bleeding heart Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Ah...fair enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Still bloody useless, in my opinion. Useful...Seawolf class attack sub. Ice?? No problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 The military was a complete disaster before harper came along and he is doing his best to build it back up with breaking the bank. At least he cares, because the liberals certainly did not have any respect for the military. So agin this brings me to ask what the hell did chretien do for 13 yrs, because harper seems to be stuck with problems that we had during chretiens reign of darkness. Loopk at what the forces had when they 1st went to afghanistan compared to what they had when it was over.I acknowledge that the government of the day, including Chretien, have the right and responsibility to define spending priorities and national defence Chretien and the Liberals hacked military budgets as part of their deficit cutting actions in the 90s. Fair enough. But what is absolutely unforgiveable is that the govt continued to commit our troops to missions where their lives were endangered by the lack of equipment, such as in the Balkans. That is callous and negligent in the extreme. The inability of Canada to fulfill its NATO treaty obligations did not go unnoticed by our allies either. Only recently do they have any confidence that Canada can do what we promosed to do in support of our friends. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Still bloody useless, in my opinion. What? The entire class? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 What? The entire class? Yup...loser class subs. Couldn't fire torps while British, either, without refit. The best thing Jane's has to say is that there's nothing inherently wrong with the class. That the Brit's went F----'em after two years and went exclusively nuclear shows what a money saver they really are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Odd...like me, you want bleeding edge aircraft for Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Yup...loser class subs. Couldn't fire torps while British, either, without refit. The best thing Jane's has to say is that there's nothing inherently wrong with the class. That the Brit's went F----'em after two years and went exclusively nuclear shows what a money saver they really are. Then you’re clearly misinformed……..the Royal Navy itself didn’t want to divest of them and their inherent, “unique uses”, the switch to a solely nuclear fleet was one of budgetary concerns born out of the “Peace Dividend”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Then you’re clearly misinformed……..the Royal Navy itself didn’t want to divest of them and their inherent, “unique uses”, the switch to a solely nuclear fleet was one of budgetary concerns born out of the “Peace Dividend”. So what's the plan for these Upholders? Torp a tramp freighter full of Tamils? Seriously...not sure as to the role intended by those who bought them. No Arctic = useless. Surely you agree there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 So what's the plan for these Upholders? Torp a tramp freighter full of Tamils? Seriously...not sure as to the role intended by those who bought them. No Arctic = useless. Surely you agree there. First and foremost as training aide for us and the Americans, a very capable ISTAR asset for the fleet, area/sea denial in the advent of a war and the delivery of folks dressed in black pyjamas………..Under ice Arctic usage? Not a chance for any diesel boat, most have a fibreglass sail, but more then capable of parking themselves in say the Davis strait or any other piece of real estate that also serves as choke point for Arctic travel…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 First and foremost as training aide for us and the Americans, a very capable ISTAR asset for the fleet, area/sea denial in the advent of a war and the delivery of folks dressed in black pyjamas………..Under ice Arctic usage? Not a chance for any diesel boat, most have a fibreglass sail, but more then capable of parking themselves in say the Davis strait or any other piece of real estate that also serves as choke point for Arctic travel…. Choke point of Arctic travel?? Face it...we bought these because they were deemed cheap...not because they are particularly useful to Canada. No cruise missiles...no below ice capability...no part in the future. But, like an F-18 is a 'jet'...an Upholder is indeed a submarine. ---Angle on the bow on Tamil tramp freighter! ---Aye, aye, sir! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Choke point of Arctic travel?? Face it...we bought these because they were deemed cheap...not because they are particularly useful to Canada. No cruise missiles...no below ice capability...no part in the future. But, like an F-18 is a 'jet'...an Upholder is indeed a submarine. I spent a good portion of my life hunting submarines, both diesel and nuclear, far less capable then the Upholders and no, these weren’t procured solely because they were cheap, DND actively followed their development with peaked interest since the early 80s, and continued doing so even during the stillborn SSN program (The Upholders are after all a diesel cousin to the T-boats) in the later half of the 80s. With the proliferation of diesel submarines, the finally upgraded Victoria’s are very relevant, with few near peer competitors, going forward into the 2020s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I spent a good portion of my life hunting