- Reaction score
- 4,730
- Points
- 1,160
Does he say that it would under wartime conditions? I mean why are they under DND if not even then.
Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC
- Thread starter Maxman1
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 12,508
- Points
- 1,160
Switzerland, principles and Francs
Apparently nobody was buying their stuff anymore because they wouldn't supply it once the shooting started.
Change of mind now.
Apparently nobody was buying their stuff anymore because they wouldn't supply it once the shooting started.
Change of mind now.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 17,817
- Points
- 1,260
Good watch
- Reaction score
- 6,248
- Points
- 1,160
I saw this on the 'Royal Canadian Navy Yesterday and Today' FB page:
Here’s the reality check people don’t like hearing about the “arm the Coast Guard” debate.
There’s a big difference between designing ships so they could be armed in wartime and turning the Canadian Coast Guard into a second navy in peacetime. Quietly improving sensors, communications, and data sharing with the Royal Canadian Navy under Department of National Defence oversight makes total sense and that's the current plan. That builds the maritime picture, which is often more valuable than another gun. A CCG ship spotting, tracking, and reporting in the Arctic can be strategically more important than one pretending to be a warship.
Some Coast Guard operations already involve firearms in a law-enforcement context, especially during fisheries enforcement. Small arms and even .50 cal capability for force protection isn’t the same thing as turning a vessel into a warship. We have CCG ships for fisheries enforcement that have .50 Cals operated by CCG crews. Mounts, lockers, and ammo storage are technically easy to add. Engineering isn’t the issue.
Where the fantasy starts is the “just put containerized missiles on them” crowd. Missiles aren’t plug and play. They need environmental control, constant maintenance, trained operators, and integration into a fire-= control network. That’s not “open a container and push a button.” Very few navies actually operate containerized systems in a ready, sustained way for a reason, it’s logistically messy and operationally fragile.
The bigger problem is construction standards. Coast Guard ships are built to civilian maritime rules: efficiency, endurance, crew safety. Warships are built to survive being hit. They have shock hardening, protected magazines, redundant firefighting, and serious compartmentalization to stop flooding from spreading. Put missile containers full of explosives on a civilian-standard deck and you haven’t created a combatant , you’ve created a floating ammunition truck without warship survivability. You’re adding offensive risk without adding defensive resilience. That’s a bad trade.
Then there’s command and control. Missiles aren’t just hardware; they’re part of a kill chain involving sensors, targeting, doctrine, and engagement authority. Coast Guard bridge teams aren’t structured like a naval combat information centre. So now you either embark navy crew which effectively makes the ship military anyway or expect civilian mariners to operate combat systems. Legally and culturally, that’s a mess and many would quit if that was to happen.
Most important of all is the legal and strategic line. Right now, the Coast Guard’s value is that it’s seen as civilian: search and rescue, environmental response, icebreaking, access. That status gives freedom of movement and diplomatic flexibility. The moment they start looking like armed auxiliaries, an adversary can argue they’re legitimate military targets. You can bolt a weapon on in a day. You can’t undo how the world categorizes your fleet once that line is crossed.
Designing ships so they can be adapted in wartime is smart contingency planning. Advertising them as combat platforms in peacetime is how you lose the very protection and access that make the Coast Guard useful in the first place.
Here’s the reality check people don’t like hearing about the “arm the Coast Guard” debate.
There’s a big difference between designing ships so they could be armed in wartime and turning the Canadian Coast Guard into a second navy in peacetime. Quietly improving sensors, communications, and data sharing with the Royal Canadian Navy under Department of National Defence oversight makes total sense and that's the current plan. That builds the maritime picture, which is often more valuable than another gun. A CCG ship spotting, tracking, and reporting in the Arctic can be strategically more important than one pretending to be a warship.
Some Coast Guard operations already involve firearms in a law-enforcement context, especially during fisheries enforcement. Small arms and even .50 cal capability for force protection isn’t the same thing as turning a vessel into a warship. We have CCG ships for fisheries enforcement that have .50 Cals operated by CCG crews. Mounts, lockers, and ammo storage are technically easy to add. Engineering isn’t the issue.
Where the fantasy starts is the “just put containerized missiles on them” crowd. Missiles aren’t plug and play. They need environmental control, constant maintenance, trained operators, and integration into a fire-= control network. That’s not “open a container and push a button.” Very few navies actually operate containerized systems in a ready, sustained way for a reason, it’s logistically messy and operationally fragile.
The bigger problem is construction standards. Coast Guard ships are built to civilian maritime rules: efficiency, endurance, crew safety. Warships are built to survive being hit. They have shock hardening, protected magazines, redundant firefighting, and serious compartmentalization to stop flooding from spreading. Put missile containers full of explosives on a civilian-standard deck and you haven’t created a combatant , you’ve created a floating ammunition truck without warship survivability. You’re adding offensive risk without adding defensive resilience. That’s a bad trade.
Then there’s command and control. Missiles aren’t just hardware; they’re part of a kill chain involving sensors, targeting, doctrine, and engagement authority. Coast Guard bridge teams aren’t structured like a naval combat information centre. So now you either embark navy crew which effectively makes the ship military anyway or expect civilian mariners to operate combat systems. Legally and culturally, that’s a mess and many would quit if that was to happen.
