|
Author |
Topic Options
|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:03 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind: I can't justify in my own head the expense of offensive cruise missle submarines unless you are putting nukes in them. The expense of the submarine or the expense of the missiles? One way or another you're paying for the submarine anyway.
|
Posts: 13404
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 3:12 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind: Which is why I like submarines. They're an effective defensive tool. Stick active and passive sub detection systems along the pacific and critical areas of the arctic and atlantic coasts. When you get a ping, you know where to send the subs, ships, and planes to further sink the undersea bastards. I can't justify in my own head the expense of offensive cruise missle submarines unless you are putting nukes in them. ... colossal waste of money for a power like ours ... It would be utterly pointless (and a money sucking monster) for Canada to have a strategic nuclear capability. It's a useless, unusable weapon , for one.
|
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 7:35 pm
Expense of the submarine. Attack subs make sense for a canada-centric defence plan. I wouldn't argue the same for attack subs unless we were going to stick nukes in them. Conventional Cruise missles will only do so much and it's more cost effective to truck them around in a multi-use ship than in a sub with one purpose.
As for nukes, I'm a bit more cynical about their use in the 21st century. I hope we avoid the case of hundreds or even thousands being launched between the great powers. But if we end up in between a rock and a hard place our having nukes could very well be what keeps us from being nuked.
|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 8:25 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind: Expense of the submarine. Attack subs make sense for a canada-centric defence plan. I wouldn't argue the same for attack subs unless we were going to stick nukes in them. Conventional Cruise missles will only do so much and it's more cost effective to truck them around in a multi-use ship than in a sub with one purpose.
As for nukes, I'm a bit more cynical about their use in the 21st century. I hope we avoid the case of hundreds or even thousands being launched between the great powers. But if we end up in between a rock and a hard place our having nukes could very well be what keeps us from being nuked. Most of the attack boats built nowadays have the capability to launch missiles, whether they be lowly Harpoons or the king of the hill Tomahawks. Our Upholders were Harpoon ready... until we decided to downgrade them. Too capable, we needed to screw them up.
|
Posts: 33691
Posted: Sun Sep 14, 2014 8:39 pm
Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind: But if we end up in between a rock and a hard place our having nukes could very well be what keeps us from being nuked. Countries that don't have nukes get invaded. Tibet Iraq Afghanistan Georgia Ukraine Countries that have, not so much. NK Iran Russia
|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 4:53 am
Our geography pretty well guarantees that the only country capable of launching an invasion are the Americans.
|
Posts: 23058
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:31 am
Jabberwalker Jabberwalker: I think it would be relatively self-explanatory (you send boats up there and cruise around looking for bad guys ), but I'd leave the technical aspects of patrolling to the experts (our sailors).
Think of it this way: driving you car quickly through a winding, narrow and unpredictable tunnel in the pitch black with no head lights and with no way out. That is how you would patrol the only partially sounded, relatively narrow channels between our Arctic islands with thick ice overhead but you can't light a match to see with (ping with active sonar) and give your position away. That would probably render your patrol as wasted time if they can hear you coming from hundreds of miles away. Perhaps those technical aspects were left to the professionals and the Navy said "You want us to do WHAT with those submarines?" and maybe that is a big part of the reason why we don't have them. As far as projecting power out into the oceans, the whole point of attack submarines is the stealthy hunting of other vessels. You can't really use it to project power as you have to remain silent about the presence of your submarines. How can you project power "with a secret"? Don't you need to be bold and brassy about it? The Beaufort Sea & the Arctic Ocean are winding narrow unpredictable tunnels? And subs have no way to navigate under water and just glide around totally blind? Wow, news to me, I always thought of oceans as huge, deep expanses of water and subs having passive means of detecting other subs/vessels. As I said, the CCG can patrol the shallow water in the Arctic archipelago, while subs patrol the deeper waters off our coastline. I never said anything about projecting power with nuke subs - my concern was merely with interdicting traffic in our Arctic waters. As far as I'm concerned, power projection is way down the list of tasks we need to do - protecting our coastline is far more important a task than the idea of sending a task force to the other side of the planet.
|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:55 am
How do you project power with an attack sub?
|
Posts: 13404
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 5:41 pm
The Beaufort Sea & the Arctic Ocean are winding narrow unpredictable tunnels? And subs have no way to navigate under water and just glide around totally blind?