submarines, both diesel and nuclear, far less capable then the Upholders and no, these weren’t procured solely because they were cheap, DND actively followed their development with peaked interest since the early 80s, and continued doing so even during the stillborn SSN program (The Upholders are after all a diesel cousin to the T-boats) in the later half of the 80s. With the proliferation of diesel submarines, the finally upgraded Victoria’s are very relevant, with few near peer competitors, going forward into the 2020s. Both you and BC are submariners. That's really cool. Anyways...I find it rather interesting that you'll go on for 100 pages re: the F-35 and why Canada needs cutting edge equipment but then role-over and defend this purchase when even you can't tell me the mission. Training Americans?? Really? Well...good for them. Your sub resembles a Kilo class...can we drop dummy depth charges on it?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Both you and BC are submariners. That's really cool. Anyways...I find it rather interesting that you'll go on for 100 pages re: the F-35 and why Canada needs cutting edge equipment but then role-over and defend this purchase when even you can't tell me the mission. Training Americans?? Really? Well...good for them. Nobody know the missions till something comes up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Nobody know the missions till something comes up. Seeing that Arctic sovereignty is a mission Canada is keen on, I imagine a submarine cracking through the ice letting you know whose waters you're in might be a plus...but alas...what do I know? Let's wait for them at the Arctic choke points...then we'll tell 'em right off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Both you and BC are submariners. That's really cool. Anyways...I find it rather interesting that you'll go on for 100 pages re: the F-35 and why Canada needs cutting edge equipment but then role-over and defend this purchase when even you can't tell me the mission. Training Americans?? Really? Well...good for them. Not a Submariner……..a hunter of such sorted lot. And I did tell you the mission, if you didn’t read it and/or can’t comprehend it……what can I say? Your ignorance on the subject is telling, especially your indifference towards the requirement of a modern navy to have a capable counter to the proliferation SSK’s around the world……..For those subs that actually are Kilo boats. And yes, I do defend the F-35 purchase, just as I’ll defend the eventual replacement (fore I still plan to be kicking then) of the Victoria class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Seeing that Arctic sovereignty is a mission Canada is keen on, I imagine a submarine cracking through the ice letting you know whose waters you're in might be a plus...but alas...what do I know? Let's wait for them at the Arctic choke points...then we'll tell 'em right off. How do you plan on getting into the Arctic and in-turn, posing a threat to Canada without traversing said "choke points"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Not a Submariner……..a hunter of such sorted lot. And I did tell you the mission, if you didn’t read it and/or can’t comprehend it……what can I say? Your ignorance on the subject is telling, especially your indifference towards the requirement of a modern navy to have a capable counter to the proliferation SSK’s around the world……..For those subs that actually are Kilo boats. And yes, I do defend the F-35 purchase, just as I’ll defend the eventual replacement (fore I still plan to be kicking then) of the Victoria class. I don't claim to be an authority. Seeing they're ours now, we're stuck with them. But, when we're spending billions, why not reach for that top shelf? Canada...always second rate. Our curse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 How do you plan on getting into the Arctic and in-turn, posing a threat to Canada without traversing said "choke points"? In a machine like a Seawolf class boat? Seriously? Make your own path under the ice...we have lots of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I don't claim to be an authority. Seeing they're ours now, we're stuck with them. But, when we're spending billions, why not reach for that top shelf? Canada...always second rate. Our curse. For return on investment, we’ve got a bargain when compared to RAN’s Collins boats. As to second rate.....compared to what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 For return on investment, we’ve got a bargain when compared to RAN’s Collins boats. As to second rate.....compared to what? India. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 In a machine like a Seawolf class boat? Seriously? Make your own path under the ice...we have lots of it. Why would we have to defend against a Seawolf? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 India. What about them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Why would we have to defend against a Seawolf? OK...this is going nowhere. I know better. I'm sure they'll do whatever they're supposed to do just fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 What about them? Typical electrical pole in India. Which one is 440v again....hmmmmmmmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 OK...this is going nowhere. I know better. I'm sure they'll do whatever they're supposed to do just fine. Hey, you’re the one bleating on about Seawolf submarines that can leave the Puget Sound and appear in the Arctic…..and why this is a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.