WT Forums

I have been looking for a country any country that more than 1/2 its population is Pro-US.

Ive found none except maybe UK, Canada and Austrailia. And I only list those so as not to piss off those who truly are our friends.

Only some governments who depend on our markets, tourism, aid or defense make any pretense to being friendly. But its populations are another story.

Canadas armed forces particularly its navy are our closest allies but the navy has little support or mirrors that countries demographics by its own admission.

Sniper has already alluded to the "war" on our border with Mexico.

The vast majority of the population of South and Central America are against us.

Europe: Again the majoroty of the population at best holds us in utter contempt.

Russia: They are still at war with us by all accounts.
Their recent exercise with their only carrier and operational Battle-Cruiser along with other forces (ASW conspiculously missing)focused on how to take-out a US Carrier BattleGroup.

However recently their ASW forces have exercised with both the US and French separately.

With the US to glean all our tactics for dealing with the new AIP diesel submarines and the French to counter USN strategies for dealing with SSNs.

The Mid-East, India, Indonesia and China: No need to go into detail but they look to Russia as the epitome of what a society should be. Their people are becoming more and more outspoken against anything US. Their twisted outlook is becoming increasingly virulent and vicious.

Africa: They dont have any resources at their command to be a threat but their people hardly hold us in high regard.

A few nations are allied more or less with us are on the fringes. And only because of fear for those governments very existence but look at how their their populations view us:

Japan
S. Korea
Malaysia
Singapore
Thailand
Phillipines

Then theres Austrailia and New Zealand. Hmmm the majority of the Austrailian population may be pro-US. New Zealand doubtful.

Its bleak and getting bleaker. All I can say me and my family are preparing as best we can for the innevitable implosion of civilised society without screwing up our childrens lives much less their heads.

I certainly dont want my children and their children to lead lives of desperate pessimisim, skeptimism, fear or worse. But I do want them to be aware that all is not well. And to look at life realistically, pragmatically and practically.

The below link and text doesnt inspire much confidence:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... lition.htm


Non-US Forces in Iraq - November 4 2004
The size and capabilities of the Coalition forces involved in operations in Iraq has been a subject of much debate, confusion, and at times exageration. As of November 4, 2004, there were 28 non-U.S. military forces participating in the coalition and contributing to the ongoing stability operations throughout Iraq. These countries were Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom, Ukraine, and the Kingdom of Tonga. As of October 15, 2004, the MNF-I website incorrectly included Honduras in the list; that country's troops returned in late May. It also incorrectly list the Dominican Republic; its troops left in early-May. The MNF-I listing also omits the Kingdom of Tonga who deployed 45 Royal Marines in early July to Iraq.

On September 6, Armenia announced that it would deploy 50 troops to Iraq. On Oct. 6, the Armenian government hinted at the possibility that the deployment might not take place; until the deployment actually takes place, Armenia is not being included in the count of countries taking part in the coalition. Fiji is set to deploy 155 troops to Iraq, but they will be there under UN banner (UNAMI) and will therefore not be counted in the coalition.

Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); Singapore (Sep.04); and New Zealand (late Sep. 04).

Countries planning to withdraw from Iraq: Poland (starting Jan.04 and completed by end.05(?)); the Netherlands (Mar. 05); Hungary (end Mar. 05).

Countries which have reduced or are planning to reduce their troop commitment: Ukraine (-200); Moldova (reduced contingent to 12); Norway (reduced from ~150 to 10 late-Jun.04, early Jul.04); Bulgaria (-50, Dec.04).

Countries planning or rumored to be planning to increase troop contingent to Iraq: Georgia (+691(security for UN)); Romania (rumor); Albania (+130); Thailand (200(?)).

Countries planning to deploy troops to Iraq: Armenia (50) (?); Fiji (130 end of Oct.04 as part of UNAMI).

Countries refusing to send troops because of security situation: Pakistan.