Wow, news to me, I always thought of oceans as huge, deep expanses of water and subs having passive means of detecting other subs/vessels.
Clearly, I wasn't talking about the open ocean. I was talking about our territorial waters in the Arctic ... the ones that we claim we want to defend with submarines. I suggest that you buy yourself a globe sometime or even download a map of Northern Canada, before you make any more bone-headed statements like that particular whopper.
"Wow".
|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:17 pm
|
Posts: 13404
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 6:31 pm
Try navigating that mess, all the time submerged (with powerful tides sucking through those venture-tube straits)
|
Posts: 23058
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 9:25 pm
Jabberwalker Jabberwalker: The Beaufort Sea & the Arctic Ocean are winding narrow unpredictable tunnels? And subs have no way to navigate under water and just glide around totally blind?
Wow, news to me, I always thought of oceans as huge, deep expanses of water and subs having passive means of detecting other subs/vessels.
Clearly, I wasn't talking about the open ocean. I was talking about our territorial waters in the Arctic ... the ones that we claim we want to defend with submarines. I suggest that you buy yourself a globe sometime or even download a map of Northern Canada, before you make any more bone-headed statements like that particular whopper.
"Wow". Wow indeed - I've already twice that subs could patrol the deep water and CCG icebreakers could patrol the shallow waters inside the archipelago (including in this very post you've quoted), but if you're you're too lazy or too stupid to actually read all of what I post, that's your problem, not mine. The problem here is you and your lack of reading comprehension, not my superb knowledge or geography. As Saturn's map clearly shows, there is plenty of deep water, a fair bit ice-covered, that AIP/nuke subs could patrol. But whatever, odds are you won't get past the first paragraph, so I could just as easily type in supercalifragilisticexpialidocious and you'd never notice that either. Cheers!
|
Posts: 14139
Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2014 10:40 pm
I'm not holding my breath about anything happening in that direction. Hell, the RCAF has been forced to resort to scavenging spare parts from aviation museums to keep their SAR planes flying. Yep, gotta spend billions on an untested, untried air combat platform for the RCAF but 10 years after being promised new SAR planes, they're still no closer to getting new ones than they were then. Our SAR techs do some damn important work, they shouldn't be forced to scavenge for spare parts for the museum pieces they're forced to fly.
|
Posts: 13404
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:05 am
bootlegga bootlegga: Jabberwalker Jabberwalker: The Beaufort Sea & the Arctic Ocean are winding narrow unpredictable tunnels? And subs have no way to navigate under water and just glide around totally blind?
Wow, news to me, I always thought of oceans as huge, deep expanses of water and subs having passive means of detecting other subs/vessels.
Clearly, I wasn't talking about the open ocean. I was talking about our territorial waters in the Arctic ... the ones that we claim we want to defend with submarines. I suggest that you buy yourself a globe sometime or even download a map of Northern Canada, before you make any more bone-headed statements like that particular whopper.
"Wow". Wow indeed - I've already twice that subs could patrol the deep water and CCG icebreakers could patrol the shallow waters inside the archipelago (including in this very post you've quoted), but if you're you're too lazy or too stupid to actually read all of what I post, that's your problem, not mine. The problem here is you and your lack of reading comprehension, not my superb knowledge or geography. As Saturn's map clearly shows, there is plenty of deep water, a fair bit ice-covered, that AIP/nuke subs could patrol. But whatever, odds are you won't get past the first paragraph, so I could just as easily type in supercalifragilisticexpialidocious and you'd never notice that either. Cheers! Well, if you get an even bigger map, there is all sorts of deep water all around the globe. If you think that having Canada patrol the world's oceans with a half dozen nuclear boats somehow defends us, protects our Arctic COASTLINES (the original mandate for those subs) you're into the gilliweed, again.
|
Posts: 7684
Posted: Tue Sep 16, 2014 4:18 am
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/air ... c-130.pageOur H model Hercs are not even 20 years old. They aren't new by any means but they also are not museum pieces either. Must be a money issue, cheaper to scavenge spares from retired planes than to buy spare parts. If it were up to the RCAF we'd be flying C-27J's by now.
|
|
Page 6 of 7
|
[ 93 posts ] |
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests |
|
|