• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Lake ontario

guns_and_roses

Banned
Banned
Inactive
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Is it posible to build a naval port in Lake Ontario. Like at Toronto? Or is it not deep enough?
 
I would think because some of our ships have been docked down by Ontario Place that it would be possible, but the question would be - why?  What would be the strategical advantage of a port in Lake Ontario - or for that matter in Toronto?
 
Aside from the why bother aspect already noted, I think you'll also find there is a treaty with the US limiting the numbers and sizes of warships from both countries on the Great Lakes.
 
My question is, how are they going to get through to the ocean? is the st lawrence wide enough the entire way? and is the locks (if any, i can not remember) long enough
 
Considering the size of the tankers that sail the waters there's no problem when a Frigate comes for a visit.  They do it quite frequently.
 
JBoyd said:
My question is, how are they going to get through to the ocean? is the st lawrence wide enough the entire way? and is the locks (if any, i can not remember) long enough

As was mentioned by bwilliams our ships have been to Ontario Place (Toronto). guns and roses I would be curious though on why you feel we need a naval presence in the Great Lakes.
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
As was mentioned by bwilliams our ships have been to Ontario Place (Toronto). guns and roses I would be curious though on why you feel we need a naval presence in the Great Lakes.

Ok once more,  aside from the why bother stationing some of our rather limited Naval Assets a couple of thousand kilometers from the ocean, one of three we technically have to patrol and assert our sovereignty over, and of course the infrastructure and costs  ( money, manpower and materials) to establish a base to support this new naval force we as I said run into some legal complications.

The Rush Bagot Treaty of 1817 stipulates how many warships of type and/or tonnage are allowed by both Canada and the United States on the Great Lakes.  Basically it makes the area a demiliatirzed zone. Police, Coastguard and other law Enforcement Vessels are not included. As far as I know our limits include the couple of unarmed reserve training vessels already there, and adding even one CPF because of its size would mean a change in the treaty.

Rush Bagot is by the way a result of the War of 1812, and designed to prevent another build up of naval forces/arms race on the lakes as was seen during that war.

http://www.aandc.org/research/rush-bagot_agreement.html
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/britain/br1817m.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush-Bagot_Treaty
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/project_pride/history/history_e.asp?section=1&category=3&title=2
 
For those that don't know.......

Ocean going vessels are able to go as far as the "head of the Lakes " at Thunder Bay, or Duluth Minnesota, thru the St Lawrence Seaway,  and the canal at Welland, Ontario and the locks at Sault St Marie .  Some of those ships are more than 250 metres in length. The Great Lales are  know as an "inland sea "  both for the size of the waterway, as well as the size of the ships that traverse them.

Jim B.
 
Hmmm I was still thinking about the Bagot treaty after reading it in this post as I scanned the thread on the LCS Littoral Combat Ship and saw a pictutre of it as a model in front of the Detroit skyline. Between Windsor and Detroit obviously. Just thought it was a strange coincidence..... ;D

No I dont think we need a Naval presence on the great lakes unless it was to furthur assist with law enforcement or SAR.
 
Granted I'm an AF type, but I think that with the Police presence on our side (especially here in Toronto) I don't think a full blown frigate would be necessary in the Great Lakes, save for the occasional PR visit.  With SAR being done by 8 Wing, we have assets that are easily accessed should they be necessary.

Cheers, Bandit
 
I agree. You do an awesome job. We have possibly worked on the same calls a few times near Toronto.

I also dont think we need a Frigate on the Lakes. All I meant was in rare circumstances where resources are overwhelmed could I see a Naval presence here.

You know in T.O. anything is possible......we did call out the Army during a snow storm.... ;D
 
Civvymedic said:
You know in T.O. anything is possible......we did call out the Army during a snow storm.... ;D

Are you anticipating a flood?  ;D
 
Toronto has the Haida.
That's about as much permanent Navy presence as you'll ever get.

Remember 1 or 2 yrs ago, the US Coast Guard caused a tempest (in a tea pot) when they started to exercise their personnel on the .50 cals in the great lakes...  No navy ship will ever be permitted to exercise it's main guns.
 
Sorry geo, but Shelia Copps had that moved to Hamilton.  The HMCS Haida now sits outside HMCS Star.
 
well OK... she's still on the lake though
 
Geo do tell about the .50s and the lake? What happened?
 
geo said:
No navy ship will ever be permitted to exercise it's main guns.

I was the Nav Officer on the Ottawa and we conducted a live fire NGFS exercise on the Meaford Range - that was in 1990.
 
MedTech said:
Geo do tell about the .50s and the lake? What happened?

One of thr links I posted earlier has the details. Basically after 9/11 the USCG ships on the lakes were equipped with .50 cals ( or maybe they already had them?) and wanted to do some live fire training. IIRC it wa smore an envirimental outcry by the usual suspects (NDP and their cheerleaders ::)) then  a "the yanks are breaking the treaty thing."

There was a thread on here when the story broke.
 
As Danjanou has said, a post 9/11 thing. The  Rush Bagot Treaty of 1817 was cited and the US was simply told to cease and desist... and they did.
 
Back
Top