[kevlarman]

Hey can you pm me the link you found that information for the Magnetic Anomaly Detectors? Other than that all I can do is scan the net for any leads on where Harper is heading or not heading with the sub program.

[EyeBrock]

bootlegga bootlegga:

kevlarman kevlarman:

Streaker Streaker:

Reminds me more of the Conservatives' cancellation of the Arrow....

How so? The conservatives back then didn't replace the Arrow with anything of merit in comparison to what they gave up. The conservatives right now are at least considering something better, that much is clear from the article.

If you can't see the parallel, then you must be blind. The Liberals spend a small fortune on a weapons platform, and then the Conservative government that comes into office plans on eliminating it.

Dief's PCs considered something better too...remember the Bomarc?

I dunno boots. These things had been in dry dock for a decade.
And Canada didn't actually pay anything for them, they allowed the Brits use of CFB Goose Bay, Gander, and the BATUS Suffied tank/arty range in exchange for subs that were built when Wham! ruled the pop world. (I'm yoouurrr man!)
I'll agree that they are spending like silly on them now.
Just get new ones. The old ones are just that. Old.

It was a bad deal for Canada. We get the Limey's pissing off the local population in three bits of Canada, as well as blowing one bit of it up, often, for four old knackered subs built in the 1980's.

Well done Msr Chretien! Another stellar procurement move, right up there with paying $500,000,000 for no choppers.
The troops in Afganistan will never be able to thank you enough as they drive past IED's when they could have been choppered over them.

Those in glass houses indeed.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

bootlegga bootlegga:

kevlarman kevlarman:

Streaker Streaker:

Reminds me more of the Conservatives' cancellation of the Arrow....

How so? The conservatives back then didn't replace the Arrow with anything of merit in comparison to what they gave up. The conservatives right now are at least considering something better, that much is clear from the article.

If you can't see the parallel, then you must be blind. The Liberals spend a small fortune on a weapons platform, and then the Conservative government that comes into office plans on eliminating it.

Dief's PCs considered something better too...remember the Bomarc?

I dunno boots. These things had been in dry dock for a decade.
And Canada didn't actually pay anything for them, the allowed the Brits use of CFB Goose Bay, Gander, and the BATUS Suffied tank/arty range. I'll agree that they are spending like silly on them now.
Just get new ones. The old ones are just that. Old.

It was a bad deal for Canada. We get the Limey's pissing off the local population in three bits of Canada, as well as blowing one bit of it up, often, for four old knackered subs built in the 1980's.

Well done Msr Chretien! Another stellar procurement move, right up there with paying $500,000,000 for no choppers.
The troops in Afganistan will never be able to thank you enough as they drive past IED's when they could have been choppered over them.

Those in glass houses indeed.

Except that the Choppers were replacements for the sea kings and would be on the frigates. Mulroney sold the chinooks which were designed for just that purpose.

We still have the griffons though so why aren't we using them?

OF course if we want to heap darts on the Libs for the bad things we shoudl remember that they purchased the LAV IIIs which have served very well right?

It workds both ways?

Still, why aren't we using the griffons?

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

bootlegga bootlegga:

kevlarman kevlarman:

Streaker Streaker:

Reminds me more of the Conservatives' cancellation of the Arrow....

How so? The conservatives back then didn't replace the Arrow with anything of merit in comparison to what they gave up. The conservatives right now are at least considering something better, that much is clear from the article.

If you can't see the parallel, then you must be blind. The Liberals spend a small fortune on a weapons platform, and then the Conservative government that comes into office plans on eliminating it.

Dief's PCs considered something better too...remember the Bomarc?

I dunno boots. These things had been in dry dock for a decade.
And Canada didn't actually pay anything for them, the allowed the Brits use of CFB Goose Bay, Gander, and the BATUS Suffied tank/arty range. I'll agree that they are spending like silly on them now.
Just get new ones. The old ones are just that. Old.

It was a bad deal for Canada. We get the Limey's pissing off the local population in three bits of Canada, as well as blowing one bit of it up, often, for four old knackered subs built in the 1980's.

Well done Msr Chretien! Another stellar procurement move, right up there with paying $500,000,000 for no choppers.
The troops in Afganistan will never be able to thank you enough as they drive past IED's when they could have been choppered over them.

Those in glass houses indeed.

Except that the Choppers were replacements for the sea kings and would be on the frigates. Mulroney sold the chinooks which were designed for just that purpose.

We still have the griffons though so why aren't we using them?

OF course if we want to heap darts on the Libs for the bad things we shoudl remember that they purchased the LAV IIIs which have served very well right?

It workds both ways?

Still, why aren't we using the griffons?

Selling Chinooks was very, very silly. The chin fucked up on that one.