Recent developments
RIA Novosti reported on Nov. 7, that Georgia was dispatching a contingent of 300 troops to Iraq via Kuwait. The rotation was to be comleted by late the following week and would mark a near-doubling of the country's presence in Iraq.
The US Dept. of State announced on Nov. 4, that Georgia would increase the size of its contingent in Iraq from 159 to 850, although the increase was framed as being made in order to provide security for the United Nations presence in Iraq.
The International Herald Tribune reported on Nov. 4, that the Netherlands had confirmed that week that it would not rotate in new troops to replace the contingent in country once its deployment expires.
Geoff Hoon, the British Defence Secretary, gave assurances on November2, before the Commons defence select committee that the Black Watch regiment troops deployed to Central Iraq would be pulled out within 30 days, and return to its base in Basra, by 2 December, 2004.
Bulgaria annouced on Nov. 3 that it would reduce the size of its contingent in Iraq to 430 troops during the next scheduled unit rotation, when the 4th Infantry Battalion replaces the 3rd Battalion.
The Associated Press reportedon on Nov. 3, 2004, that Hungary would withdraw its contigent of troops from Iraq by the end of March 2005.
The UK announced it would redeploy approximately 850 Black Watch troops to an area near Baghdad from their location near Basrah. The contingent would include 650 troops from the regiment in addition to 200 support troops. According to BBC, Geoff Hoon, UK Defence Minister denied reports the UK would dispatch an additional 1,300 troops to Iraq. The London Times reported on Oct. 21, that the 1,300 troops would be involved in the event that contingency plans had to be put into action. These plans reportedly call for one battalion to be sent to S. Iraq, with another battalion if need be for a short period. Under these plans, The Queen's Lancashire Regiment, based in Cyprus, would be likely to be deployed to Iraq on short notice. The article also mentioned that of the UK contingent of troops in Iraq, only 7,400 were ground troops.
The Algemeen Dagblad reported on Oct. 21, that the Netherlands woudl pull its troops out of Iraq in March 2005, at the end of the troop's mandate. Citing the Dutch Defense Minister, the Dutch Government had reportedly turned down an Iraqi Governmetn request to extend the Dutch contingent's stay in-country.
The UN reported that Fiji had officially agreed to provide troops as part of a security detail to the UN in Baghdad. Australia would provide most of the equipment to the Fijians. The number of Fijian troops involved was reported to be 130, while the deployment might take place in November.
The Ukrainian national security and defense council decided on Oct. 19, to gradually reduce the size of its contingent in Iraq. The reduction is reported to begin with the rotation of troops begun on Sep. 22 and will reduce the number of troops there by 200. The rotation was completed on Oct. 15, with 1,200 troops having returned home.
AAP Newsfeed reported on Oct. 18, that Australia, in addition to its contingent of troops in-country, also had in Iraq an army security called SECDET and composed of 120 troops assigned to protect the Australian embassy.

Countries Supporting Ops in Iraq

Country
In Iraq In Theater Total Future
1 United Kingdom 8,361 3,500 ~12,000 15,000 ~10,500 (?)
2 Italy 3,085 84 3,169
3 South Korea 2,800 2,800 ~ 3,600
4 Poland ~2,400-2500 ~2,400-2500 1,000-1,500
[0 by end of 2005?]
5 Ukraine ~1,400 ~1,400
6 Netherlands 1,345 1,345 0 [End Mar.05]
7 Romania 700 700
8 Japan ~550 ~200 ~750
9 Denmark 496 496
10 Bulgaria ~485 ~485 430
11 El Salvador 380 380
12 Hungary 300 300 0 [End Mar.05]
13 Australia ~400 ~520 ~920
14 Mongolia 180 180
15 Georgia 159 159 300 by mid-Nov. 04
850 by end of 2004
16 Azerbaijan 151 151
17 Portugal 128 128
18 Latvia 122 122
19 Czech Republic ~110 ~110 10
20 Lithuania 105 105
21 Slovakia 105 105
22 Albania 71 71 200
23 Estonia 55 55
24 Tonga ~45 ~45
25 Kazakhstan 29 29
26 Macedonia 28 28
27 Moldova 12 12
28 Norway 10 10 0
Thailand 0 0 0
Spain 0 0 0
Honduras 0 0 0
Dominican Republic 0 0 0
Nicaragua 0 0 0
Philippines 0 0 0
Singapore 0 0 0
New Zealand 0 0 0
Armenia 0 50-60
Fiji * 0 130 {Nov.04?]
TOTAL ~23,900 ~28,500
* Fiji's troop contingent is to deploy as part of UN Assistance Mission in Iraq (UNAMI)




