deck them from the AORs and reload at sea or do you have to go back to port to reload?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Dec 2005)

Nope just the 8 a CPF carries...and the AORs don't carry any for re armament purposes.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Dec 2005)

Back to plan A then I guess - hang on to them until you really need them?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Dec 2005)

If a suitable target came up there is no reason why we would not use them.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Dec 2005)

Glad to hear it.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (8 Dec 2005)

> Anyways the Charles de Gaulle only embarks 7 Rafalle, which are only able to perform air to air missions.



CDG carries 10 Rafale(air defence/strike), 24 Super Entendards (strike), 2 E2C (AEW), and either 2 Panthers or Cougar helicopters.


----------



## Clément Barbeau Vermet (8 Dec 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> CDG carries 10 Rafale(air defence/strike), 24 Super Entendards (strike), 2 E2C (AEW), and either 2 Panthers or Cougar helicopters.



By saying that the CDG only carries 7 (10, Army-Technology is a little bit late) Rafale I did not meant it could not embark other aircrafts or helicopters. And all the Rafales the French presently have are only to F1 standard (air to air). They will only be converted to F2 standard latter (adding air to ground capacity).
                                                                                                                              Clément


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (9 Dec 2005)

I go by what I have seen her actual carrier air wing to be at...I  believe Janes is similar with some minor differences in the Super Enterndard and helicopter numbers.


----------

