# Fish fight left a stench



## JasonH (27 Mar 2005)

> Sun, March 27, 2005
> 
> *Fish fight left a stench*
> 
> ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (27 Mar 2005)

Speak softly and carry a big stick.


----------



## Britney Spears (27 Mar 2005)

Talking from someone who was there, I am underthe impression that any Spanish naval incursion, by their one carrier and handful of Harriers, would have been little more than target practice for our land based CF-18s, although there was doubt if our Seakings were up to the task of rescuing so many shipwrecked Spanish sailors.


----------



## Rfn (27 Mar 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Talking from someone who was there, I am underthe impression that any Spanish naval incursion, by their one carrier and handful of Harriers, would have been little more than target practice for our land based CF-18s, although there was doubt if our Seakings were up to the task of rescuing so many shipwrecked Spanish sailors.



Pretty interesting. But would the CF18s in Bagotville be in range? And I wonder if they were alerted at the time. 

It'd be interesting to speculate, if it had turned into a shooting conflict:

1) How would our history be different over the past 10 years;
2) Who would have "won;"
3) Which air/naval units would have been involved. 

I'm very glad it didn't come to that, we probably would have lost people, and it wouldn't have solved a thing.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Mar 2005)

I am disappointed but not surprised that there is no mention of Canadian naval involvement. Go figure.



> It'd be interesting to speculate, if it had turned into a shooting conflict



its not nice to speculate it was not a game but a very tense time.


----------



## mz589 (27 Mar 2005)

Britney Spears said:
			
		

> Talking from someone who was there, I am underthe impression that any Spanish naval incursion, by their one carrier and handful of Harriers, would have been little more than target practice for our land based CF-18s, although there was doubt if our Seakings were up to the task of rescuing so many shipwrecked Spanish sailors.



Correct me if I am wrong here, but I seem to recall that the Spaniards did try to send a destroyer ut it died and had to turn back before it got half wayt to the grand banks. I also remember Don Cherry applauding Brian Tobin on Coach's Corner, something like "Atta boy you Brian Tobin boy!."


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Mar 2005)

> Correct me if I am wrong here, but I seem to recall that the Spaniards did try to send a destroyer



It was an OPV.


----------



## Sheerin (27 Mar 2005)

I must admit, my knowledge of the incident is really lacking, i was 13 at the time and all i really remember is hearing a report on the radio while in the car with my father (I think we were going to the Scarborough Town Centre... but I digress), from what I remember, the report said that we dispatched a destroyer - but I don't recall what was said about the Spanish fleet.  yeah, my memory is really vague.  

What vessels were involved in the incident?


edited: poor wording on my part.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Mar 2005)

Trust me..I was on the Terra Nova who was involved and the Spaanish did not dispatch any destroyer.


----------



## Sheerin (27 Mar 2005)

How many ships were actually involved in this?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Mar 2005)

Sherrin it was 10 years ago..I know we were and I believe the Athabaskan was as well beyond us two I no longer remember.


----------



## Sheerin (27 Mar 2005)

Thanks, just curious and procrastinating
Sorry if I sounded like a pesk.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Mar 2005)

See? These are situations where a sub fleet comes in real handy: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28698/post-189209.html#msg189209

Plausible deniability and all that goes with it.


----------



## Rfn (27 Mar 2005)

Ex Dragoon: Didn't mean to imply the Turbot crisis was a game, apologies if thats how I made it sound.

I meant to look at it in a reflective way, to pick up some lessons learned.


----------



## Allen (27 Mar 2005)

For the record, the Spanish warship dispatched was the 1200-ton OPV "Vigia", armed with a 76-mm and a couple of MG's. Problem was, it was so cold that the ice which developed on it's masts caused instability, so they decided to turn back.

I remember seeing a photo of HMCS Halifax being sent to counter it, but I don't know of any other Cdn warships involved.

It's frightening to think that this type of escalation could have occurred over a fishing dispute! However we do need to be more active in curbing overfishing.


----------



## TCBF (28 Mar 2005)

At the time I thought we were about to get our asses handed too us on a plate by the Europeans.  Fortunately, they saw the light, otherwise... we would have lost.

