Wild Bill Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 umm...the sea kings were new back then...A squadron of 3 destroyers makes a more effective and economical sub hunting platform than a very large target like an aircraft carrier. And the Bonnie was fresh from a zillion dollar complete refit, only to be promptly scrapped and sold to Red China for the steel. This seems to be the perpetual Canadian story. It seems to leave us with not much to be proud of, except for some Pierre Burton book on the coffee table. Whenever this sort of question is posed lots of people jump in with historical examples of what Canada has invented...almost all of them OLD! What have we done in the last 30 years? A few good or impressive things, I will concede. Do we need more than two hands of fingers to count them? I guess what I'm really asking is, does Canada today box according to its weight? Have we become an 'underachiever' nation? I think I'll go start a new thread! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
AngusThermopyle Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Are you saying we scrapped the 'Bonnie' so we could replace it with Sea Kings??? Actually the reason we sold the Bonnie is rather a mystery. The key question being why did they scrap her right after she'd finished her mid life refit? What we do know for sure is that she was decommissioned in 1970 and scrapped in Tiawan in 1971. Her steam catapult was sold to Australia and fitted into the HMAS Melbourne, the rest of her, chopped up and sold. She gave Canada a round the clock SUSTOPs capability back in 1958. At the time only the US and Canadian navies had this capability. Quote I yam what I yam - Popeye
M.Dancer Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 And the Bonnie was fresh from a zillion dollar complete refit, only to be promptly scrapped and sold to Red China for the steel. Umm Taiwan..and it shouldn't have had a refit. It was old..it was launched during the second world war...it had been pushed to it's operational limit. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
DogOnPorch Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Maybe not. History might have followed a different path. Von Braun wanted to build infrastructure for sustained moon and space colonization.Instead, we went to the moon, lofted a couple of golf balls, brought back a few rocks... And for the next 40 years or so we never went back! We just built some shuttles to buzz around close to the earth so we could do "weightlessness experiments" over and over and over again. The original Space Race was more about beating the Russians to the Moon. It was neck and neck for quite some time, so I imagine that made them move faster than even their massive 60s budget warrented. I suppose the Russians 'lost it in a curve' when the N-1 blew-up each time they attempted to launch it. But we didn't know that... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N1_(rocket) Re: weightless experiments... The channel Homer happened to flick to shows two men talking about theimpending launch of the space shuttle. Tom: It's a lovely day for a launch, here, live at Cape Canaveral, at the lower end of the Florida Peninsula, and the purpose of today's mission is truly, really electrifying. Ted: That's correct, Tom. The lion's share of this flight will be devoted to the study of the effects of weightlessness on tiny screws. Tom: Unbelievable, and just imagine the logistics of weightlessness. And of course, this could have literally millions of applications here on Earth -- everything from watchmaking to watch repair. Homer: Boring. [tries to switch channels, but the batteries fall from the remote control] No! The batteries! Tom: Now let's look at the crew a little. Ted: They're a colorful bunch. They've been dubbed "the Three Musketeers". Heh heh heh -- Tom: And we laugh legitimately. There's a mathematician, a different kind of mathematician, and a statistician. Homer: Make it stop! [panics] ...it seems like it sometimes. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Argus Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Well, if the USofA ever gets pissy then the jigs up. Our real concern is keeping the US from getting pissy (at us, anyways), not how big of an army we need to stop a pissy USofA.As for other future possible threats. Well, outside of Martians, there is no future threat, and thus no one for the USofA to protect us from. Wow. What a blissfully ignorant, totally uninformed, utterly unrealistic and myopic world view you have. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Wild Bill Posted July 16, 2009 Report Posted July 16, 2009 Umm Taiwan..and it shouldn't have had a refit.It was old..it was launched during the second world war...it had been pushed to it's operational limit. Old? Launched during the Second World War? That means it was maybe a bit less than 20 years old when it was scrapped! Is it your position that 20 years is old for an aircraft carrier? Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
Topaz Posted July 17, 2009 Author Report Posted July 17, 2009 A new poll out says that most Canadians are against Canada being in Afg. and I think most Canadians don't want our guys fighting for an endless war and just making more people in the Middle-East hate us even more. I'm also, wondering what Harper is doing to do with our troops when he takes them out of southern Afg. Does he plan on paying millions of dollars instead of have our troops in battle? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/15/...support015.html Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 A new poll out says that most Canadians are against Canada being in Afg. and I think most Canadians don't want our guys fighting for an endless war and just making more people in the Middle-East hate us even more. I'm also, wondering what Harper is doing to do with our troops when he takes them out of southern Afg. Does he plan on paying millions of dollars instead of have our troops in battle? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/15/...support015.html Most Canadians couldn't find Afghanistan on a map. Most Canadians don't even have a clue what's going on in Afghanistan. Most Canadians are safely @ home free to second-guess the people on the ground. Most Canadians can't be bothered to vote. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Wow. What a blissfully ignorant, totally uninformed, utterly unrealistic and myopic world view you have. Seems to unaware of the importance of global warming opening up the NW Passage year-round. Or that the Russians dropped a flag on the bottom of the ocean in the area saying: this here underwater shelf be ours. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) Well said. Many of these opinion polls remind me of that old Jay Leno skit : Jay-Walking. Edited July 17, 2009 by DogOnPorch Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Peter F Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Seems to unaware of the importance of global warming opening up the NW Passage year-round. Or that the Russians dropped a flag on the bottom of the ocean in the area saying: this here underwater shelf be ours. Very aware. Also aware that France claims lots of the east coast seabed and the USofA claims lots of the Beaufort Sea and claimed Georges Bank and Denmark claims Hans Island. The underwater shelf up to the North Pole is undisputably Russian. Lots of people have planted Flags at poles. Just because nations drop flags at poles doesn't mean Canada must begin constructing Carrier Groups. Hell, even during the hieght of the cold war we weren't very worried about Russki's, who were an actual super-power, invading our northern territory. Now we need a huge military to defend Northern Canada agains Russian Invasion? Horseshit. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Very aware. Also aware that France claims lots of the east coast seabed and the USofA claims lots of the Beaufort Sea and claimed Georges Bank and Denmark claims Hans Island. The underwater shelf up to the North Pole is undisputably Russian. Lots of people have planted Flags at poles. Just because nations drop flags at poles doesn't mean Canada must begin constructing Carrier Groups. Hell, even during the hieght of the cold war we weren't very worried about Russki's, who were an actual super-power, invading our northern territory. Now we need a huge military to defend Northern Canada agains Russian Invasion? Horseshit. At the height of the Cold War there were thousands of troops in the North due to the DEW Line and the Pine Tree Line. http://www.pinetreeline.org/ http://www.lswilson.ca/dewline.htm Soviet bombers would continuously test the NORAD defences. While over the horizon they were detonating massive H-Bombs on Novaya Zemlya and other arctic sites... Re: building a military...your reason for not building a military is based on past evidence. That is: they never invaded. Nobody else invaded...therefore, we'll NEVER get invaded. This is a logical fallacy and one you really can't pursue in a increasinly complex aggressive world. BTW...the Russian bombers are back and the Chinese are still 'Red'. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Peter F Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 At the height of the Cold War there were thousands of troops in the North due to the DEW Line and the Pine Tree Line.http://www.pinetreeline.org/ http://www.lswilson.ca/dewline.htm Soviet bombers would continuously test the NORAD defences. While over the horizon they were detonating massive H-Bombs on Novaya Zemlya and other arctic sites... Re: building a military...your reason for not building a military is based on past evidence. That is: they never invaded. Nobody else invaded...therefore, we'll NEVER get invaded. This is a logical fallacy and one you really can't pursue in a increasinly complex aggressive world. BTW...the Russian bombers are back and the Chinese are still 'Red'. Thats right. and the threat of invasion of Northern Canada is as much now as then...ZERO. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Thats right. and the threat of invasion of Northern Canada is as much now as then...ZERO. Northern Canada has already been "invaded" many times...you just don't know about it. Dive! Dive! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Thats right. and the threat of invasion of Northern Canada is as much now as then...ZERO. Didn't we do this before only re: Allied airpower's effect on WW2 victory? Turned out a million missing men (manning der flak kannons in Deutschland) and no Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front had no bearing on victory in Europe....according to Peter F. I think you have about as much sense this time, too. Meanwhile, a Blackjack's only mission in reality is to dash as close to the line as possible before releasing its stand-off cruise missiles...not to count seals and polar bears. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Northern Canada has already been "invaded" many times...you just don't know about it.Dive! Dive! Do you mean these guys? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Submarine_Laboratory Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Do you mean these guys?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_Submarine_Laboratory Yep...that's one good example. Whenever you read about US government "research" in such areas, you can be sure that Uncle Sam is trying to figure out another way to wire the entire planet! The eggheads get "research grants" to think up all kinds of wild ass stuff. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Did you ever 'crack the ice'? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 (edited) Did you ever 'crack the ice'? Not like "Ice Station Zebra".....just tested the under ice position for fairwater planes, tranducers, and side scan sonar. Very thin ice. The Soviet Deltas (R-29s) loved to hide under ice. Edited July 17, 2009 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Cool beans. lol...Ice Station Zebra...you read my mind...literally. Not bad. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Peter F Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Didn't we do this before only re: Allied airpower's effect on WW2 victory? Turned out a million missing men (manning der flak kannons in Deutschland) and no Luftwaffe on the Eastern Front had no bearing on victory in Europe....according to Peter F. I think you have about as much sense this time, too. Children As Decoys Thread Peter F Posted on: Mar 29 2007, 11:12 PM Post #116 Dog on Porch is correct, I think, to point out the tremendous resources the Germans put into the air defence network to battle the bombers. However, Bomber Commands aim was to destroy the morale of the German workers - not to force Germany to commit vast amounts of material and manpower to defending Germany. Quote A bayonet is a tool with a worker at both ends
DogOnPorch Posted July 17, 2009 Report Posted July 17, 2009 Children As Decoys Thread Peter F Posted on: Mar 29 2007, 11:12 PM Post #116 Other thread here... Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
DogOnPorch Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 For general information... Canada's aircraft carriers up to 1970: HMCS Nabob CVE-41 (US) (torpedoed) HMCS Puncher CVE-53 (US) HMSC Warrior R31 (Brit) HMCS Magnificent CVL-21 (Brit) HMCS Bonaventure CVL-22 (Brit) http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/ Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 20, 2009 Report Posted July 20, 2009 Canada's military is in a serious need of an upgrade and an overall better budget. If we aren't gonna bother getting an army capable of defending us we might as well just join america. Quote
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.