US CENTCOM - Coalition Ground Forces
Division Brigade Battalion Personnel Equipment
TOTAL ~ 26,300
Royal Marines [Tonga] ~45
Cuzcatlan Battalion [El Savadoran] 360
Peacekeeping Operations BN [Mongolia] ~ 180
1100th Const. & Eng. Spt. Group [ROK] ~ ???
U/I Military Police Unit [Czech] ~ 80
U/I Chemical Warfare Co [Slovakia] ~ 105
U/I SOF Unit [Macedonia] ~ 28
U/I SOF Unit (w/ 101 ABN) [Albania] ~ 70
U/I Unit [Latvia] ~ 121
U/I Brigade [South Korea] ~ 2,800
U/I Unit [Thailand] ~ 460
Joint Task Force [Australia]
elements, Japanese Self Defense Force ~ 75
elements, Danish [DANCON/IRAK] ~ 496
U/I Support Unit ~ 61
Danish BN [w/Lithuanian soldiers] 446
Multi-National Division (South-East)
1st Battalion of the Black Watch Regiment 600
Royal Engineers 170
3 UK Armoured Division ~ 11,000
elements, 14 Signal RGT
elements, 16 Signal RGT
elements, 30 Signal RGT
42 Engineer Regiment (Geographic)
U/I Engineers
20 Armoured BDE
Queen's Royal Hussars Challenger 2
1st BN, The Light Infantry ? - Warrior
1st BN, The Royal REGT of Wales ? - Warrior
2nd BN, The Parachute REGT
1st BN, The Royal Scots
1st BN, The Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders
26 REGT Royal Artillery
35 Engineer REGT
elements, 9th/12th Royal Lancers CVR(T)
Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers (Militia)
TF Rake (w/ 35 ENG) [New Zealand]
4 General Support REGT, RLC
22 Field Hospital
elements, 33 Engineer REGT (Explosive Ordnance Disposal)
17 Port & Maritime REGT
10 Transport REGT, RLC
Element, 11 EOD RGT RLC
1 REGT, Royal Military Police
23 Pioneer REGT, RLC
24 REGT, RLC
5 General Support Medical REGT, RAMC
Sassari BDE [Italy] ~ 3,000
U/I NBC Co, 7th NBC BN [Italy]
U/I Co, 1st Lagunari Amphib Infantry BN [Italy]
Elements, 9th "Col Moschin" Special Forces BN [Italy]
265th Military Police Bn [Romania] 100
U/I Military Police Co [Portugal]
U/I Co, 7th Signal BN [Italy]
18th Mech Infantry BN [Italy]
U/I Sq, 19th Armored Cavalry BN [Italy]
21st Combat Engineer BN [Italy]
6th Transport BN[Italy]
812th Infantry Bn Carpathian Hawks [Romania]
U/I BN, 2nd Carabinieri BDE [Italy] ~ 400
Netherlands SFIR-3 Contingent ~ 1,500
42nd Mechanised Battalion(Composite) Patria XA-180 APCs
Det. 298 Sqn (RNLAF) 3-4 CH-47D
Det.300/301 Sqn (RNLAF) 6 NAH-64D
Det. 11/14 FA Bty 3 AN/TPQ-32
Logistics (POD) Det.
Royal Constabulary Dets.
Multi-National Division (Central South)
12 Mechanized BDE [Poland] ~ 2,400
10 Mechanized BN [10 ACD Poland]
3rd Infantry Bn, 61st Stryam Mech Bde[Bulgaria] ~ 485
U/I Hungarian Elements
elements, Grand Duchess Birute Motorised Infantry BN [Lithuania] ~ 45
CIMIC BN [Philippines]
Cuscatlan Bn [El Salvador] 380
7th Detached Mechanized Infantry BDE [Ukraine] ~ 1,400 60 - BTR-80(?)
11 - BRDM-2(?)
U/I Separate Mechanized BN BTR-80
U/I Separate Mechanized BN BTR-80
U/I Separate Mechanized BN BRDMs

