Shitty submarines

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-10 06:51pm

Does Canada really need submarines i say no we definitly don`t need any of these piece of shit,canada`s navy wasted money buying used british subs,two of them are rusted and have leaks,they should called themHMCS Sponge 1 and 2,i hope they return all 4 and get their money back,its not subs we need its one or two carriers.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-03-10 07:04pm

Maybe the problems Canada is having with the Upholders is one of funding, not quality.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-10 07:23pm

Canada has absolutely no use for submarines, and I'm not sure why we plan to get them. Our military is used mostly for peacekeeping purposes, since we don't have any real invasion threats to worry about, except possibly for those high-rollers from New York who keep coming here to buy Cuban cigars.

What we need are warships, aircraft, transports, armoured vehicles, and basic equipment for infantry so that we can deploy adequately supported ground forces to foreign theatres and meet our peacekeeping obligations. I don't see how submarines fit into this at all.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-10 07:27pm

Some of these idiots in the navy are convince we need subs,on global they said its for spying on the criminals at sea

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-03-10 07:28pm

I'd rather have helicopters less then 40 years old.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-03-10 07:29pm

Portugal has A submarine from the 60's...

It's pretty much in the shitter, but still does it service, barely.
We're getting new ones, but it's the same problem DW has posted, we could use the money to improve the existing equipment of our Armed Services.
Submarines for fishing duties is NOT a good way to employ such expensive system.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-10 07:34pm

Grand Admiral Thrawn wrote:I'd rather have helicopters less then 40 years old.

I think so too but for much much less than $100.000.000 each

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-03-10 07:36pm

Hey, now Canada can send its "Navy" to Iraq as a gesture of support

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-03-10 07:40pm

Clearly, Canada wishes to avenge the Battle of the Erie.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-03-10 07:40pm

Exonerate wrote:Hey, now Canada can send its "Navy" to Iraq as a gesture of support

Thats what we do but if you saw the news one of our ships came back after the helicopter crashed on the deck

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-03-10 07:44pm

Warspite wrote:Portugal has A submarine from the 60's...

I've been on top of it

It's a small cylinder edged at the extremities, dripping rust.

My first thought was "I should have brought the can opener"

It's embarassing

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-10 07:53pm

Darth Wong wrote:I don't see how submarines fit into this at all.

*The HAB quickly moves into position and seizes Lord Wong*

Submarines are an effective area denial weapon, even more effective
than a warship. Just the IDEA that a submarine is sneeking around
the local area can cause the other guy to keep his navy bottled up in
port: RE: the Argentinians and their Carrier during the Falklands...it
stayed in port because of roving British Subs..

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-03-10 07:53pm

The ageing Oberon class need to be replaced or seriously revamped to remain active, we flogged those to every Commonwealth nation and Third World that wanted them so you're not alone with them.

The new Upholder class are regarded as the best SSKs in the world even though the project was scrapped for the RN I believe. But, why Canada needs them I don't know.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-03-10 07:53pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:I've been on top of it

It's a small cylinder edged at the extremities, dripping rust.

My first thought was "I should have brought the can opener"

It's embarassing

One of the sailors is an ex-friend of mine, and he tells me several of his mates are on the fat-ish side (very fat-ish side). Talk about ballast!

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-10 07:56pm

MKSheppard wrote:Submarines are an effective area denial weapon, even more effective than a warship. Just the IDEA that a submarine is sneeking around the local area can cause the other guy to keep his navy bottled up in port: RE: the Argentinians and their Carrier during the Falklands...it stayed in port because of roving British Subs..

Obviously, they're useful in a war. But what threats are we presented with as a nation whose armed forces are only used for peacekeeping duties, in which we need to attack warships or or deny area to them, instead of projecting force? Submarines are utterly useless for projecting force.

Warspite · Post by **Warspite** » 2003-03-10 07:59pm

MKSheppard wrote:[...]Submarines are an effective area denial weapon, even more effective
than a warship. Just the IDEA that a submarine is sneeking around
the local area can cause the other guy to keep his navy bottled up in
port: RE: the Argentinians and their Carrier during the Falklands...it
stayed in port because of roving British Subs..

That only works if you're employing your subs against a perceived threat, or a capable Navy.
Besides mission support, the Canadian Navy only has to worry about contraband, terrorist infiltration, icebergs, whales and a possible eskimo invasion, à la vikings in the 9th(?) Century.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-03-10 08:00pm

Darth Wong wrote:
MKSheppard wrote:Submarines are an effective area denial weapon, even more effective than a warship. Just the IDEA that a submarine is sneeking around the local area can cause the other guy to keep his navy bottled up in port: RE: the Argentinians and their Carrier during the Falklands...it stayed in port because of roving British Subs..
Obviously, they're useful in a war. But what threats are we presented with as a nation whose armed forces are only used for peacekeeping duties, in which we need to attack warships or or deny area to them, instead of projecting force? Submarines are utterly useless for projecting force.

