DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 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. Not a problem, at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Typical electrical pole in India. Which one is 440v again....hmmmmmmmmm. Who cares? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/15/world/asia/explosion-partly-sinks-indian-naval-submarine.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 None the less, we've no requirement to defend against Indian or American subs in the Arctic..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Who cares? None the less, we've no requirement to defend against Indian or American subs in the Arctic..... 1. Canada can't afford nuclear submarines. Unlike India... 2. Good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 1. Canada can't afford nuclear submarines. Unlike India... 2. Good thing. I thought we were talking about the Victoria boats......none the less, India's Soviet era cast-offs are not a threat to Canada........but at one time, British designed and operated SSKs posed a very real threat to Soviet SSNs in the North Atlantic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Army Guy Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Massive cuts are being fielded all across DND, we have seen hints of this in the media already, purchase programs being cut,or canceled....Within DND we are being told that 2014 will be an interesting one, as DND trys to fund programs that it desparately needs, it is willing to do anything to make this happen. We have already been told that the Military is going to go through a restructing phase, to re balence it's forces.... army will be down sized by a huge amount, while the Navy and airforce will grow somewhat larger than they are today... Before Dec the Army was given a heads up, that it will be reducing it's B veh fleet ( wheeled logistical vehs) by 50 % serviceable and unserviceable vehs ,these vehs will be parked forever, scavaged for parts until DND changes it mind, It should be noted that the ARMY already suffers from the lack of lift as it phasing the MLVW fleet from the records, and no replacement on the books as it was one of the projects to be canceled..... they also announced that they are Looking at the A veh fleet (fighting vehs) which one or how many has not been determined just yet... We have also been told that budgets for all Army units will be slashed by a huge amount, media sources have said by more than 61% in the new fiscal year....going to be a couple of tough years...i just hope it does not wipe out everything we have gained since the liberals left power. if it does DND will be a shell of it self, one that is just going to cost to much money to repair more than Canadians can ever swallow....perhaps it might be time to hang up the boots, maybe find a real job.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I thought we were talking about the Victoria boats......none the less, India's Soviet era cast-offs are not a threat to Canada........but at one time, British designed and operated SSKs posed a very real threat to Soviet SSNs in the North Atlantic. That's wonderful. Why have you suddenly become waldo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Massive cuts are being fielded all across DND, we have seen hints of this in the media already, purchase programs being cut,or canceled....Within DND we are being told that 2014 will be an interesting one, as DND trys to fund programs that it desparately needs, it is willing to do anything to make this happen. We have already been told that the Military is going to go through a restructing phase, to re balence it's forces.... army will be down sized by a huge amount, while the Navy and airforce will grow somewhat larger than they are today... Like we’ve discussed numerous times in the past, this is merely a reaction to the geopolitical realties going forward and the orientation of militaries into the Pacific theatre and it’s growing importance in this century, coupled with economic truths….Though I’m sorry in some respects that my “prophecies” are coming true, from a clear wide angle perspective, hardly surprising……. Simply put, and with full respect, Mechanized Forces will have little utility in containing (and if required, fighting) Red China. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 That's wonderful. Why have you suddenly become waldo? Hardly......But I fully understand the utility of diesel submarines, and from a Canadian vantage point the Victoria boats, and the roles that they will play going forward…….Think about it, why would we be shifting both the fleet and maintenance of the boats out West, into the Pacific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Both you and BC are submariners. That's really cool. Whoa....I have no dog in this fight. I just know what the crews and sea/shore duty rotations must be going through with this kind of prolonged jerk around. Submarines are expensive, high maintenance toys that need more than a needle gun and fresh coat of paint. Whatever promise these boats had when procured has been aged and squandered because of other priorities. May their number of surfaces always equal their number of dives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Defending a country costs billions. That's a simple reality. Okay, but invading one costs trillions. That's an even simpler reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Okay, but invading one costs trillions. That's an even simpler reality. Hardly...invasion of Panama was a bargain at $200 million. Granada....$100 million tops. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Whoa....I have no dog in this fight. I just know what the crews and sea/shore duty rotations must be going through with this kind of prolonged jerk around. Submarines are expensive, high maintenance toys that need more than a needle gun and fresh coat of paint. Whatever promise these boats had when procured has been aged and squandered because of other priorities. May their number of surfaces always equal their number of dives. In some respects, but though their actual age is a given, their cumulative age based on (lack) of use is relatively young and this is reflected with their dive certificate best before date continually being pushed forward……Ultimately much of the subsystems (fire control, sonar etc) onboard now are just as at home as onboard a British Trafalgar & Vanguard boat or a 688I…….cutting edge and state of the art? Hardly……better than much of what the potential competition has to offer? Certainly. At the end of the day, there are a very few navies out there that would have an effective counter to the boats, and those that do, are our allies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 In some respects, but though their actual age is a given, their cumulative age based on (lack) of use is relatively young and this is reflected with their dive certificate best before date continually being pushed forward……Ultimately much of the subsystems (fire control, sonar etc) onboard now are just as at home as onboard a British Trafalgar & Vanguard boat or a 688I…….cutting edge and state of the art? Hardly……better than much of what the potential competition has to offer? Certainly. No doubt such potential existed and may still exist, but time, tide, and formation wait for no man and these boats need to be online, boring holes in the ocean. Operational limits are just the start of derating the platform because of real or calculated readiness degradation. At the end of the day, there are a very few navies out there that would have an effective counter to the boats, and those that do, are our allies. But as has already been demonstrated, the enemy is more often routine operation at sea. It wants to kill you by getting seawater in the people tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo 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. In fairness, a good portion of both completed and ongoing defence programs were started under the Liberal governments of the early 2000s (F-35, replacements for the navy, MHP and FWSAR)... oh my! PIK talking points... feel the burn, feel the burn! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 No doubt such potential existed and may still exist, but time, tide, and formation wait for no man and these boats need to be online, boring holes in the ocean. Operational limits are just the start of derating the platform because of real or calculated readiness degradation. Something now the RCN is attempting to rectify. But as has already been demonstrated, the enemy is more often routine operation at sea. It wants to kill you by getting seawater in the people tank. Certainly…..the expanded transition time between our former O-boats and the Victoria’s lead to several high profile, “operator errors” associated with the class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Whoa....I have no dog in this fight. I just know what the crews and sea/shore duty rotations must be going through with this kind of prolonged jerk around. Submarines are expensive, high maintenance toys that need more than a needle gun and fresh coat of paint. Whatever promise these boats had when procured has been aged and squandered because of other priorities. May their number of surfaces always equal their number of dives. For sure. But, I'm certain the choices for Canada at the time were more than just mothballed Upholders. If we're going to blow a bunch of money, it would be nice if they actually did something practical for Canada like patrol the Arctic. I'm trying to envision a scenario where a Canadian submarine is needed rather than a good fast destroyer...besides playing at being the enemy for your guys...lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 For sure. But, I'm certain the choices for Canada at the time were more than just mothballed Upholders. If we're going to blow a bunch of money, it would be nice if they actually did something practical for Canada like patrol the Arctic. I'm trying to envision a scenario where a Canadian submarine is needed rather than a good fast destroyer...besides playing at being the enemy for your guys...lol. Nope........No alternatives within the realm of possibility……..And “playing enemy” is a very important role for us and the Americans, that you clearly can’t grasp, when faced with a threat matrix that very much includes a enemy diesel electric submarine force…… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Nope........No alternatives within the realm of possibility……..And “playing enemy” is a very important role for us and the Americans, that you clearly can’t grasp, when faced with a threat matrix that very much includes a enemy diesel electric submarine force…… I'm well aware of the value of training. However, if that's the reason we bought submarines...to train Americans at ASW tecniques...it's certainly a poor one. They could have bought the subs at that point. As far as no alternatives to these four subs...I find that hard to believe. Not to mention even Australia goes...well, at least our Collins class subs aren't as unreliable as Canada's Upholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) I'm well aware of the value of training. However, if that's the reason we bought submarines...to train Americans at ASW tecniques...it's certainly a poor one. They could have bought the subs at that point. No, that's one of the reasons why we bought them......to aide in training Canadian and American naval forces... As far as no alternatives to these four subs...I find that hard to believe. Not to mention even Australia goes...well, at least our Collins class subs aren't as unreliable as Canada's Upholders. Yeah.....the Collins class.......the same headaches at four times the price for the same end result Edited January 10, 2014 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Their words...not mine. http://www.afr.com/p/national/australia_submarine_fleet_among_lmkx9QBvCarkrCHYHvhFcP No, that's one of the reasons why we bought them......to aide in training Canadian and American naval forces... And I go to Vegas for the buffets... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 (edited) Plus, this is pretty interesting. I'm not sure exactly how many Mk-48s we have on hand...most are older Mod 4s...but only 36 of them have been upgraded to Mod 7s (or, at least we have the kits)...at the time of this article, anyways. The US has just over a thousand Mk-48s, apparently...I imagine all the newer types. The kits aren't cheap...nor of course...was the conversion over from the RN's Spearfish. Plus, the earlier f-up of trying to save money by using bits off the Oberons. And all the other BS including death. This makes me...the ignorant layman who should just be quiet...wonder who the heck is really at the helm? So-to-speak. Call me mad, but wouldn't a more practical solution have been.... Canada: Hi. America?? This is Canada. While you're building some of those top shelf new uber-boats, howz about we strike a deal where we slip you X number of billions and/or X amount of oil (et al) for a few of our own and train/maintain/patrol together? We already have the torpedoes...and Bremerton practically is Vancouver, after all. USA: You've got cash and oil, you say? Sure...let's stick it to China. Believe me...I want(ed) the BEST for Canada, Derek. Edited January 10, 2014 by DogOnPorch Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Their words...not mine. http://www.afr.com/p/national/australia_submarine_fleet_among_lmkx9QBvCarkrCHYHvhFcP And I go to Vegas for the buffets... And what is Mr Coles report based on? None the less, based on the age of the article, it’s doubtful said findings included the after action report of RIMPAC 2012.………..My point still stands, we’ve paid a quarter of the cost of the RAN to have 3 of 4 subs operational versus ¾ of 6 subs operational…….The Collins program is hardly one to envy and is a perfect example of what not to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 Plus, this is pretty interesting. I'm not sure exactly how many Mk-48s we have on hand...most are older Mod 4s...but only 36 of them have been upgraded to Mod 7s (or, at least we have the kits)...at the time of this article, anyways. The US has just over a thousand Mk-48s, apparently...I imagine all the newer types. The kits aren't cheap...nor of course...was the conversion over from the RN's Spearfish. So Canada has approximately ~9 war shots per sub in the inventory and the World’s largest navy (That also use to have quite a few more subs) has ~14-15 war shots per sub in inventory…….And the problem is what? Plus, the earlier f-up of trying to save money by using bits off the Oberons. And all the other BS including death. This makes me...the ignorant layman who should just be quiet...wonder who the heck is really at the helm? So-to-speak. Yes, Canada did recycle the fire control system from the O-boats to allow us to continuing using American weapons and subsystems….Of course, our Oberon’s had only went through SOUP the decade previous, installing a fire control system roughly on parity with a Sturgeon or early 688 boat……Though not ideal, the end result is the same as the Collins class that cost four times as much. Call me mad, but wouldn't a more practical solution have been.... Canada: Hi. America?? This is Canada. While you're building some of those top shelf new uber-boats, howz about we strike a deal where we slip you X number of billions and/or X amount of oil (et al) for a few of our own and train/maintain/patrol together? We already have the torpedoes...and Bremerton practically is Vancouver, after all. USA: You've got cash and oil, you say? Sure...let's stick it to China. Believe me...I want(ed) the BEST for Canada, Derek. You're mad.......unless of course you can explain where Canada is to get the money to operate a fleet of nuke boats when we're operating AORs and Destroyers approaching 50 years of age..... Maybe when it's time to replace them, but as it stands, The Victoria’s are just now starting to fulfill our requirements, coupled with other far more pressing requirements, replacing them now is nothing more then mental masturbation……..And to add insult to injury, shitting on the class from great heights with baseless, incorrect opinions does nothing for the cause. Frankly, in a year or two, the Victoria’s will be the most capable platform the RCN has to offer to a blue-water naval operation type scenario. Like I said prior, when only a handful of modern navies have the ability to defend against them (and the navies that do are our allies) they are a very useful arrow in our quiver. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 .......unless of course you can explain where Canada is to get the money to operate a fleet of nuke boats when we're operating AORs and Destroyers approaching 50 years of age..... I hear some folks on this planet will pay DEARLY for this stuff to run their autos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted January 10, 2014 Report Share Posted January 10, 2014 You sound like the Canadian government, btw. Defend those ol' POS boats. (cracks party whip) 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.