Tom


----------



## mz589 (28 Mar 2005)

Allen said:
			
		

> For the record, the Spanish warship dispatched was the 1200-ton OPV "Vigia", armed with a 76-mm and a couple of MG's. Problem was, it was so cold that the ice which developed on it's masts caused instability, so they decided to turn back.



Allen, thanks for clearing that up. I  knew they had tried to send some sort of ship. I also seem to recall HMCS Halifax being involved, I remember the front page of the Toronto Sun having a picture of one of our ships with the headline "We Won't Take your Bull!"

I also remember that some British fisherman were flying the Canadian flag on their boats in support of us, apparently the Spaniards had raised their ire as well.


----------



## jmacleod (28 Mar 2005)

Spanish fishermen (CBC do'nt like the word "fishermen") have been catching many species of
North Atlantic fish stocks for over 400 years. The various fishing fleets who ply the North Atlantic
and Canadian waters contribute a great amount of money to the Newfoundland economy. The
socalled "turbot" war was a political creation, which vanished very quickly when reports surfaced
that many Spanish trawlers and even long-liners were leased ships, many from the EU and the
UK - the word in Halifax at the time was that the Spanish vessel in focus was a leased ship from
Gimsby, England, United Kingdom. The Republic of Spain too, I understand is a member of NATO
-little difficult to believe that a Canadian military or Coast Guard ship would cause grief to a fellow
NATO member, one would think. MacLeod


----------



## jmacleod (28 Mar 2005)

For those interested in the "Turbot War" - there is a significant amount of information on the
North West Atlantic Fisheries site on the net. The Spanish destroyer, (which in fact is a rather
small vessel) is shown tied up at a jetty near the Esso fuel tanks in Saint John's Harbour NF.The
entire scenario in 1995 was blown out of proportion - fact is that most "illegal fishing" is done
by Canadian, and a lesser extent U.S. based fishermen. It usually comes down to the question
"just what is exactly "illegal" - Spanish fishermen were in fact east of Canadian waters when
challenged (their quotas were cut from 60,000 metric tonnes to 28,000) - but the decision
was based on saving and retaining cod stocks. In March 2005, North Atlantic cod stocks are
reported only 5% of what they were in the 1970's. The answer is of course to stop fish
harvesting in the Western North Atlantic - but how would one do that? Regards MacLeod


----------



## buzgo (29 Mar 2005)

I was in Bosnia, with CANBAT2 when this went down. I remember travelling through the Spanish IOR. They weren't too happy with us, yelling and making angry gestures at us.


----------



## NCRCrow (29 Mar 2005)

We were on NATO and a crew member from my ship, somebody supposedly flipped the bird to the Spanish captain as we sailed passed.

It didnt go over well, us and the Spanish kinda avoided each other. 

Like Haitian Vacation 95, they positioned a Type 22(UK) and Argentine Meko in the same AOR, the Argentines sailed home due to "National Commitments"


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Mar 2005)

> The Spanish destroyer, (which in fact is a rather
> small vessel) is shown tied up at a jetty near the Esso fuel tanks in Saint John's Harbour NF.



Link please.


----------



## jmacleod (29 Mar 2005)

Link is Carleton University - EU "The Turbot War" which provides quite a bit of information
as well as the photograph of the Spanish "destroyer" at the Saint John's Esso jetty (where
the vessel, flying the Spanish flag of course, probably went for fuel) - the crises in my opinion
was created by Brian Tobin and his ambitions (before Chretien got pissed off with him). There
is an enormous amount of information about the North West Atlantic Fishery on several public sites
(Government of Canada, EU, UK, Spain, Portugal, etc.) plus private sector comments. NS
fishermen would not have complained - would have fished their quotas (or more) and sold the
catch to the Spaniards (as they have to the Russians for years) Regards, MacLeod


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Mar 2005)

Sorry was under the impression you were calling it a destroyer.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Mar 2005)

I, for one, am glad we acted. It caught the Spanish (and the rest of the world for that matter) of guard and showed our resolve to protect our national rescources. I feel its something we will have to do more and more of in the coming years and backing down is tanatamount of allowing another country take up the burden to defending your soverignity.