Buy a CVN then off the US, they've got one going cheap now I hear.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-03-10 08:14pm

Darth Wong wrote: Obviously, they're useful in a war. But what threats are we presented with as a nation whose armed forces are only used for peacekeeping duties, in which we need to attack warships or or deny area to them, instead of projecting force? Submarines are utterly useless for projecting force.

*HAB seizes Lord Wong again and takes him to the secret Chambers under Passchendale*

Naval units can't be built overnight, it takes YEARS to acquire them.
So what if they're worthless in peacetime? Better to have the stuff
now then have to wait for it to be built during a war...

And besides, SSKs are soooo useful to embarass the US Navy with...

(Aussie SSKs keep sinking US CVNs in exercises)

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-10 08:18pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:Buy a CVN then off the US, they've got one going cheap now I hear.

We were going to buy the USS Kitty Hawk from the USN, but the plan was scrapped.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-03-10 08:30pm

Ted wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Buy a CVN then off the US, they've got one going cheap now I hear.
We were going to buy the USS Kitty Hawk from the USN, but the plan was scrapped.

the Kitty Hawk is O-L-D. Trust me the Canadian navy can do better. she dates back to the mid 60's and is not even nuke powered.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » 2003-03-10 08:32pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Ted wrote:
Admiral Valdemar wrote:Buy a CVN then off the US, they've got one going cheap now I hear.
We were going to buy the USS Kitty Hawk from the USN, but the plan was scrapped.
the Kitty Hawk is O-L-D. Trust me the Canadian navy can do better. she dates back to the mid 60's and is not even nuke powered.

She may be old, but she's still got life in her hull.

Plus, this was in the late 80's.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-03-10 08:36pm

MKSheppard wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: Obviously, they're useful in a war. But what threats are we presented with as a nation whose armed forces are only used for peacekeeping duties, in which we need to attack warships or or deny area to them, instead of projecting force? Submarines are utterly useless for projecting force.
*HAB seizes Lord Wong again and takes him to the secret Chambers under Passchendale*

Naval units can't be built overnight, it takes YEARS to acquire them.
So what if they're worthless in peacetime? Better to have the stuff
now then have to wait for it to be built during a war...

And besides, SSKs are soooo useful to embarass the US Navy with...

(Aussie SSKs keep sinking US CVNs in exercises)

That's because the CVNs are limited to certain grid squares. In open war, SSKs are little more than mobile minefields and it is highly unlikely that they'd be able to intercept an American carrier group.

For that you need fast SSNs or SSGNs.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-03-10 08:40pm

Ted wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote:
Ted wrote: We were going to buy the USS Kitty Hawk from the USN, but the plan was scrapped.
the Kitty Hawk is O-L-D. Trust me the Canadian navy can do better. she dates back to the mid 60's and is not even nuke powered.
She may be old, but she's still got life in her hull.

Plus, this was in the late 80's.

That'd better be because last I heard she was a serious rust tub and a lot of the others of her generation are in serious need of repair. Canada'd be better off buying the Brit's baby carriers when they get done with them.

Or if they need the collective overcompensation the Enterprise (also getting very long in the tooth).

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-03-10 08:47pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Ted wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote: the Kitty Hawk is O-L-D. Trust me the Canadian navy can do better. she dates back to the mid 60's and is not even nuke powered.
She may be old, but she's still got life in her hull.

Plus, this was in the late 80's.
That'd better be because last I heard she was a serious rust tub and a lot of the others of her generation are in serious need of repair. Canada'd be better off buying the Brit's baby carriers when they get done with them.

The Brit's Carriers aren't that old. early 80's i think? I imagine they'll keep them in serviceeven after the new ships come online. As far as the kitty hawk goes, she was commissioned on April 29 1961 so i imagine here maiden voyage under the maple leaf would be straight to the bottom of St. John's Bay.

Post by **Coyote** » 2003-03-10 08:50pm

The only subs the Canadian navy needs is diesel-electrics for coastal protection purposes. The Canadians do not have a "power projection" mission like the USN. Their forces are defensive with limited deployment roles for supporting international operations.

Some nice German U-Boots, the new little diesel-electrics, would do quite nicely.