Rick,

While I agree relations are in a low point right now, I do not share your pessimism. The Canadian people littarlly openned their homes on 11 Sept, inviting more than 40,000 Americans into their homes without thought to compensation or payback.

We do feel we were slighted by the Bush Administration even before the Iraq debacle. In his speech to Congress just after that horrific event, he mentioned everyone except Canada who did far more than everyone else combined. When we lost people to Friendly Fire in Afghanistan, it took more than two days for Bush to express his regrets.

Relations are at a low point now people to people wise but that's natural. We've hit low points before during the Vietnam War and I suspect we will have low points again. However, that does not mean that we will not have high points again either. We supported the Kuwait, Kosovo, and Somali actions. And believe it or not, we came within a hair split of supporting the Iraq action. Like all people, we may not like the action but we will support our people in uniform.

Bush has his faults no doubt. But I have never judged another countries peoples by its leaders. As the rest of the world seems prone to do.

I believe this:"And believe it or not, we came within a hair split of supporting the Iraq action."

But it goes along way to prove my point about the "majority".

Notice that I have given great credit to Canadas military in particular its Navy of which I am most familiar.

But to say that the majority of Canadiens are supportive(friendly or whatever other word you care to use)of the US or its own military stretches reality to the breaking point irregardless of our President words and actions(or lack thereof). Not only have I noticed this but Ill reiterate that those in the Canadien Navy itself admit that that they do not reflect the majority views or demographics of Canada.

This statement doesnt appear to be true: " Like all people, we may not like the action but we will support our people in uniform."

The Canadien Forces are grossly underfunded. But the people serving are among the(if not THEE) best in their fields. But w/o proper funding this will cease to be, maybe not right now although even thats debatable, but certainly in the not to distant future.

As I always do and yet again: Thank all those who through their actions and/or words support the US people. And I would hope we return better than we get.

I prefer to be seen as a pragmatic, practical realist willing to compromise but not at the expense of my values and integrity than as a pessimist. But if not so be it. And I will try harder not to be percieved as a pessimist. LOL Its a battle I constantly have to wage it seems.

If I am in error on any of the above please correct me. Verifiable facts are always received warmly. But in this case well meant opinions will suffice except for my contention about the Canadien military being "grossly underfunded".

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><i>Originally posted by rickusn</i>
Bush has his faults no doubt. But I have never judged another countries peoples by its leaders. As the rest of the world seems prone to do.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

When you're a mouse sleeping beside an elephant, the mouse ain't going to get much sleep. The US gov't affects the regular Joe Canadian far more than the American people do. From the softwood lumber to the Mad Cow crisis to the closing of the border, it's natural for Canadians to judge the US by its leaders. That in itself tends to mask any other view Canadians have for the US.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><i>Originally posted by rickusn</i>
I believe this:"And believe it or not, we came within a hair split of supporting the Iraq action."

But it goes along way to prove my point about the "majority".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The stick point was and is the UN issue. If the UN gave its go, we would have gone. However, this being said, the Canadian UN compromise (Saddam had 30 days to prove specific destruction of specific stocks) was at look upon favourably by Canadians. chirac<spit> was never going to give a go but had Bush taken up the Canadian compromise (the British reduced down to 14 days in their version), he would have gained a Canadian brigade group.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><i>Originally posted by rickusn</i>
Notice that I have given great credit to Canadas military in particular its Navy of which I am most familiar.