Most important of all is the legal and strategic line. Right now, the Coast Guard’s value is that it’s seen as civilian: search and rescue, environmental response, icebreaking, access. That status gives freedom of movement and diplomatic flexibility. The moment they start looking like armed auxiliaries, an adversary can argue they’re legitimate military targets. You can bolt a weapon on in a day. You can’t undo how the world categorizes your fleet once that line is crossed.
Designing ships so they can be adapted in wartime is smart contingency planning. Advertising them as combat platforms in peacetime is how you lose the very protection and access that make the Coast Guard useful in the first place.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Fossil
- Reaction score
- 43,776
- Points
- 1,160
FWIW, I think the days of 'we're unarmed so you can't shoot us' are well behind us, and anyone who still thinks that being helpless will keep them safe should also invest in magic spells for all the good that will do
- Reaction score
- 12,173
- Points
- 1,360
FWIW, I think the days of 'we're unarmed so you can't shoot us' are well behind us, and anyone who still thinks that being helpless will keep them safe should also invest in magic spells for all the good that will do
These guys were unarmed.... nobody gave a shit!
- Reaction score
- 6,251
- Points
- 1,160
The unclassified version of the US National Defense Strategy is now available online.
I think we can safely assume that in the minds of this administration that those "shared interests" really are just "U.S. interests"
- Reaction score
- 12,508
- Points
- 1,160
Jahminny Calling!
en.defence-ua.com
Germany Orders 5,000 Boxers for €40B: ARTEC Targets 1,000/Year Production as 7 Countries Operate 2,100+ Vehicles | Defense Express
ARTEC company has already delivered and has orders totaling over 2,100 GTK Boxer armored vehicles and plans to produce thousand per year altogether
en.defence-ua.com
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 6,968
- Points
- 1,210
Well now Retired General Erye brings up if we should open the door to nuclear weapons in canada, and he isnt the only one
www.theglobeandmail.com
Canada should keep options open on acquiring nuclear weapons, former top soldier says
Retired general Wayne Eyre says the question of whether to develop a nuclear deterrent is not an immediate concern
www.theglobeandmail.com
- Reaction score
- 12,508
- Points
- 1,160
"The framework includes medium-calibre ammunition for infantry fighting vehicles and self-propelled anti-aircraft guns, 120 mm tank ammunition for main battle tanks, and 155 mm rounds for artillery. Initial medium-calibre orders comprise various 30 mm x 173 and 35 mm x 228 cartridges in a high five-digit quantity, with an order value in the low three-digit million euro range."
- Reaction score
- 4,730
- Points
- 1,160
I think we have the means to quickly make our own warheads and fit them to an appropriate single use delivery system. Considering we would only use them once, it need not be anything fancy or too expensive.
And we need not convey or confirm the existence to anybody in particular, either.
Can do the same as XXXXX has done in the XX and XXXXXX by locating terrestrial homing beacons on farms, warehouses and factories in proximity to target zones and not rely much on satellite guidance.
And we need not convey or confirm the existence to anybody in particular, either.
Can do the same as XXXXX has done in the XX and XXXXXX by locating terrestrial homing beacons on farms, warehouses and factories in proximity to target zones and not rely much on satellite guidance.
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,863
- Points
- 1,160
Canada has no interest in acquiring nuclear weapons, Defence Minister says
McGuinty says the government intends to rearm the military, but not in a way that contravenes the non-proliferation treaty
www.theglobeandmail.com
How many times in the last 80 years?
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 6,968
- Points
- 1,210
I like Erye's approach of lets maintain all the enablers so we can do it if we want to
- Reaction score
- 6,537
- Points
- 1,260
No Min of Def in Canada or Poland or Germany or Australia or Japan would be going on record right now and say, ‘Yes we need to be obtaining nuclear weapons.’Canada has no interest in acquiring nuclear weapons, Defence Minister says
McGuinty says the government intends to rearm the military, but not in a way that contravenes the non-proliferation treaty
How many times in the last 80 years?
To do so right now would be madness and would invoke the wrath of Trump.
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 6,968
- Points
- 1,210
Till we test a bomb under the arctic or something......then they will all be sorry.........evil maple syrup laugh
- Reaction score
- 12,508
- Points
- 1,160
This article on underground development in London and the comments on Armouries needing work bumped synapses today.
I was just thinking about my first Armoury in Peterborough.
It sits on a block across George Street from City Hall.
It is at the back of the lot adjacent to PCVI high school. Between them and George Street is open ground with a parking lot for the Armouries and a cermonial gardens park around the Cenotaph.
That whole block could be redeveloped below grade and leave all the listed architecture standing and functional
A Look Inside London's Most Outrageous 'Iceberg' Homes
Overwhelmingly tight council restrictions have started to force the elites of London underground into 'iceberg' homes.
www.bosshunting.com.au
MilEME09
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 6,968
- Points
- 1,210
Mewata in Calgary used to have a lot more space, but have the parking lot was given back to the city who turned it into a parking lot, theres a written agreement not to enforce payment on wednesday nights atleast. However DND had opportunity over the years to buy near by land before it was developed to increase operational space, parking etc. Instead anytime the brigade commander calls a town hall, half the brigade is risking a parking ticket, or walking 5 blocks or more to find parking, and paying for it.
- Reaction score
- 38,553
- Points
- 1,210
If they are directed to travel to other than their usual location, then the CAF is rewsponsible for their parking costs.
Of course, the Army does from time to time treat entitlements as optional.