----------



## larry Strong (29 Mar 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> ......and backing down is tanatamount of allowing another country take up the burden to defending your soverignity.



Seems to me we already do that!


----------



## Island Ryhno (30 Mar 2005)

jmacleod, it sounds like your taking a potshot at Newfoundland and it's fishermen "NS
fishermen would not have complained - would have fished their quotas (or more) and sold the
catch to the Spaniards" I'm sure you understand the effect overfishing had on the economy of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and a great portion of Canada for that matter. If you think that it was just some political whohooing by the government of Newfoundland then I suggest you have a look at this article http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/media/backgrou/1995/hq-ac04_e.htm  It details alot of where the Spanish Factory Trawlers were previously expelled from. The effect that overfishing and the eventual collapse of the Northern Cod stocks had on Newfoundland would be equivalent to closing every manufacturing plant in Ontario. A whole lifestyle, a generation or two has been lost as a result. It was not an overreaction to anything.


----------



## HollywoodHitman (31 Mar 2005)

Nice to see that someone had the stones to fire a shot to backup National Policy. Violence isn't always the answer, but having a bigger stick to whack the less compliant party is always advantageous. Having the stick and the will to whack with it, is important too. I don't like that other countries push us around so easily. So good on those who participated. Their professionalism probably saved us the cost of a mini conflict.


----------



## jmacleod (1 Apr 2005)

My father was a Marine Engineer. He and his Boston based partners owned steel-hulled ocean going
trawlers in the 60's and early 70's. These were men who spent many years in the fish harvesting
and processing industries. I remember that they often discussed the serious decline in cod stocks
on the North West Atlantic, caused by overfishing, mostly by Russian and Eastern European
trawlers, which were very large ships, capable of catches much beyond a 12 man trawler.Their
catches were frozen on board and stored. Many Canadian fishermen sold their quotas several times
over at sea to the big Russian ships, that is why Canada insisted on fisheries inspection teams, which
were contracted to private companies, based in Halifax and Saint John's NF. But by 1995, the almost
total destruction of the Canadian Coast Guard CCG by Fisheries and Oceans Canada, plus the complexities
of EU control of much of the international quotas, led to what is described by the EU Fisheries
Commission in November 2003, to define cod stocks at "catastrophic levels". But the action by Tobin
as described by Blizzard was contrived, and the wrong target was focused. I think that Chretien was
unaware that Spain was and is a prominent member of NATO, and once aware, told Tobin to back off
-which he did. MacLeod


----------



## GK .Dundas (1 Apr 2005)

I suspect no had bothered to tell Brian Tobin just how big the Spanish military was.And if they got sufficiently pissed enough could've reduced St John to a smoking hole in the ground! 
You really have to wonder what our leaders use for brains sometimes :


----------



## Acorn (1 Apr 2005)

How the hell would they have made it to St John's in order to reduce it to a smoking hole?

Acorn


----------



## Island Ryhno (1 Apr 2005)

GK .Dundas said:
			
		

> I suspect no had bothered to tell Brian Tobin just how big the Spanish military was.And if they got sufficiently pissed enough could've reduced St John to a smoking hole in the ground!
> You really have to wonder what our leaders use for brains sometimes :



I suspect no one told you that St.John's is part of Canada and any attack it would constitute an attack on Canada thus bringing our naval forces et al into the fight. Think before typing my friend, I'm a very proud Newfoundlander and will defend any suggestions at our stupidity


----------



## GK .Dundas (1 Apr 2005)

Island Ryhno said:
			
		

> I suspect no one told you that St.John's is part of Canada and any attack it would constitute an attack on Canada thus bringing our naval forces et al into the fight. Think before typing my friend, I'm a very proud Newfoundlander and will defend any suggestions at our stupidity


     My point and I suspect it was very poorly made was that we could have ended up in a shooting war . We were very fortunate that tempers were kept by all sides.Furthermore I'm not accusing you of stupidity,I'm accusing the then political masters of our country of stupidity.
 Brinkmanship is a mugs game especially if you lack the military muscle to bring   the fight to your opponents doorstep. simply put they could, we could' nt.
 I'm sorry if I offended you ,that was never my intent.