But to say that the majority of Canadiens are supportive(friendly or whatever other word you care to use)of the US or its own military stretches reality to the breaking point irregardless of our President words and actions(or lack thereof). Not only have I noticed this but Ill reiterate that those in the Canadien Navy itself admit that that they do not reflect the majority views or demographics of Canada.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

To that I fully agree. We do not represent the majority view. However, we do command majority respect. Us old war dogs may not swade anyone but no one in Canada would tolerate shutting us up.

As others put it here, Canadians spend alot of time trying to say that they're not Americans. However, once you put up the flag "Canadian values," hate to say this but we fall in like sheep. Try to skew one of our national treasures (ie money sinkhole) like health care, you will have a fight on your hands equal to your last election.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><i>Originally posted by rickusn</i>
This statement doesnt appear to be true: " Like all people, we may not like the action but we will support our people in uniform."<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

My apologies. I meant moral support.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><i>Originally posted by rickusn</i>
The Canadien Forces are grossly underfunded. But the people serving are among the(if not THEE) best in their fields. But w/o proper funding this will cease to be, maybe not right now although even thats debatable, but certainly in the not to distant future.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Depends on who you talk to and how you approach the topic. In my view, we're not underfunded. We're damned overtasked. Our capital budgets are comfortable for the size of military we have. However, our OPTEMPO requires a military twice our current size, requiring no other choice but to strip our capital budgets to support operation budgets.

As for the future, I've just met up with the "new generation." Their confidence in their new abilities is infectious. I still decry the lost of combat capability as I see it from the Cold War and I have doubts whether alot of these new technologies and techniques would work (such as the LAV-105 replacing tanks) but they have such strong faith in their abilities that it is tough that I'm beginning to think that this just might work.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><i>Originally posted by rickusn</i>
As I always do and yet again: Thank all those who through their actions and/or words support the US people. And I would hope we return better than we get.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Believe me, no need to thank us and you've more than done your share. George W Bush cannot put it more plainly when he explained his lack of Canada mention in his speech. We're family. You do not acknowledge family in front of friends. He could not have been more right.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><i>Originally posted by rickusn</i>I prefer to be seen as a pragmatic, practical realist willing to compromise but not at the expense of my values and integrity than as a pessimist. But if not so be it. And I will try harder not to be percieved as a pessimist. LOL Its a battle I constantly have to wage it seems.

If I am in error on any of the above please correct me. Verifiable facts are always received warmly. But in this case well meant opinions will suffice except for my contention about the Canadien military being "grossly underfunded".<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

My apologies for reading you wrong.

Thanks for your thoughts. They are much appreciated.

When I was writing the above the below article I had recently read colored my views to quite an extent. Sub, Helo, Destroyer, Oiler/Supply ship replacement along with the Frigate Modernization programs all having problems or dont exist. The older platforms totally wore out. Among other funding issues. So Im sorry but Ill have to stick with "grossly underfunded".


Print Story
E-mail Story



Nov. 27, 2004. 01:00 AM

>ADVERTISEMENT<


Naval war games a serious business
Several Canadian ships take part in large-scale, international exercise in the Atlantic Ocean HMCS Athabaskan engages in simulated attacks, delicate manoeuvres, Bruce Campion-Smith reports




BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH
OTTAWA BUREAU




ONBOARD HMCS ATHABASKAN—Nicki Newell's problems started with a silent stalker — a Kilo-class Russian attack submarine that was gunning to blow her ship out of the water.

Then came the armed boarding of a suspected smuggling ship, an operation the Canadian navy perfected while policing the busy waters of the Persian Gulf in the U.S.-led war on terrorism.

Newell's long day wrapped up with an attack by MiG-29 supersonic fighters that came streaking over the ocean, armed with anti-ship missiles.