Griffons suffer greatly at 'hot-high' conditions, which is Afghanistan. They are next to useless in that theatre. They can't hack the altitude.

We ordered 15 'utility' versions of the EH101 as well as the naval varients.

I think our guys fighting 'Jonny Tallyban' would find 15 Air Command choppers capable of carrying 30+ troops really useful right about now.

That's why I'm jolly annoyed at Msr Chretien, Mr Derby Norman Tebbit.

[kevlarman]

Mulroney did screw up on the Choppers. And we haven't really addressed it properly since then.

[DerbyX]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

DerbyX DerbyX:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

bootlegga bootlegga:

kevlarman kevlarman:

Streaker Streaker:

Reminds me more of the Conservatives' cancellation of the Arrow....

How so? The conservatives back then didn't replace the Arrow with anything of merit in comparison to what they gave up. The conservatives right now are at least considering something better, that much is clear from the article.

If you can't see the parallel, then you must be blind. The Liberals spend a small fortune on a weapons platform, and then the Conservative government that comes into office plans on eliminating it.

Dief's PCs considered something better too...remember the Bomarc?

I dunno boots. These things had been in dry dock for a decade.
And Canada didn't actually pay anything for them, the allowed the Brits use of CFB Goose Bay, Gander, and the BATUS Suffied tank/arty range. I'll agree that they are spending like silly on them now.
Just get new ones. The old ones are just that. Old.

It was a bad deal for Canada. We get the Limey's pissing off the local population in three bits of Canada, as well as blowing one bit of it up, often, for four old knackered subs built in the 1980's.

Well done Msr Chretien! Another stellar procurement move, right up there with paying $500,000,000 for no choppers.
The troops in Afganistan will never be able to thank you enough as they drive past IED's when they could have been choppered over them.

Those in glass houses indeed.

Except that the Choppers were replacements for the sea kings and would be on the frigates. Mulroney sold the chinooks which were designed for just that purpose.

We still have the griffons though so why aren't we using them?

OF course if we want to heap darts on the Libs for the bad things we shoudl remember that they purchased the LAV IIIs which have served very well right?

It workds both ways?

Still, why aren't we using the griffons?

Selling Chinooks was very, very silly. The chin fucked up on that one.

Griffons suffer greatly at 'hot-high' conditions, which is Afghanistan. They are next to useless in that theatre. They can't hack the altitude.

We ordered 15 'utility' versions of the EH101 as well as the naval varients.

I think our guys fighting 'Jonny Tallyban' would find 15 Air Command choppers capable of carrying 30+ troops really useful right about now.

That's why I'm jolly annoyed at Msr Chretien, Mr Derby Norman Tebbit.

Norman Tebbit? The cricket player?

We simply didn't have the money. Sure it would have been nice had Chretien had a crystal ball to forsee a deployment to afghanistan but then he could have just solved the budget crisis by winning every lotto 649 draw for the next 10 years.

We can argue semantics all we want. Yes they needed the equipment and didn't get it. So did every school & hospital. 20+ years of foolish budgets dumped at his feet prevented it.

Had he purchased them then what else would have suffered? Cancelled frigates? No subs? (OK not fair). How about not purchasing the LAV IIIs?

Its not fair to dump all of it at his feet. Mulroney had all the time in the world to buy them (or not sell the chinooks) but instead he waited until an election he knew he was going to lose to order something he knew he was never going to have to pay for.

In my opinion CHretien took a terrible situation and did the best he could and quite frankly I am impressed with what he achieved.

I doubt Harper could have done better. Even with the surplus and money Harper isn't exactly buying equipment at a breakneck pace.

Thats because he has to balance it with other considerations such as tax cuts or else risk losing support. He regned on the icebreakers and shelved the Liberal plan to buy SAR aircraft.

He is making priorities also.

[EyeBrock]

DerbyX DerbyX:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

DerbyX DerbyX:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

bootlegga bootlegga:

kevlarman kevlarman:

Streaker Streaker:

Reminds me more of the Conservatives' cancellation of the Arrow....

How so? The conservatives back then didn't replace the Arrow with anything of merit in comparison to what they gave up. The conservatives right now are at least considering something better, that much is clear from the article.

If you can't see the parallel, then you must be blind. The Liberals spend a small fortune on a weapons platform, and then the Conservative government that comes into office plans on eliminating it.

Dief's PCs considered something better too...remember the Bomarc?

I dunno boots. These things had been in dry dock for a decade.
And Canada didn't actually pay anything for them, the allowed the Brits use of CFB Goose Bay, Gander, and the BATUS Suffied tank/arty range. I'll agree that they are spending like silly on them now.
Just get new ones. The old ones are just that. Old.

It was a bad deal for Canada. We get the Limey's pissing off the local population in three bits of Canada, as well as blowing one bit of it up, often, for four old knackered subs built in the 1980's.

