Guest TrueMetis Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 Example... I'm not a big fan of Carriers, but that is a beautiful ship. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 USS Iwo Jima Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Guest TrueMetis Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 USS Iwo Jima People may not like the whole military industrial complex thing but it would be so worth it to have the ability to build a ship like that, and any other ship for that matter. Quote
Army Guy Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 and in WW1 it 10 hrs training or something like that but those days are long gone...no recruit is going to find himself at flying solo missions the controls of 60 million+ fighter in 10-12 weeks and serious war with an equally equipped opponent will be over long before training of a pilot is completed...first 6 months of training is an elimination process weeding out the unsuitable and that overlooks it's damn hard to get a shot at it....first you need to be a near perfect physical specimen, a friend of mine tried a week long physical testing, one fail and your out no second chances... While my example my be an exageration, the piont is peace time training and safety standards, training standards are much different than say a high intensity war situation. as history has pionted out. I'm sure the Canadian pilots who flew in the later half of the battle of Britian wished for more training time as well, but the situation dictated that untrained rockies would see combat before they were ready.... Just to put some perspective on this, during the hieght of the cold war the estamated life expectancy of a pilot was one mission, if they were lucky enough to returned they would be rearmed and sent on they're way once again, forward NATO airfields would then be destroyed or rendered unoperable...and for those lucky pilots that survived their 2 and mission, they would be reamred and refuled on the major hyways in europe...Although this is a high intensity situation, combat losses were expected to be extreme....with this type of losses i don't think the peace time standard of waiting 2 or more years for a pilot to be trained is going hold up....60 mil or more dollars or not.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
wyly Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 We are building icebreakers..and I'd expect to hear a few more announced over the next 5 years. from what I've read they're slush breakers, level 1 stuff not the level 7 or 8 requested for heavy arctic pack ice... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 The Coast Guard is getting a $1B icebreaker...and there will probably be 3 or so more of about the same size to replace our current fleet of about 6 less capable icebreakers. Quote
wyly Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 Just to put some perspective on this, during the hieght of the cold war the estamated life expectancy of a pilot was one mission, if they were lucky enough to returned they would be rearmed and sent on they're way once again, forward NATO airfields would then be destroyed or rendered unoperable...and for those lucky pilots that survived their 2 and mission, they would be reamred and refuled on the major hyways in europe...Although this is a high intensity situation, combat losses were expected to be extreme....with this type of losses i don't think the peace time standard of waiting 2 or more years for a pilot to be trained is going hold up....60 mil or more dollars or not.... with that rate of attrition the war would be over very quickly and we wouldn't be able to replace the planes quickly enough, a year war isn't going to happen, more like two weeks...with the complexity of planes today you still couldn't push pilots through even if you had the planes to put them in most wouldn't even get of the ground without crashing...my bro-in-law a commander in the Navy during the cold war estimated his survival time with soviet nuclear subs at 15 minutes...reading throug a US military site the attractions of unmmanned planes was they could be built relatively cheaply and stored away until needed and hundreds of grounded pilots could be trained as video gamers without the high physical standards now required...no one gets killed in training when all the flying is done on simulators... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 The Coast Guard is getting a $1B icebreaker...and there will probably be 3 or so more of about the same size to replace our current fleet of about 6 less capable icebreakers. do you have a web site handy I haven't found that anywhere... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 do you have a web site handy I haven't found that anywhere... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_John_G._Diefenbaker Sorry, a bit less than a billion. The 3 or so more is a guess of mine based on the combined number of new vessels being built for the navy and coast guard given the large coast guard vessels that have already been ordered under the old system (there are actually a few making their way through the system). Quote
wyly Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 Carriers make excellent platforms for disaster relief. Tons of room for tons of supplies...add many helicopters....voila. but my point was they're only any use if they're near the disaster, Canada isn't near anything, it takes a week to get to Haiti, taking a month or more to get the other side of the globe is of no help for disaster relief it's just PR photo op stuff...for late arriving relief a cargo ship with a helicopter is all that's required not a billion dollar plus carrier...we would need a fleet of carriers stationed on every ocean plus the supports ships that go with them...the USA has all of those and the cost to their economy is crippling how can we with a tenth their population even consider something like that... the only reason for us to have a carrier is for force projection and we're not into that never will be, disaster relief for us would be better handled by air... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