For HMCS Athabaskan, the simulated attacks came fast and furiously over the past weeks as it took part in a naval exercise in the Atlantic Ocean off the Virginia coast with ships from four other countries. The exercises were to have wrapped up yesterday.

Like the conductor of a deadly orchestra, Newell, a navy lieutenant, co-ordinated the response of the Canadian destroyer to the threats. Playing in concert with her was a cadre of 20 sailors trained in the arts of sinking submarines, fending off enemy warships and downing fighters and missiles.

Working from the destroyer's darkened operations room — the ship's fighting heart — their eyes were glued to radar displays and they barked out alerts as each new danger appeared.

Sitting behind them, it was Newell's job as one of the ship's operations-room officers to weigh the torrent of information and make the call on what action to take, sometimes in a split second.

A right decision saves the day. A bad choice sparks an international incident, perhaps even the loss of the ship and her crew of 300.

"You better like stress ... I don't think it's the job for everybody," says Newell, a 32-year-old Saskatoon native who joined the forces in 1991.

"It's a really neat job to do ... Not a lot of people get to sit in that seat and fight even a simulated war and direct a whole team," she says.


Spread out over a huge patch of ocean were massive amphibious assault landing ships of a U.S. expeditionary force; seven vessels from the Netherlands, Germany, Spain, the United States and Canada that make up NATO's standing Atlantic force; and a Canadian contingent of four other warships and five coastal defence vessels.

It's been an intense three weeks of war games and manoeuvres. In one delicate exercise, the Athabaskan pulled alongside a U.S. replenishment ship, hooked up hoses, and took on 150,000 litres of fuel as the two vessels steamed along at almost 20 km/h, just 100 metres apart.

"It's like elephants mating. It's done very slowly," says one officer as he watches the two ships link up.

But in addition to showing off the strengths of the Canadian navy, the early days of the exercise also highlighted a few of its weaknesses, too.

HMCS Windsor, a Canadian submarine, was supposed to take part to give the ships a crack at practising anti-submarine warfare. But the sub has been restricted to port since the Oct. 5 fatal fire on board one of its sister boats, HMCS Chicoutimi.

As well, two aging Sea King helicopters assigned to the exercise ran into maintenance problems that curtailed their participation.

"It's something we've lived with in the Canadian Forces for quite some time, says Commodore Tyrone Pile, the head of Canada's Atlantic fleet who was overseeing the exercise. "We always seem to be in this position of juggling resources in order to do our job."

The navy's efforts in recent years have won it the respect of allies. But Pile laments that geography means much of that work goes largely unnoticed at home.

"We're located on the coasts, away from the heartland and the majority of the Canadian population does not see us. We're not visible; we're not the Snowbirds," he says.

Still, he says Canada's navy has some enviable abilities.

"When you can take a task group and deploy anywhere in the world, that's an impressive capability," Pile says. "And it gives a flexibility to government to influence events just by presence alone."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
`You better like stress ... I don't think it's the job for everybody'

Lt. Nicki Newell, HMCS Athabaskan

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


But to keep that capability, he says, the navy has to meet some pressing needs: a midlife upgrade for frigates bought in the 1990s; new support ships that can transport gear as well as replenish warships at sea; and, down the road, new destroyers to serve as high-tech command posts.

After taking a breather from Operation Apollo, the navy's prolonged patrols of the Persian Gulf that exhausted crews and equipment, Canadian warships are stepping up operations.

Throughout the Athabaskan this week, sailors and officers are rehearsing their roles. Among them is Able Seaman Roger Draper, who has no trouble describing his job."Ever see Hunt For Red October? I'm Jonesy," he says.

And like the sharp-eared sonar operator depicted in the action movie, it's Draper's job to eavesdrop on the ocean to pick out the elusive telltale murmurs of a submarine.

It's formally known as anti-submarine warfare or ASW. Draper calls it "awfully slow warfare," referring to the patient, methodical methods such attacks require.

