[Lemmy]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Getting high and watching a military movie. Errr, kind of inconsistent. Military guys don't get high. They just get drunk.

Submarine movies, when you're high, are like roller-coasters. There's the rapid breathing and the claustrophobia and the flashing lights and the pings and Sean Connery's voice...we pot heads like The Hunt for Red October A LOT!!!

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

Obvious civilian.

"You won't see me, workin' for no mil-i-tar-y." Great lyric.

[OldChum]

I know a few PPCIL,s that got high. heha

[EyeBrock]

It's PPCLI old chum, been on the wacky-baccy?

[Canadian_Mind]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Do you really want to shoot a heavy weight torpedo to sink a ship trespassing in Canadian waters?

Uh... Yea.

[Winnipegger]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I don't think we need nukes but I'll go along with a couple of heavily armed nuclear ice-breakers backed up with 4 ice capable hunter-killer subs.

It makes more sense to look at domestic defence once the Afghan mission is over.

Ah, so you like the idea of nuclear ice-breakers. I wouldn't arm the icebreakers themselves, but at least we have some common ground.

Ok, I had suggested we buy the surplus new one from Russia while it was still available; unfortunately it isn't now. Alternate options are we buy the two old ones from the 1970s that Russia has already started to dismantle for scrap metal, have Russia install new nuclear reactors in them. The worry is what shape they would be in, and whether they're already chopped up so bad that they're beyond salvage. Probably are.

Or hire Russia to build two new ones for us. That would ensure they are the new design, the 50 Let Pobedy was not only a new ship, completed at the end of January 2007, but it had a new bow design so with the power of the same model nuclear reactor it can break thicker ice. It can break 3.0 metre thick multi-year ice. Contracting construction of new ones would ensure all signs and labels are in English and French rather than Russian.

Or we build one ourselves. But that means we would have to develop a ship nuclear reactor. To make a nuclear reactor feasible for a ship it has to use highly enriched uranium. I did a calculation of how heavy a ship reactor would be using completely non-enriched uranium oxide, like a CanDU reactor; the result was so heavy the ship could never leave the shipyard. We don't have a reactor design like that. The American navy ship reactors are designed so they work 10 to 25 years (depending on model) before requiring refuelling, but have to be completely dismantled to refuel; an operation that takes roughly 3 months. The Russian icebreakers have a reactor that can be refuelled at sea, and a fleet of dedicated service ships to do that. The Russian refuelling operation takes 3 to 7 days depending on sea conditions. Because they can refuel so quickly, they only carry enough nuclear fuel for 6 years of operation. That design makes a lot more sense. Furthermore, we could not only buy fuel from Russia, we could hire their refuelling fleet to service our ships. As a contingent, we could build a special dock at the Halifax naval Dockyard to refuel a Canadian owned ship, and I'm sure the Americans would be willing to be our backup supplier for highly enriched uranium fuel. But my point is starting with an existing, proven design makes more sense.

(Yup, technology geek and proud of it! )

[EyeBrock]

I think the icebreakers should be armed. Big gun, ship to ship missiles, AA phlanx, AA SAMS, depth-charges and torpedoes. Add in a chopper.

We should be able to project power in our own waters and if we have a very expensive boat up there, lets arm it properly to do the job of policing our North.

I'm sure the Yanks would sell us the nuke technology if the Russian route wasn't viable.

[gonavy47]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Ok, I'm going to post just the one post about my same old ideas.

Why would we need nuclear submarines? They are clandestine; no one sees them until they attack. No one will respect them unless you use them at least once. Do you really want to shoot a heavy weight torpedo to sink a ship trespassing in Canadian waters? It is more effective to use a more visible military presence. Besides, aircraft are both more visible and faster. So build a full military base at Resolute Bay, with a forward base capable of hosting an entire wing of CF-18 fighter jets, or whatever their replacement may be. Then also develop guidance software for the Mark 48 heavy weight torpedo to work under the ice. Also develop a procedure to drop a dumb bomb to blow a hole in the ice, then have the plane fly around to drop a torpedo through that hole. You can take out any submarine that way.

Simple anti-ship missiles carried on CF-18 fighter jets would do great damage to any surface shipping; believe me any commercial captain would shake in his boots at the sight of a modern fighter jet armed with any of the modern anti-ship missiles coming directly toward him.