----------



## Britney Spears (1 Apr 2005)

Can you elaborate exactly how the Spanish were going to "bring the fight to us"? While I don't imagine we have a great deal of fore projection to bring to bear on them, I still have enough faith in our Navy and Air force to  defend our own territorial waters/air.


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2005)

Fleet versus fleet, they could have embarrassed us, or worse.  I have the greatest respect for our Sailors and Airmen, but that would have been the equivalent of my Leopard C1 against a T-72 'Dolly Parton' back in the bad old days.  Not a happy ending.

(Hence the Baileys in the 39 rd bin!)

Tom


----------



## Britney Spears (1 Apr 2005)

Wow. But we have local air superiority no?



> the equivalent of my Leopard C1 against a T-72 'Dolly Parton' back in the bad old days.  Not a happy ending.
> 
> (Hence the Baileys in the 39 rd bin!)



 ???


----------



## childs56 (1 Apr 2005)

you ever seen a Newfie mad, if i was the Spanish i would not have pushed the subject any further. They may have a bigger Navy and such but the cost and ability for them to sail that far would have put a huge strain on their forces. I think they would have lost interest after their first ship was sunk by a Canadian sub, or one of those angry Newfie fishermen. Glad it didnt esculate beyond where it did, things would have been ugly. but the bottom line is Canada was right to stick up for itself with the use of Military force. and i only wish we would do it more. This is my opinion and not meant to offend anyone.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (1 Apr 2005)

TCBF are you in the navy.  If not perhaps one of our naval members could shed light on this.  That said having the battlefield in your own backyard does provide key advantages.


----------



## Slim (1 Apr 2005)

CTD said:
			
		

> you ever seen a Newfie mad,



Yes...My father is from the Rock. That doesn't mean that he can sink a Spanish naval vessal by himself. being proud of our heratige is one thing...Stupid and idle boasting can only cause trouble in the long run.




> if i was the Spanish i would not have pushed the subject any further. They may have a bigger Navy and such but the cost and ability for them to sail that far would have put a huge strain on their forces. I think they would have lost interest after their first ship was sunk by a Canadian sub, or one of those angry Newfie fishermen.


And what sort of international incident do you think it would have caused if one of our subs had whacked a fishing boat from a foreign nation?! 




> Glad it didnt esculate beyond where it did, things would have been ugly. but the bottom line is Canada was right to stick up for itself with the use of Military force. and i only wish we would do it more. This is my opinion and not meant to offend anyone.



Military force is great...when used properly and with wisdom...As are Newfoundland fishermen.


----------



## TCBF (1 Apr 2005)

"TCBF are you in the navy.   If not perhaps one of our naval members could shed light on this.   That said having the battlefield in your own backyard does provide key advantages."

I am a Soldier, not a Sailor, certainly not an expert in things maritime, and I concur we would have had a geographical advantage.   Just as the Argies did against the Brits (a near run thing).

I am more than willing to be educated on this.

Britney: The   T-72A, started coming off the production line in 1978,more or less the same time as our Leopard C1s.   It had a laser rangefinder, metal side skirts and new laminate frontal turret armour.The bumps either side of the main armament caused by the new armour led to the Yanks nicknaming it the Dolly Parton.   It's dart could go through a Leopard C1, front to back, at 1000m, while our 'Warshots' at the time would not penetrate the turret of the T-72A.   A bottle of Baileys   (used only as coffee whitener) wrapped in two sandbags fit perfectley in one of the ammo storage tubes in the Leo hull (the 39 rd bin).   If you drank enough whitened coffee, you could forget about the Dolly Parton, and the T-64, and the T-80U, and the...

Tom


----------



## Acorn (2 Apr 2005)

Thankfully it never came to shots fired in anger, however, I submit that the Spanish would have come off badly had they tried to project any military force into our waters.

Acorn


----------



## Infanteer (2 Apr 2005)

Funny, if we would have traded shots with either Spain or Denmark over our waters in the last 10 years, it would have shot the "Democratic Peace" (Democracies don't fight) theory to bits.

Could you imagine Canada being responsible for wrecking a key piece of Liberal IR doctrine?