But the Canadians are good at it and the wall behind his sonar station depicts the Athabaskan's "kills" over the last year, including subs from Canada, Britain and the United States.

"We're considered by many to be the best in the world," says Draper, a 21-year-old native of Sutton, north of Toronto.

Fellow sonar operator, Ordinary Seaman Joey Rushton, 22, joined the ship just before it sailed from Halifax and admits he was feeling a little green around the gills during his first days at sea.

He's in good company. Most of the crew admits seasickness is a common symptom during the early part of a voyage and many pop anti-nausea pills to calm woozy stomachs.

Life aboard the Athabaskan is no pleasure cruise. In the maze of windowless passageways and small rooms, space is at a premium. Officers sleep two to a cabin. Further below decks, sailors sleep in bunks stacked three high, their belongings kept in a locker.

Cooks help keep morale high with a menu that includes steak, deep-fried scallops, pasta, California wrap sandwiches, pies, cookies and even an evening beer. And from the middle of the Atlantic, crew members can call home, send e-mails and watch television, all thanks to satellite access.

The Athabaskan spent part of the exercise on manoeuvres with two American warships, the U.S.S. Carr, a frigate, and U.S.S. Cape St. George, a guided-missile cruiser.

The ships changed position, sailing line astern, then changing to line abreast, and then back again.

It was a chance for junior officers to practise their seamanship under the watchful eyes of Capt. Bruce Donaldson, Athabaskan's commander.

But it also showcased Canada's close relationship with the U.S. Navy — a relationship experts say is unique among navies — just as military commanders are pondering a new level of co-operation, one that raises tricky questions of sovereignty.

New technology, known as co-operative engagement capability, could allow an American commander to fire a missile from a Canadian ship.

Retired Lt.-Cmdr. Richard Gimblett bluntly admits that the Canadians don't have any weapons that are worth taking control of — yet.

But many navies recognize that the new missile technology is essential to defending fleets against airborne threats, says Gimblett, now a military analyst and historian.

"Our navy is involved in very serious discussions and so are the British and the Australians on how to retain an element of national control, recognizing also the speed at which modern warfare happens; you need to have that co-operative engagement capability," he says.

"That's why you have to have clear rules of engagement before you actually join the fight," says Gimblett, author of the recently released book Operation Apollo, which details Canada's recent operations in the Gulf.

"It's a complex relationship, but in any alliance, obviously, the parent country will want the last say in how those forces are going to be employed," Pile says. "It would still be a decision of the command authority in this ship to fire."

For a short time on Nov. 11, the flight deck of the Athabaskan became an impromptu parade square as the crew gathered for a poignant Remembrance Day ceremony. And on a day meant for memories and giving thanks, the ship's crew had extra reason to pay tribute.

Last month, a fellow sailor, Lieut. Chris Saunders, was killed in the fire onboard the Chicoutimi. And 60 years ago, Athabaskan's namesake was sunk while attacking two German destroyers in the English Channel, killing 128 of its crew.

"This is a sacrifice which each and every one of us may be called to make," Lt.-Cmdr. Peter Crain, Athabaskan's second-in-command, tells the crew.

They don't need any reminders.

"Being in the navy, it's not like slipping lines and going to sea is like going on a cruise. This is a warship," says Sub-Lt. Scott Nelson. "Everything we do is dangerous."



Edited by - rickusn on Nov 28 2004 11:51 AM

And that damn parrot story really ticks me off. LOL

Especially when Sniper brings it up right after my arch antagonist Theodore does not once but twice. LOL And nearly a week after I had first read it. LOL Some days I swear its a conspiracy to drive me insane. LOL But the jokes on them because I became insane along time ago. LOL

And Sniper says he doesnt do these things to yank my chain. LOL I dont believe in coincidences. LOL

personally I would rather be alive with no friends

Engineer what ever happened to the canadian snipers from afganistan who were having trouble recieving medals and getting lukewarm press in canada after they did such a great job.