Well done Msr Chretien! Another stellar procurement move, right up there with paying $500,000,000 for no choppers.
The troops in Afganistan will never be able to thank you enough as they drive past IED's when they could have been choppered over them.

Those in glass houses indeed.

google Norman Tebbit.

Very right wing UK Tory who used "on yer bike" abot the unemployed.

The other stuff. The Liberals were a negative force on the CF. End ex.

The Tory's screwed up too, but Liberals have a culture of not liking the military.

That's the way it was and the guys are much happier with the Tories. It's a fact!

Except that the Choppers were replacements for the sea kings and would be on the frigates. Mulroney sold the chinooks which were designed for just that purpose.

We still have the griffons though so why aren't we using them?

OF course if we want to heap darts on the Libs for the bad things we shoudl remember that they purchased the LAV IIIs which have served very well right?

It workds both ways?

Still, why aren't we using the griffons?

Selling Chinooks was very, very silly. The chin fucked up on that one.

Griffons suffer greatly at 'hot-high' conditions, which is Afghanistan. They are next to useless in that theatre. They can't hack the altitude.

We ordered 15 'utility' versions of the EH101 as well as the naval varients.

I think our guys fighting 'Jonny Tallyban' would find 15 Air Command choppers capable of carrying 30+ troops really useful right about now.

That's why I'm jolly annoyed at Msr Chretien, Mr Derby Norman Tebbit.

Norman Tebbit? The cricket player?

We simply didn't have the money. Sure it would have been nice had Chretien had a crystal ball to forsee a deployment to afghanistan but then he could have just solved the budget crisis by winning every lotto 649 draw for the next 10 years.

We can argue semantics all we want. Yes they needed the equipment and didn't get it. So did every school & hospital. 20+ years of foolish budgets dumped at his feet prevented it.

Had he purchased them then what else would have suffered? Cancelled frigates? No subs? (OK not fair). How about not purchasing the LAV IIIs?

Its not fair to dump all of it at his feet. Mulroney had all the time in the world to buy them (or not sell the chinooks) but instead he waited until an election he knew he was going to lose to order something he knew he was never going to have to pay for.

In my opinion CHretien took a terrible situation and did the best he could and quite frankly I am impressed with what he achieved.

I doubt Harper could have done better. Even with the surplus and money Harper isn't exactly buying equipment at a breakneck pace.

Thats because he has to balance it with other considerations such as tax cuts or else risk losing support. He regned on the icebreakers and shelved the Liberal plan to buy SAR aircraft.

He is making priorities also.

[dog77_1999]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

kevlarman kevlarman:

Oooh... that would be sweet. And if memory serves me correct, those 214's ain't even diesel at all. They're hydrogen fuel cell, making them ultra quiet.

Ha ha ha! This is starting to sound like a bunch of hot rod enthusiasts pining for the newest thing from Detroit!

An excerpt from the site talking about the U214 design...

http://www.submarineresearch.com/u214.html

$1:

In Sweden research was in full swing on an air independent engine called the Sterling Engine. This research was taking a different route to non-nuclear submerged propulsion than its German counterpart. HDW worked with Siemens, a giant German electrical manufacturing company similar to General Electric. At Siemens the emphasis for submarine propulsive power research was the fuel cell. In simplest terms the fuel cell is a submarine battery that can not only be charged by traditional means of current generation, but can be continuously charged by the chemical generation of renewed electrolyte. While the United States had similar interest in the possibility of a fuel cell in the 1950s it had invested so much money into the development of a submarine nuclear reactor that a basic decision was made to concentrate all resources on the nuclear propulsion program.

Because a fuel cell is quiet and a nuclear power plant in noisy experts on submarine propulsion often argue that total reliance on nuclear propulsion is short-sighted. Additionally, the cost of an HDW submarine is about one fifth the cost of a Virginia class submarine. Having said this, one cannot compare cost since the missions and comprehensive capabilities are so divergent.

HDW's most recent submarines, the U-212 and 214 are popular with other nations and those having even the smallest shore desire the prestige of having a submarine force. As a result the United States needs to have a thorough knowledge of how the fuel cell works and what, if any, the prolification of submarine building might have on our submarine fleet.

Yea, reason I mentioned a titanium hull was that the 214, the export version, does not have the non-ferrous hull the 212s have. This means the 214 subs are much more likely to show up on MADs (Magnetic Anomaly Detectors) than a 212 sub, which has a non-ferrous steel hull... don't ask me how that is possible. Anyways, a titanium hull would allow the subs to dive even deeper, aswell as improve it's arctic performance, when one of the main concerns aside from endurance is surviving a collision with ice. Titanium is also marginally more flexible, and acts as a slightly better damper against sound over steel because of that.