----------



## Slim (2 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Funny, if we would have traded shots with either Spain or Denmark over our waters in the last 10 years, it would have shot the "Democratic Peace" (Democracies don't fight) theory to bits.
> 
> Could you imagine Canada being responsible for wrecking a key piece of Liberal IR doctrine?



TeeHeeHee...! ;D


----------



## TCBF (2 Apr 2005)

"Thankfully it never came to shots fired in anger, however, I submit that the Spanish would have come off badly had they tried to project any military force into our waters."

Out of my arcs. 

 Okay, all you Sailors dig out Janes and your slide rules and tell us who would have won.   Any wargamers out there?   How about developing a wargame "A Fish Too Far" or somesuch.

Factor in our odds of beating the Spanish in an all out Air/Sea war scenario, bearing in mind the size of;

1.   The entire Spanish fleet.
2.   The Canadian East Coast fleet.
3.   Whatever aviation either side could bring to bear, include Spanish F-18s with mid air refueling from the Azores.   (?)
4.   Special Purpose Forces, used to destroy/deny shore based assets.
5.   Anything else for interesting options.

Tom


----------



## Acorn (2 Apr 2005)

It might surprise you to know that some of us may have done that Tom (professionally or not). The Spanish lose. (Hint one: projecting F/A-18s across the Atlantic with a combat load is only one of the little absurdities when considering Spanish superiority - don't forget we also have them, and know full well their capabilities and limitations).

The Spaniards would have been embarrassed in a very costly (human and treasure) way had it come to a shooting war.

Acorn


----------



## childs56 (2 Apr 2005)

my comment was not to be taken sereiously about the Newfies. the majority of my family is from Newfoundland, most of whom are or were fishermen. I myself am a Bluenoser. They themselves have joked about this matter of them taken out the fishing fleets of other countries with a few shot guns and such. It is the same as shooting the S^%&, if you took offence to it then well not really my problem. I am glad the whole situation did not esculate as a small war would have been an embarrasment for both countries. cheers


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Apr 2005)

What's a Bluenoser?


----------



## jmacleod (2 Apr 2005)

A complex question. Go to the site of the Nova Scotia Archives and Records Management
Halifax Nova Scotia for "Bluenose: A Canadian Icon" to the paragraph "How The Bluenose
Got It's Name". There are a number of opinions of where the original term came from to
define a Nova Scotian, which has been in the public domain since at least 1760. MacLeod


----------



## Island Ryhno (2 Apr 2005)

A couple of things about this whole discussion. 1) Brian Tobin was a very intelligent man and extremely politically savvy, hence his near becoming prime minister of Canada. What he did during the "turbot wars" was draw attention to a situation that was then devastating and is now still devasting to the Newfoundland economy. Understanding that everything a politician does is to his political benifit. I wonder what the reaction would be had it been, say foreigners taking lumber out of BC, do you think that any politician who stood up there would be mocked? 2) Have any of you seen St.John's? The entrance to St.John's harbour is called the narrows, it is flanked on both sides by extremely high hills (Signal Hill and Fort Amherst) and was the traditional harbour defence site. Bringing todays firepower into those positions would make it highly unlikely that any unwanted ships could reach the city. 3) Why is people figure that they can throw the word "Newfie" around whenever they want and assume it's not their problem if people from Newfoundland get offended? I had a discussion with TSN columnist Alex Walling when he wrote the article "Newfie Soap Opera" in regards to the QMJHL team coming here etc. He explained to me that since he had lived here for 10 years it gave him the right to call us Newfies  :-\ I guess then if you live in Toronto for 10 years you are entitled to use derogatory names for black, chinese, greek, italian, sikh people also. I was suprised when Coleen Jones lost her curling title that he didn't title it "Bluenose goes down again" But then that's just me.


----------



## TCBF (2 Apr 2005)

"It might surprise you to know that some of us may have done that Tom (professionally or not). "

Thanks.  As I said, I'm out of my arcs on that one.