Hey thats me!!!! LOL

"personally I would rather be alive with no friends" learned it alongggggggggggggggggggg time ago. LOL

But in all seriousness how about this?:

Naval fleet 'verging on obsolescence': report
CTV.ca News Staff

Canada needs to sink more money into its navy, if it wants to keep it floating 10 years from now, according to a new report.

The report, Canadian Naval Future: A Necessary Long-Term Planning Framework, was released Monday by the Institute for Research on Public Policy.

According to author Peter Haydon, the navy's current fleet is "verging on obsolescence," and is "inadequate for the full range of tasks that need to be carried out under the prevailing defence policy."

To turn that situation around, the retired naval officer and longtime military analyst suggests Ottawa must follow up on the recent contract to replace aging Sea King helicopters with orders for new destroyers and fleet support ships.

Because it would take at least 10 years to bring any new ships into service, Haydon suggests updating task force-leading frigates, as well as submarines and patrol vessels in the meantime.

In his report, however, the senior research fellow at Dalhousie University's Centre for Foreign Policy Studies does not strike an optimistic tone.

Noting that politicians have not hammered out a comprehensive mission statement for Canada's military since 1994, Haydon writes, "the government does not seem to have grasped the longer-term implications of the present situation."

"Versatile naval forces, as opposed to specialized forces, will continue to be a sound investment in national security, no matter what happens in the future," Haydon writes.

"But Canadian politicians do not seem to be convinced of this."

As it stands, the Canadian fleet consists of a dozen nearly decade-old frigates, four 30-year-old Tribal-class destroyers, a pair of even older supply ships, 12 small coastal defence ships and four used British subs.

During last summer's election campaign the Liberals pledged new support ships for the navy, but have yet to follow up with an official announcement.

Earlier this month, Ottawa did announce a $69.7-million contract for six Orca-class training vessels to be used in the training of junior officers.

British Columbia's Victoria Shipyards Company Ltd. is slated to deliver the first of the 33-metre boats sometime in 2006

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><i>Originally posted by mattlott</i>
Engineer what ever happened to the canadian snipers from afganistan who were having trouble recieving medals and getting lukewarm press in canada after they did such a great job.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

They got their Bronze Star along with the Governor General's Medal in a ceremony that saw pretty well a large portion of the battalion getting the same thing.

At least two have left the service having personality problems with the rest of the regiment. Big egos, jelousy, or a combination of both is the cause.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote><i>Originally posted by rickusn</i>
But in all seriousness how about this?:

Naval fleet 'verging on obsolescence': report
CTV.ca News Staff<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Rick, pardon my myopia but Maritime Command ain't in a panic mode when it comes to the surface fleet. People are doing their homework, trying to decide what to do with the TRIBAL Class, and what mid life upgrades are required for the HALIFAX Class. One suggestion is a VLS missile platform.

Currently, both fleets have their hands full trying to get ready for the MHP (Military Helicopter Program) and the current CYA over the VICTORIA (UPHOLDER) Class subs. The next buy on the horizon is the replemishment ships but the navy would just have to wait its turn again at the money trough. I just don't see how MC could start another adventure.

No doubt the helo program is paramount with the IMHO replenishment ship(s) next:

"As well, two aging Sea King helicopters assigned to the exercise ran into maintenance problems that curtailed their participation."

But the frigate upgrades/mods cant/shouldnt be put off too long.

Personally I dont believe the Tribal class will be replaced by new construction.

In any event we are talking about quite a bit of money relatively speaking.

Money trough? In Canada? LOL Theyve been waiting for new helos for how long?

I'd reply but I dont have time to read such a prolific novel.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

"At least two have left the service having personality problems with the rest of the regiment. Big egos, jelousy, or a combination of both is the cause."

Snipers generally get the cold shoulder even from their own troops. BTDT.
It's not just the enemy that dislikes us.

A lot of reasons for it.

"One should die proudly when it is no longer possible to live proudly."
~ Friedrich Nietzsche