Add to that a sophisticated surveillance net capable of detecting any trespassing ships: satellites (RadarSat and RadarSat2), UAVs, patrol aircraft, and yes even underwater microphones (passive sonar). And, yes, relocate some of our Aurora patrol aircraft to Resolute Bay.

Coast guard icebreakers can carry helicopters to carry inspectors and port pilots, civilians capable of dealing with trespassing ships who cooperate with authorities. The aforementioned military would make a formidable backup to the front-line coast guard.

Only problem with your plan is, you can't fly 365 days a year,due to storms, but you can patrol 365 days a year with a nuclear-powered sub.

[gonavy47]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

I don't think we need nukes but I'll go along with a couple of heavily armed nuclear ice-breakers backed up with 4 ice capable hunter-killer subs.

It makes more sense to look at domestic defence once the Afghan mission is over.

Ah, so you like the idea of nuclear ice-breakers. I wouldn't arm the icebreakers themselves, but at least we have some common ground.

Ok, I had suggested we buy the surplus new one from Russia while it was still available; unfortunately it isn't now. Alternate options are we buy the two old ones from the 1970s that Russia has already started to dismantle for scrap metal, have Russia install new nuclear reactors in them. The worry is what shape they would be in, and whether they're already chopped up so bad that they're beyond salvage. Probably are.

Or hire Russia to build two new ones for us. That would ensure they are the new design, the 50 Let Pobedy was not only a new ship, completed at the end of January 2007, but it had a new bow design so with the power of the same model nuclear reactor it can break thicker ice. It can break 3.0 metre thick multi-year ice. Contracting construction of new ones would ensure all signs and labels are in English and French rather than Russian.

Or we build one ourselves. But that means we would have to develop a ship nuclear reactor. To make a nuclear reactor feasible for a ship it has to use highly enriched uranium. I did a calculation of how heavy a ship reactor would be using completely non-enriched uranium oxide, like a CanDU reactor; the result was so heavy the ship could never leave the shipyard. We don't have a reactor design like that. The American navy ship reactors are designed so they work 10 to 25 years (depending on model) before requiring refuelling, but have to be completely dismantled to refuel; an operation that takes roughly 3 months. The Russian icebreakers have a reactor that can be refuelled at sea, and a fleet of dedicated service ships to do that. The Russian refuelling operation takes 3 to 7 days depending on sea conditions. Because they can refuel so quickly, they only carry enough nuclear fuel for 6 years of operation. That design makes a lot more sense. Furthermore, we could not only buy fuel from Russia, we could hire their refuelling fleet to service our ships. As a contingent, we could build a special dock at the Halifax naval Dockyard to refuel a Canadian owned ship, and I'm sure the Americans would be willing to be our backup supplier for highly enriched uranium fuel. But my point is starting with an existing, proven design makes more sense.

(Yup, technology geek and proud of it! )

You are talking like the Russians are our friends. They are the prime reason we are forming a strategy to protect our north.

[Canadian_Mind]

If starting a nuke design for ships from scratch is difficult, why not aquire an American or french design, improve it, and build the ships around the things.

And what Reactor would be too heavy for a 50 000+ Tonne Icebreaker? (read that as 50 million kilograms) I'm sure CANDU isn't that heavy.

[EyeBrock]

I agree. We should look intially at an 'off the shelf' product otherwise it will take years to develop, design and procure.

By the time Bombardier, Irving or some other domestic firm had boats under the circle and ice-breakers chunking through the NorthWest passage I'll be back in diapers and Denmark or Russia will have half the Arctic.

[Scape]

The Arctic territory of Greenland has begun a new era of self-rule after 300 years under Danish authority, moving closer to independence with a potential oil bonanza below its icecap.

Nuke subs are white elephants. Development is the key.

[EyeBrock]

You don't have to have a nuke sub to be able to sail under the ice.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/

It took the Germans over 10 years to develop this. They have been building subs since the 1900's.

Do you think we have 10-20 years available time to develop a submarine industry?

[gonavy47]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

You don't have to have a nuke sub to be able to sail under the ice.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/

It took the Germans over 10 years to develop this. They have been building subs since the 1900's.

Do you think we have 10-20 years available time to develop a submarine industry?

This is a much more suitable design, provided it's heat signature is less than a nuke. Sign me up for six.

[EyeBrock]

It's a nice bit of kit gonavy47.

It can do 3 weeks submerged and go to 400 m. It's proven and sailing already.

[bootlegga]

I'm not sure if 3 weeks and 400 nm is enough range, but anything would be better than what we have up there nowadays...