Tom


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Apr 2005)

Acorn said:
			
		

> It might surprise you to know that some of us may have done that Tom (professionally or not). The Spanish lose. (Hint one: projecting F/A-18s across the Atlantic with a combat load is only one of the little absurdities when considering Spanish superiority - don't forget we also have them, and know full well their capabilities and limitations).
> 
> The Spaniards would have been embarrassed in a very costly (human and treasure) way had it come to a shooting war.
> 
> Acorn



Maybe, if we really had our ships and aircraft working together for coordinated attacks. 

These are only my thoughts, as I have been out of the Navy for quite some time, and I seriously doubt the guys still in are going to comment on this to any degree.

The only practical anti surface weapon the Navy has is the Harpoon, which the Spanish also have. If the outcome was predicated on that weapon alone, the issue would be very much in doubt.  Both sides have guns, but if the ships were that close, it would be because they are going to VERTREP beer in exchange for Sangria or Amaretto ... 

If, by chance, the Cf-18 had a go at a Spanish ship, the CRV 7 in the anti shipping role would be rather devastating, and there is no effective shipboard countermeasure other than good armour and fire fighting skills. If the attack went via Dawn Patrol ["Out of the Sun"!!!], especially if launched while the Chorizo is being thrown into the frying pan, the whole thing might be over before the line up at Timmies gets too long. A very low level supersonic run up to about 3 kms the ships would be required, then the Hornet would have to hit the brakes, climb slightly, then dip the nose down to aim and fire the rockets, release counter measures, take off on afterburners to escape the SM-1 response.   Bear in mind, a ship is always moving and the attack would be more successful if it was rendered such that the 76mm Oto on the Perry or the 5" on the Knox were either obstructed [a head on attack on the former and a stern attack on the latter.]  
or could not train fast enough to engage the inbound.

I don't think we had any PGM's at the time. A CF-18 pilot flying at any altitude over a Perry class frigate for an unguided bomb run would be a very brave pilot since the direction of the aircraft is predictable. I served  a stint on HMAS Darwin, a Perry class frigate, and I can tell you that after the USS Stark took an Exocet, the more professional Navy's that operate the class of ship routinely drill for AAD against that sort of attack ... and they are damn good at it.  Any weapon that requires the aircraft to loiter on station while guiding it would likely have an interesting day, to say the least.  

Without a good plan and well trained pilots, those SM-1's on the Perry and Knox frigates could punch the CF-18's right out of the sky if they come in at anything other than low altitude for a CRV attack without other factors working to optimize the attack. The PDMS would finish off those that get too close. It would be critical to make sure the Spanish would not get into a tactical position to set up a missile trap, ala RN in the Falklands [when they finally figured out how to deny the airspace to the A4's.] The known presence of a SSK might take care of that, as they would want to put some distance between ships. 

A CPF Harpoon attack, or multiples thereof, might be a good decoy for a CF-18 attack. Vice versa woul be interesting as well ....   

I don't know how good the Spanish ESM and ECM were at the time, but they are probably on par with us now. Their new AAD destroyer would be problematic, but they didn't have it back then.  

On the other hand, a Harpoon attack from an SSK, and it's game over for the opposing surface fleet. Unfortunately, that is a game for which the powers in charge of the Canadian Navy have chosen not to equip the boats. 

For the life of me, I don't know why we also don't fit a dozen of the CF-18's with the hard points and related electronics for Harpoons. Nobody would think seriously of fooling around on the surface in the 200 mile EEZ zone, and the overall cost is not very high. 

At the end of the day, I agree Jack T would be due for a good run ashore if he had really to TCB. At least, the ones still alive. I don't know what jet jockeys do for amusement ....


----------



## GK .Dundas (2 Apr 2005)

Does anyone know where Spain's carrier was during this fracas?
 As for the air launch version of the harpoon as I recall for the 18 all that is required is a software download.( I think, it's been a long time since I've had to deal with this)


----------



## Acorn (3 Apr 2005)

The fact of the matter is that Spain would have been trying to project force into our back yard. IIRC they didn't have Perrys or Knoxs at the time (they have them now, of course) and their carrier was a "through-deck cruiser" type Harrier platform. At the time they didn't have SM-1, and their sub capabilities were pretty pathetic (even compared to our three O-boats).

The point is moot anyway.