And while I'm no professional marine engineer, I would assume that the weight difference wouldn't matter much, as any imbalances caused by a change in the mass of the hull could be counter-acted with ballast.



Also, just for Streaker: You annoy the fuck out of me some days.

Unfortunatly it would be damn near pointless to replace the hull like that. You would essentially be building a brand new sub from scratch. I'd imagine you would have to disassmble the boat into its modular sections and carefully keep all the stuff inside intact. That would be an amazing feat considering how much stuff would have to be reconnected to the other modules.

[Canadian_Mind]

I would think that Canada would build the subs on home turf just as Germany is allowing other nations to do. Either that, or they are still built in Germany. Either way, the hull modifications would be put into the design before the first keel piece was ever laid down. I would hope our engineers would work in conjunction with the German engineers who designed it to ensure that the modifications would work. Then the sub would be built.

We wouldn't just buy the subs, then take all the equipment out and put it into a new hull. Hull manufacturing is a large part of the costs.

[DerbyX]

Eyebrock Eyebrock:

The other stuff. The Liberals were a negative force on the CF. End ex.

The Tory's screwed up too, but Liberals have a culture of not liking the military.

That's the way it was and the guys are much happier with the Tories. It's a fact!

(I had to go looking to find this).

Both Trudeau & Mulroney were bad. Chretien had no choice and Martin was the first PM in a looong time to put any serious money in yet gets no credit.

Bootlegga posted a fine piece about just how instrumental the Liberals were in developing a military for Canada.

I also recall growing up listening to everybody curse Mulroney and the PCs and that was on a military base.

There is no doubt that the military wasn't viewed with a high priority but I gotta tell ya, you reap what you sow.

Given the apparent hatred that military oriented members here held for the Libs pre-93 then I can see entirely why Chretien didn't feel all that bad doing what he did.

I doubt I would throw money at people calling me every name in the book.

Still, I don't like the fact that Chretien isn't being afforded a fair shake given the fiscal realities nor ar ethey given any credit whatsoever whenever they did try.

Martin certainly isn't. PM for only a few years yet he did put a good chunk of money in and Harper isn't exceeding that by very much.

Thats because he must balance increased spending with the tax cuts that are expected of him.

I simply don't believe that the Libs "hate" the military. They simply don't put them at the level of priority that many seem to think they should.

Given that you guys say the Libs should expect zero support from the military then I must say what do you expect?

[Scape]

The Victoria's are diesel electric hulls with at least another 20-30 years left in them. The German 214's use AIP that can extend the underwater operation period of the diesel-powered submarines to five to six times longer than that of conventional submarines but they still use diesel. So if we were to scrap diesels for diesels we would simply be wasting money. The AIP would require a near retooling of the sub program that can barley handle the few subs we have on hand already as the previous subs were Oberons, much smaller subs. I think the Vics are a good stepping stone that will mature the sub program nicely and we need to break it in on subs that need work so the maintenance end of the program gets up to speed.

[DerbyX]

Scape Scape:

The Victoria's are diesel electric hulls with at least another 20-30 years left in them. The German 214's use AIP that can extend the underwater operation period of the diesel-powered submarines to five to six times longer than that of conventional submarines but they still use diesel. So if we were to scrap diesels for diesels we would simply be wasting money. The AIP would require a near retooling of the sub program that can barley handle the few subs we have on hand already as the previous subs were Oberons, much smaller subs. I think the Vics are a good stepping stone that will mature the sub program nicely and we need to break it in on subs that need work so the maintenance end of the program gets up to speed.

The obvious question is "where do we go from here'?

Given that Canada needs a sub program and fleet, how do we best acomplish this?

[Canadian_Mind]

yea, but doing maintinence on a Victoriavs. a 212 is like doing matinence on a sedan vs. a Bulldozer. yes you get experience, but in many aspects it is simply 2 different things.

After 10 years fixing the current subs I'm sure we would be more than experianced enough to quickly learn to handle 212s aswell.

[Scape]

Not really, scale is an important consideration here. Although the German subs have much more high end equipment (I still have yet to acquire a good picture of the newly designed props on the 212) the principals of maintenance still remain static. Crews need to be rotated, supply needs to be mustered, and the pens need to be properly secured. Something that were all in effect for the Oberon's but not to the same scale. The flash of the technical bell's and whistles of the 212 are not going to change the routine of maintenance but the size of the subs are.

[Scape]

DerbyX DerbyX:

The obvious question is "where do we go from here'?

Given that Canada needs a sub program and fleet, how do we best acomplish this?

Cliffnotes version? Money. Lots.

We have bases on both coasts but one in the north would be a good idea. Then get at least another half a dozen hulls that are arctic capable. They don't need to be boats of the line but it wouldn't hurt and ramping up what we have now so that we can then handle a flotilla of 212's would be a step in the right direction.