DogOnPorch Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 but my point was they're only any use if they're near the disaster, Canada isn't near anything, it takes a week to get to Haiti, taking a month or more to get the other side of the globe is of no help for disaster relief it's just PR photo op stuff...for late arriving relief a cargo ship with a helicopter is all that's required not a billion dollar plus carrier... we would need a fleet of carriers stationed on every ocean plus the supports ships that go with them...the USA has all of those and the cost to their economy is crippling how can we with a tenth their population even consider something like that... the only reason for us to have a carrier is for force projection and we're not into that never will be, disaster relief for us would be better handled by air... See this post... Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
wyly Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCGS_John_G._Diefenbaker Sorry, a bit less than a billion. The 3 or so more is a guess of mine based on the combined number of new vessels being built for the navy and coast guard given the large coast guard vessels that have already been ordered under the old system (there are actually a few making their way through the system). thanks, probably a billion dollars by the time it's done....I read about this elsewhere it's been called a slush breaker not the arctic ice breaker required...so when conservative government call for F35s for arctic sovereignty I find that silly when an arctic ice breaker would stamp our sovereignty on the arctic waterways is ignored... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
wyly Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 See this post... saw it and agree...and with new missile technology for which there is no defense they are literally sitting ducks...carriers as weapons quite likley are the battleships of WW2 obsolete, the admirals in charge need a war with a well equiped enemy to find out how obsolete/defenceless they really are.... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Smallc Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 The John G. Diefenbaker is not what is referred to as a slush breaker. It will match the most powerful icebreakers in the world. The navy ice breakers are a different story. They're only meant for summer and fall operations. Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 The John G. Diefenbaker is not what is referred to as a slush breaker. It will match the most powerful icebreakers in the world. The navy ice breakers are a different story. They're only meant for summer and fall operations. Not a problem at all if you believe everything is going to melt anyway because of SUV's in Topeka. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 and with new missile technology for which there is no defense they are literally sitting ducks...carriers as weapons quite likley are the battleships of WW2 obsolete, the admirals in charge need a war with a well equiped enemy to find out how obsolete/defenceless they really are.... Not necessarily...the Syrians found out how "obsolete" a 16 inch gun was back in the early 1980's....long after WW2. As for carriers or assault ships being "sitting ducks"....Phalanx CIWS has gone laser: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501465_162-20011041-501465.html Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Topaz Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 I know I'm not the only Canadian asking if we really need THIS fighter and the article in the Hills Times says it best for the Finance Minister. Remember how he said there are going to be deep cut back to every department? Well, as the articles says, the minister should get a medal for cutting back the DND by adding to it and IT could ended up to 20-25 BILLION! http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/military+miracle/3302484/story.html Quote
Moonbox Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) and with new missile technology for which there is no defense they are literally sitting ducks...carriers as weapons quite likley are the battleships of WW2 obsolete, the admirals in charge need a war with a well equiped enemy to find out how obsolete/defenceless they really are.... There is no missile out there that has made the carrier obsolete. As an armchair general I'm sure you feel that you're an expert but the brightest minds in the worlds most proficient and powerful military seem to disagree and are even still building and designing new supercarriers. I'm not sure you have any clue as to how multi-layered and complex the defence of a carrier really is. One carrier battlegroup probably costs more than Canada's entire military to operate lol. Edited July 21, 2010 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
wyly Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 There is no missile out there that has made the carrier obsolete. As an armchair general I'm sure you feel that you're an expert but the brightest minds in the worlds most proficient and powerful military seem to disagree and are even still building and designing new supercarriers. I'm not sure you have any clue as to how multi-layered and complex the defence of a carrier really is. One carrier battlegroup probably costs more than Canada's entire military to operate lol. I have more than clue thanks I have a bro-in-law who was a naval commander in the RCN, his specialty, weapons systems... the brightest naval minds aren't going to toss aside billions naval equipment they always justify what they have...carrier groups are still okay for kicking around third world powers with 2nd rate equipment, for the big guys they're a target rich environment... russian cruise missile technology is a generation ahead of NATO's from the time of detection until contact is about 30 seconds, it's a fire and forget weapon, it aquires and tracks multi-targets on it's own, chooses it's target then dives to deck skimming the waves at supersonic speed then taking evasive action just before contact.... the defensive technology to track and bring defences to bear on this does not yet exist...and when defensive technology improves the newer versions of cruise missiles will have as well... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Bonam Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 I have more than clue thanks I have a bro-in-law who was a naval commander in the RCN, his specialty, weapons systems... the brightest naval minds aren't going to toss aside billions naval equipment they always justify what they have...carrier groups are still okay for kicking around third world powers with 2nd rate equipment, for the big guys they're a target rich environment... russian cruise missile technology is a generation ahead of NATO's from the time of detection until contact is about 30 seconds, it's a fire and forget weapon, it aquires and tracks multi-targets on it's own, chooses it's target then dives to deck skimming the waves at supersonic speed then taking evasive action just before contact.... the defensive technology to track and bring defences to bear on this does not yet exist...and when defensive technology improves the newer versions of cruise missiles will have as well... You have zero clue what you are talking about, just FYI. One of the carrier's greatest defenses is its offense. Where is that missile being launched from? An enemy ship, airplane, or ground installation in range of firing a cruise missile at that carrier? Well, if it is, it's already long since been destroyed by the airplanes being carried on that carrier, or by the cruise missiles deployed from other ships in that carrier battlegroup. Also, there is much more than 30 seconds from contact. Do not forget that elements of a carrier battlegroup are spread out at large distances from the carrier, providing a much wider radius of intelligence. Additionally, if a carrier was to be engaged in actual military operations against an enemy that posed a serious threat to it, it would be flying a combat air patrol, increasing detection range and warning time much farther. You are thinking of a carrier as a sitting duck that is just waiting there for missiles to be shot at it. That is not how they work. Quote
justme Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) Smallc, I think you're being a little too rosy about military procurement announcements. The JSS was originally announced in 2004 and it was expected to take 5-7 years for it to enter service. Here we are half-way through 2010 and the government announced that there'll be another 2 year design period before they start building them, which will take years. Also, if the JSS will meet all our needs as you suggest, why is it that they're taking another 2 years for design? If it is good as is, they should be able to begin building with the existing design. Either this is foot dragging or it is to improve the design of the ship. Which is it? Like the Sea Kings, the supply ships that are currently being used will be pushing 50 years old by the time they're replaced. One of them is on dry dock for maintenance, which leaves only one for use. And speaking of the Sea Kings, they're supposed to be replaced with Cyclones by now. If only one ship yard will be used for large ships, will it be able to handle building more than one ship at a time? Probably not, and given that the JSS will probably be the first to be built, that means the the destroyers are not likely to be replaced for a decade or more. And the icebreakers will have to wait in line. Limiting it to one ship yard creates a bottleneck. As much as it pains me to say this, I agree with the NDP in that the work should just be allocated to shipyards and they should get on with it. Ironically though, this is the exact opposite position that that opposition parties are taking with the F-35. While I agree with the Conservatives that there should be a long-term procurement plan that's stable instead of the pathetic start and stop cycle that Canada is famous for, how can they reliably plan so far into the future? Who knows what the government will be like decades into the future and what it'll do to defence spending. Also I agree with the Conservatives that the defence budget should be restored to 2% of GDP, but what they're actually doing is gradually raising the budget to $30 billion or so by 2027-2028. When you take GDP growth into consideration, $30 billion would most likely be a lower percentage of GDP at that time than we're spending now. At 2% of GDP, the 2010 budget should be $32 billion. I think the government should move faster and consider other capabilities such as amphibious assault ships, and I certainly think the country is capable of it, but be realistic. Unless the government starts thinking big and gets more aggressive about military procurement, it's not going to happen any time soon. Edited July 21, 2010 by justme Quote “The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.” –Theodore Roosevelt “The symptoms of dying civilizations are well known. The death of faith; the degeneration of morals; contempt for the old values; collapse of the culture; paralysis of the will, but the two certain symptoms that a civilization has begun to die are a declining population and foreign invasions no longer resisted.” – Patrick J. Buchanan "Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide. Its ideas pursued to their logical end will prove fatal to the West." -- James Burnham
Handsome Rob Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) You have zero clue what you are talking about, just FYI. Silence is golden, duct tape is silver. This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by wyly View it anyway? It's a better life. Edited July 21, 2010 by Handsome Rob Quote