Acorn


----------



## TCBF (3 Apr 2005)

"The point is moot anyway."

Heck, most of our threads are moot. That's why this aint on the DWAN. ;D

Tom


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Apr 2005)

Actually the Spanish navy did have the Knox's and Perry classes back then. My impressions of the Spanish navy back then was not that high. While they were good they were no where near as good as they are now. We had 3 working O boats back then that carried MK48s that would have seriously put a crimper in what escort forces with Sm1 that the Spanish could deploy not to mention posing a credible risk to the_ Principe de Asturias _ . Although we still had a steamers in the navy that I still feel without extensive mods would have been of questional combat utility we know these waters. Our CF18s would have the benefit of locale while the Spanish would have no guarantee that the Portuguese would allow them to refuel at the Azores. In the long run, a shooting battle would have been costly but in the end I think it would have been the Spanish that would have been the ones that would have lost.


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Apr 2005)

11 Spanish ships carried the SM-1 in 1995, according to Janes Fighting Ships, 1996 Military Edition. The Spanish surface fleet had a total of 17 vessels carrying Harpoon  missiles, and every one of those ships carried a SAM capability of either the SM-1 or the Aspide. There were also a number of patrol vessels available, such as the Serviola class, but they were of little military consequence. 

In addition, the entire Galerna class of submarines [4] was operational and fully worked up at the time. The sub, which is capable of being refuelled underway, carries Exocet sub launched SSM missiles, torpedoes and mines.   

The SPS 52C (3D) and the the SPS 49(V)5 comprised the principle air search radar throughout their fleet. In addition, the Spanish Santa Maria {Perry Class} carried 2 LAMPS III helo's, and significantly, the SQR-19(V)2 tactical towed array sonar. I note that the Spanish navy is also the only operator in the world of the Praire masker hull/noise blade rate suppression system on this class of vessel. As a result, their ability to sense, detect and identify was at least equal to our own in 1995. The Baleares {Knox} class also carried the ASROC launcher.  

Clearly, this is a navy which was outfitted at the time in question for intensive ASW and AAW operations to protect the carrier, with an anti-surface capability which, at worst, matched our own. Arriving on station off the Grand Banks with enough fuel to fight would be the principle limitation of the Spanish Navy in 1995.  Assuming they deployed half of the available numbers of each class of surface combatant and 2 of the subs, they could defend themselves adequately from the Canadian Navy. Without increased numbers, it doesn't appear as though they could launch a decisive attack against the Canadian fleet without their carrier and additional submarines.


----------



## Slim (3 Apr 2005)

I think that even if we had hit them at the time, they would have responded at a later date with some sort of retaliation. Perhaps in the form of a raid on something of ours whether at sea or perhaps on the Newfoundland itself.

Anyway you look at it, mulching one of their fishing boats would not be the way to do business...If we were really that upset we could have impounded the thing and held the crew for a couple of days before sending them home on Air Canada  (minus the boat) with no lasting harm done.

Slim


----------



## TCBF (3 Apr 2005)

"... sending them home on Air Canada (minus the boat) with no lasting harm done."

Now there'a a contradiction.  Like saying 'Pulling out all of their teeth, with no harm done.'

Tom


----------



## Glorified Ape (7 Apr 2005)

Just an interesting tidbit:

Canada's naval forces have a higher combat value than Spanish naval forces circa 1995, according to James F. Dunnigan (from "How to Make War 3rd Edn). http://jimdunnigan.com/bio.htm#top

Supposedly he's quite the expert, but who knows.


----------



## Infanteer (7 Apr 2005)

The problem with Dunnigan's data sets is that they are almost purely quantitative.  Read Biddle's Military Power and you'll see an excellent argument that deflates the importance of Technology (systemic or dyadic) or Preponderance in IR theory.


----------



## Glorified Ape (8 Apr 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The problem with Dunnigan's data sets is that they are almost purely quantitative.   Read Biddle's Military Power and you'll see an excellent argument that deflates the importance of Technology (systemic or dyadic) or Preponderance in IR theory.



You mean the importance of technology IN preponderance (IE the achievement thereof) in IR theory? Or that he deflates the very importance of preponderance as a primary motivation? I don't quite understand. 

