bush_cheney2004 Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Actually, there are ways to make a ship work indefinitely. The Corner Brook has already proven the capability of these subs in the arctic, off the coast, and overseas. Not true...the pressure hulls are designed for about 30 years. This can be expanded with very expensive extension programs and depth limits, but by then the subsystems are obsolete and lacking parts support. Nope, and they won't be used in such a manner. Good, because they can't be used that way. The subs aren't designed to work on their own. They, like almost every deployment, designed to operate in coordination with other navies. A submarine tender is part of forward supply chain and maintenance capability that Canada certainly lacks when it comes to these subs. You can't just pull up to any port and say "please fix my HPACs" without parts and technical support on site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Frank_Cable_(AS-40) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 A submarine tender is part of forward supply chain and maintenance capability that Canada certainly lacks when it comes to these subs. That's why the deployments couldn't be longer than the 56 day maximum and would need to be done in a place where the ships were near a maintenance facility. When the Corner Brook was in the North Sea last year, that wasn't a problem. There are civilian ships that we can contract to maintain the subs if necessary also. We do the same thing to transport equipment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 That's why the deployments couldn't be longer than the 56 day maximum and would need to be done in a place where the ships were near a maintenance facility. When the Corner Brook was in the North Sea last year, that wasn't a problem. There are civilian ships that we can contract to maintain the subs if necessary also. We do the same thing to transport equipment. Which is a (poor) solution as long as enemy submarines aren't a factor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Which is a (poor) solution as long as enemy submarines aren't a factor. Or if going far is an option...in other words, patrolling off the coast of Somalia ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Or if going far is an option...in other words, patrolling off the coast of Somalia ... Subs would be far less useful than helicopter carrying frigates and destroyers in that situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Which is a (poor) solution as long as enemy submarines aren't a factor. So how much should we be spending? Honestly, I'm not sure what some people expect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Subs would be far less useful than helicopter carrying frigates and destroyers in that situation. Which brings up BC-2004s question...what's the mission? I don't think we're even sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 That's why the deployments couldn't be longer than the 56 day maximum and would need to be done in a place where the ships were near a maintenance facility. When the Corner Brook was in the North Sea last year, that wasn't a problem. There are civilian ships that we can contract to maintain the subs if necessary also. We do the same thing to transport equipment. It's not that simple....submarines are complex and have many subsystems that "civilian ships" cannot maintain...it's not like fixing any other diesel-electric train. You can't FedEx a MK48 torpedo. Sonar and fire control systems are specialized. Sending crews to sea again with a half-assed approach will yield poor results and more down time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 (edited) Subs would be far less useful than helicopter carrying frigates and destroyers in that situation. Frigates and destroyers make very poor clandestine observation platforms. I should add though, frigates make much better sovereignty assertion platforms than aging obsolete subs... Edited February 23, 2010 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 So how much should we be spending? Honestly, I'm not sure what some people expect. See previous response re: what's the mission? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 So how much should we be spending? Honestly, I'm not sure what some people expect. People expect a complete vertical solution that supports a defined mission and platform life cycle....not just hobby subs that were sitting on the Used Sub car lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 (edited) So how much should we be spending? Honestly, I'm not sure what some people expect. Less bullshit. Sorry, That wasn't directed at you. I mean less bullshit, like refitting the Cf 18....think Seaking...yes there isn't an original part on them...they were once great, but now? the CF 18 should have been replaced 10 years ago... At one point we were considring nuclear subs. Both the French and the British had models we wanted....instead we went cheapo and that's what we got... Edited February 23, 2010 by M.Dancer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 (edited) People expect a complete vertical solution that supports a defined mission and platform life cycle....not just hobby subs that were sitting on the Used Sub car lot. Submarines only have two uses in warfare...crippling enemy shipping and carrying your biggest last-ditch stick. Civilian uses are quite limited...a transport for refugees perhaps. Edited February 23, 2010 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Which brings up BC-2004s question...what's the mission? I don't think we're even sure. I've already said, the primary mission is fisheries and sovereignty patrols. The mission does involve some overseas work, but not much. Overseas work may include a month long deployment as part of a standing NATO group, longer if there was a country in the group with the facilities to maintain and restock our sub. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 Less bullshit. So you're going to stop posting in most topics then, I assume? Answer a question or don't bother to reply to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 (edited) I've already said, the primary mission is fisheries and sovereignty patrols. OK...lets break that down....fisheries: What does that mean....detection, enforcement, interdiction....what? And how....from the weather deck of a submarine? Let me tell you from experience that one of the last places a submarine wants to be is around drag lines and trawler nets. Edited February 23, 2010 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 I've already said, the primary mission is fisheries and sovereignty patrols. The mission does involve some overseas work, but not much. Overseas work may include a month long deployment as part of a standing NATO group, longer if there was a country in the group with the facilities to maintain and restock our sub. Which only amounts to a hill of beans if you're willing to yell... Torpedo Los!!! ...over the ship intercom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 OK...lets break that down....fisheries: What does that mean....detection, enforcement, interdiction....what? Let me tell you from experience that one of the last places a submarine wants to be is around drag lines and trawler nets. That's what Canada has always used submarines for. That is probably the primary reason for having them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 That's what Canada has always used submarines for. That is probably the primary reason for having them. That's not true....Canada has deployed submarines for more traditional missions in the past. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 The DND website says that some of the primary missions are fisheries, environment, and immigration patrols. The subs are also a deterrence measure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 So you're going to stop posting in most topics then, I assume? Answer a question or don't bother to reply to it. Tsk tsk....a little over sensitive are we? http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=15920&view=findpost&p=512623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 That's not true....Canada has deployed submarines for more traditional missions in the past. Yes they have, and they'll continue to, but we have always used them for a variety of stealth applications, including fisheries patrol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 That's what Canada has always used submarines for. That is probably the primary reason for having them. Submarines are silent hunters...to surface in the presence of an enemy destroyer is certain death. Getting rammed by a large factory ship or fishing trawler is also to be avoided. Unless we are going to be torpedoing trawlers, their uses are less than limited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted February 23, 2010 Report Share Posted February 23, 2010 I've already said, the primary mission is fisheries and sovereignty patrols. Frigates and canoes are better at that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.