Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Canada's screwed up warship competition


Argus

Recommended Posts

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

This is why I always liked diesel-electrics...damn nukes had to go to sea..often !

"Harder, Darter, Trigger, Trout...always in and never out."

 

At least in the US nuclear subs there is relative comfort and modernity. Those Russian designed boats must be awash with some fairly dangerous fuels seeing the hypergolic nature of their missiles. Even the new ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

New diving reef near Molokai or what?

 

The Yankees towed her back to CFB Esquimalt as far as I know...decommissioned soon thereafter.   I had a port visit to Esquimalt back in the early 1980's....damn seals and sea lions would not stay off the sub.   Maybe they hated 'muricans too !

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The Yankees towed her back to CFB Esquimalt as far as I know...decommissioned soon thereafter.   I had a port visit to Esquimalt back in the early 1980's....damn seals and sea lions would not stay off the sub.   Maybe they hated 'muricans too !

 

Towed to Nova Scotia (!!!) and scrapped there...but caught FIRE and exploded during scrapping. I imagine the towing and exploding reduced the value...somewhat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

I had a port visit to Esquimalt back in the early 1980's....damn seals and sea lions would not stay off the sub.   Maybe they hated 'muricans too !

 

Yes...spent time in the area myself. Plus up the coast at the target range where I got a good peek at the Skipjack when younger.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Skipjack_(SSN-585)

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

Towed to Nova Scotia (!!!) and scrapped there...but caught FIRE and exploded during scrapping. I imagine the towing and exploding reduced the value...somewhat.

 

Seriously ?  Towed down the west coast...through the Canal...Gulf transit...up east coast to Halifax ?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

Yes...spent time in the area myself. Plus up the coast at the target range where I got a good peek at the Skipjack when younger.

 

The whole area (Straits/Puget Sound) is very nice.   I worked on the Nanoose Range out of Keyport in the later 1980's developing the Mk 50 lightweight torpedo.  Canada partners with the U.S. to use the range...perfect bathtub for instrumented acoustics, countermeasures, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The whole area (Straits/Puget Sound) is very nice.   I worked on the Nanoose Range out of Keyport in the later 1980's developing the Mk 50 lightweight torpedo.  Canada partners with the U.S. to use the range...perfect bathtub for instrumented acoustics, countermeasures, etc.

 

Yes indeed. Spent many summers at Qualicum Beach up from Nanoose. Huge sandy beaches and great fishing. Old folks took over the place, mind-you. Try and find something for under a zillion bucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, bush_cheney2004 said:

Looks like both HMCS Protecteur and Preserver was built in St. John Dry Dock Company, NB back in 1967....completed in just two-three years.

The Janes Fighting Ships section for Canada is....ummm...small.

 

Liberty ships...lol.

I swear...Canada asks...what are the Americans using? Then we pick something crappier.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Liberty ships...lol.

I swear...Canada asks...what are the Americans using? Then we pick something crappier.

 

Seems that way...there is a political allergy to whatever America is doing for military procurement.   Still, Canada use to have a competence and capacity that has eroded badly, being unable to sustain forward operations without significant allied help these days.

...and this has become an acceptable level of misery for all concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Seems that way...there is a political allergy to whatever America is doing for military procurement.   Still, Canada use to have a competence and capacity that has eroded badly, being unable to sustain forward operations without significant allied help these days.

...and this has become an acceptable level of misery for all concerned.

 

That's the thing, eh? Canadians used to rate a beach when invading Europe to wipe out Jerry. Now we'd need a lift...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Canadian governments raid military budgets these days instead...allocated funds are not spent.

 

The UK isn't much better. Nice new carrier, mind-you. 

Australia seems to take it all more seriously with Red China breathing down its neck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The UK isn't much better. Nice new carrier, mind-you. 

Australia seems to take it all more seriously with Red China breathing down its neck.

 

This Aussie calls Canada a "bludger"....

 

Quote

Matthew Fisher: Canada ‘lives off’ U.S. military protection while Australia forced to fend for itself

“In a way, Canada has been a bludger,” he said, using an Australian term used to describe a loafer or sponger. “You live off your bigger neighbour next door.”

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/matthew-fisher-canada-lives-off-u-s-military-protection-while-australia-forced-to-fend-for-itself

 

Edited by bush_cheney2004
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Aristides said:

I don't know that they have better capabilities. The Aussi and Brit ships put more of an emphasis on anti aircraft and missile defence where the Canadian ships have more anti shipping and land capability. Underwater capability seems about the same.

The type 26 was designed to be an all purpose ship, it's original design excels at ASW and anti air, what i meant by more capacities is the Aussi are using the latest American AEGIS system, along with a much better fire control systems that are used in both roles anti air, and sub.. that can fire the latest in anti ship missiles and anti air the Brits are usingthe latest European wpns suits , a superior radar and wpns system and far superior wpns such as missiles etc . Canada is going to use the same fire control/radar that we are currently using so there is less training required... this system has not yet even been tested with the latest missiles or weapons'. still using harpoon anti ship, and very little littoral capabilities such as land attack missiles, or rapid fire long range deck gun. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Aristides said:

The US can do that, they have all kinds of different ships for different jobs. We are building one ship that has to do everything.

It is not about the US, they offered us a very much reduced price 1/3 the price , at the last minute, and Justin refused it. this was well before the US had picked it for their next frigate, and if you look at it's capabilities, you can jam what ever systems you want into a hull such as AEGIS or the latest missile tech, sonar etc  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Must be frustrating for Canadian Forces....rusty trucks...rusting submarines...corroding CF-188s...leased mongrel supply ships...museum grade rotary winged aircraft...a long list.

 

It was extremely frustrating , to damn embarrassing when we would do combined ops, with a couple of exceptions the brits did apricate our old leopard tanks when we went into the Hemland for a supporting role also the marines loved our LAV III when we did a shit ton of combined op with them...other than that we depended on everyone one else for lift, air support, UAV intel, Arty yes we did buy some of this latter on but it was like everything else a dollar short and a dollar late...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This isn't a warship but it's part of the 'national shipbuilding strategy'. The coast guard has been working on building a new oceanographic science ship for about 13 years so far and is just about ready to actually build the thing. The cost is $108 million dollars. Whoops, I mean $144 million. Er, make that $331 million. Oh wait, let's just call it a round BILLION. That sounds about right. A BILLION dollars for a ship which isn't even a warship is about what it costs Canada to build anything bigger than a rowboat. After all, you've got hundreds of workers - and thousands of lawyers, consultants and grifters involved.

Canada. We might not have the biggest or best ships, but we damned sure have the most expensive ones!

 

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/cost-of-federal-science-ship-jumps-from-108-million-to-nearly-1-billion

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...