I thought Dunnigan took into account non-material factors but I could be wrong. He certainly has some interesting stuff in his sections on leadership and "why soldiers fight" but none of it seems revolutionary or anything. His simulation of the Gulf War was supposed to have been bang-on but that doesn't necessarily mean his predictive abilities are spectacular, given I've only ever heard of him successfully simulating one conflict.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Apr 2005)

Glorified Ape said:
			
		

> You mean the importance of technology IN preponderance (IE the achievement thereof) in IR theory? Or that he deflates the very importance of preponderance as a primary motivation? I don't quite understand.



No.  Biddle attacks the two main forms of approaching Military Power in the IR field.

Preponderance theory pretty much looks at the numbers game.  It places a real emphasis on the raw, physical power of a state and basically sees economic power as equating to military power.  You get the idea.  It would look at the physical capabilities of the Soviet Union to point out how it overpowered the Germans in WWII, etc, etc.

Technology theory can be broken down into two different approaches: Systemic and Dyadic.  Systemic Technology theory looks at the general level of technology and whether it favours Offensive or Defensive tactics.  Systemic Technology theorists look at WWI and explain stalemate occurred - the technology of the time (barb wire, rapid-fire artillery, machine gun) favoured the defence.  Conversely, WWII featured things like the airplane, tank, and radio communications, which led to a much more offensive oriented war.  This outlook is used to explain why the Israelis were able to dominate their Arab opponents in 1967 and yet met a bloody repulse in 1974.

The approach of Dyadic Technology views technological advance not as systemic (ie: not favouring the defence or the offense) but rather as "levels" of sophistication for opposing states.  This is the big time theory in the US Military right now - it basically states that Military Power can be increased dramatically when one state has an exponential advantage in technological sophistication over its opponents; the US likes to use the Gulf War as an example of this.  This framework basically underlies most of the RMA junk you see out there.

Stephen Biddle does a good job of deconstructing all three of these approaches and showing that his framework of Force Employment presents a much stronger gauge for measuring state Military Power then either Preponderance or Technology approaches.  He uses both case studies and statistical analysis to show that his framework is much more consistent with the actual outcome of numerous conflicts.  He wraps it all up in a real complicated equation, which (thank goodness) he puts in an Appendix for all of us Arts-students to glance over.  I rambled on about Biddle's notion of *Force Employment* here:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/27974.15.html

Anyways, Dunnigan's books are good (I've went through a few versions) but they basically go through different systems and sum up the physical data on all the different facets of a state's military.  Good for a starting point in wargaming, but, as Biddle's Force Employment theory points out (and I argue in the above link), guns and butter only go so far in a conflict analysis.  If you want a definitive example, take the numbers that Dunnigan provides for Vietnam and the US and think about how that panned out.

Cheers,
Infanteer


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Mar 2015)

Has it been 20 years already?  

Bumped with the anniversary today:


> .... (Fisheries) Minister (Brian) Tobin and the federal cabinet then told the DFO to demonstrate Canadian resolve on the issue by "making an example" of a European Union fishing vessel. On March 9, an offshore patrol aircraft detected the Spanish stern trawler Estai in international waters outside Canada's 200 nautical mile (370 km) EEZ. Several armed DFO fisheries patrol vessels, and Canadian Coast Guard and Canadian Navy support, intercepted and pursued the Estai, which cut its weighted trawl net and fled after an initial boarding attempt, resulting in a several hours' chase which ended after the Canadian Fisheries Patrol vessel Cape Roger fired a .50 calibre (12.7 mm) machine gun across the bow of the Estai. The Canadian Coast Guard Ship CCGS Sir Wilfred Grenfell used high-pressure fire-fighting water cannon to deter other Spanish fishing vessels from disrupting the operation. Finally, armed DFO and RCMP officers boarded the Estai in international waters on the Grand Banks.
> 
> The Estai was escorted to St. John's, arriving with great fanfare across the province and region — and the country. Canada's federal court processed the case and the charges against the crew while Spain and the European Union protested vehemently, threatening boycotts against Canada and wishing to have the case heard at the International Court of Justice ....


----------