Smallc Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) Smallc, I think you're being a little too rosy about military procurement announcements. The JSS was originally announced in 2004 and it was expected to take 5-7 years for it to enter service. Here we are half-way through 2010 and the government announced that there'll be another 2 year design period before they start building them, which will take years. Also, if the JSS will meet all our needs as you suggest, why is it that they're taking another 2 years for design? If it is good as is, they should be able to begin building with the existing design. Either this is foot dragging or it is to improve the design of the ship. Which is it? That won't be a problem going forward. The new strategy eliminates these problems. Also, changing the design of the ship isn't really a problem either, as it assures our most current needs will be met. Like the Sea Kings, the supply ships that are currently being used will be pushing 50 years old by the time they're replaced. One of them is on dry dock for maintenance, which leaves only one for use. And speaking of the Sea Kings, they're supposed to be replaced with Cyclones by now. I know the current situation. If only one ship yard will be used for large ships, will it be able to handle building more than one ship at a time? Probably not, and given that the JSS will probably be the first to be built, that means the the destroyers are not likely to be replaced for a decade or more. And the icebreakers will have to wait in line. Limiting it to one ship yard creates a bottleneck. There will be one shipyard for combat and one for non combat ships. That will mean some will have to wait longer than they should, but they'll get done. Also, the chosen shipyards can contract out some work. As much as it pains me to say this, I agree with the NDP in that the work should just be allocated to shipyards and they should get on with it. Ironically though, this is the exact opposite position that that opposition parties are taking with the F-35. The NDP is wrong. That will simply continue the boom bust cycle that is the problem. While I agree with the Conservatives that there should be a long-term procurement plan that's stable instead of the pathetic start and stop cycle that Canada is famous for, how can they reliably plan so far into the future? Who knows what the government will be like decades into the future and what it'll do to defence spending. They can't, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't plan. Also I agree with the Conservatives that the defence budget should be restored to 2% of GDP, but what they're actually doing is gradually raising the budget to $30 billion or so by 2027-2028. When you take GDP growth into consideration, $30 billion would most likely be a lower percentage of GDP at that time than we're spending now. At 2% of GDP, the 2010 budget should be $32 billion. Well, we're spending about the same as Germany and Spain as a percentage. There's no reason to set an arbitrary number of 2%. I think the government should move faster and consider other capabilities such as amphibious assault ships, and I certainly think the country is capable of it, but be realistic. Unless the government starts thinking big and gets more aggressive about military procurement, it's not going to happen any time soon. And I don't think we should spend money we don't have, even if I'd like to see some of the things. The future navy will be smaller and more capable in terms of the number of ships. The same should be true of the Coast Guard (and many of the ships are already bought and going through the old system). Edited July 21, 2010 by Smallc Quote
justme Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 Not a problem at all if you believe everything is going to melt anyway because of SUV's in Topeka. LOL Quote “The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.” –Theodore Roosevelt “The symptoms of dying civilizations are well known. The death of faith; the degeneration of morals; contempt for the old values; collapse of the culture; paralysis of the will, but the two certain symptoms that a civilization has begun to die are a declining population and foreign invasions no longer resisted.” – Patrick J. Buchanan "Liberalism is the ideology of Western suicide. Its ideas pursued to their logical end will prove fatal to the West." -- James Burnham
Moonbox Posted July 21, 2010 Report Posted July 21, 2010 (edited) I have more than clue thanks I have a bro-in-law who was a naval commander in the RCN, his specialty, weapons systems... Makes you SUCH an expert I'm sure... The second hand info you get from him is no better than anything anyone of us can get hopping on to a US naval forum. the brightest naval minds aren't going to toss aside billions naval equipment they always justify what they have...carrier groups are still okay for kicking around third world powers with 2nd rate equipment, for the big guys they're a target rich environment... Yeah maybe for a nuke, but that's a whole other ballgame. russian cruise missile technology is a generation ahead of NATO's from the time of detection until contact is about 30 seconds, it's a fire and forget weapon, it aquires and tracks multi-targets on it's own, chooses it's target then dives to deck skimming the waves at supersonic speed then taking evasive action just before contact.... the defensive technology to track and bring defences to bear on this does not yet exist...and when defensive technology improves the newer versions of cruise missiles will have as well... Bullshit. The Brohmas is the best they have and that 30 second detection window is pure balogna. First off, that assumes we're talking hypersonic. While the radar detection window is perhaps 30 seconds for the carrier, you'd have widely dispersed assets flying and sailing patrols hundreds of miles around it. What's more is that a hypersonic flight flying that low (therefore in denser air and directly against a cool water background) would emit an ENORMOUS infrared signature that would be visible even by satellite and easily tracked by anything nearby. You'd have all-aspect heat seekers on that sucker from pretty much every direction possible and the battlegroup would have MINUTES (not seconds) to react. Even if the missile was able to make it to closing distance the new defense systems being integrated into the navy now (Metalstorm is one in particular) would have the missile flying through a point defense blanket of high velocity metal. It'd be torn up well before it hit the target. Ask your bro and law about that. Edited July 22, 2010 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
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.