Shitty submarines

[Stormbringer]

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.

From what I've heard and from their own policies, I doubt they'll keep them long after they get their new carriers. They won't have the funds to, they're already cutting destroyers and frigates and I don't see them keeping them as they're limited ships with a hefty price of operation.

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.

The Kitty Hawks and the Forrestals are all decommisioned and either at or headed to the breakers. The John F Kennedy and Enterprise really should be heading that way soon as well.

[Col. Crackpot]

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.

The Kitty Hawks and the Forrestals are all decommisioned and either at or headed to the breakers. The John F Kennedy and Enterprise really should be heading that way soon as well.

actually the two Kitty Hawk class ships, Constellation and Kitty Hawk are both still in service. The Kitty Hawk is the flagship of carrier group 5 and The constellation is the flagship of carrier group 2. Both are currently deployed in the persian gulf, along with the USS Lincon.

[Ted]

Formatting screwed up.

Isn't the Kitty on her last cruise though?

[Colonel Olrik]

Formatting screwed up.

I fix!

[Col. Crackpot]

what the hell is wrong with the format? it happened after i posted so it must be somethin in my post. I believe the Kitty Hawk is due to be replaced by the Reagan and the Connie will be replaced by the George HW Bush

[Ted]

Formatting screwed up.

I fix!

You actually FIXED it?

And here I thought the Portugese were the poor relations of the Spanish.

[Darth Wong]

The only subs the Canadian navy needs is diesel-electrics for coastal protection purposes.

Mostly against European fishermen depleting our salmon stocks

The Canadians do not have a "power projection" mission like the USN. Their forces are defensive with limited deployment roles for supporting international operations.

True, but we're a little tired of having to hitch rides on American aircraft to get places. And our troops are woefully underequipped.

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

The few times we've deployed our navy for anything, it was against fishermen. Seriously. Any Coast Guard ship could get the job done.

[Stormbringer]

actually the two Kitty Hawk class ships, Constellation and Kitty Hawk are both still in service. The Kitty Hawk is the flagship of carrier group 5 and The constellation is the flagship of carrier group 2. Both are currently deployed in the persian gulf, along with the USS Lincon.

Why is my brain fried tonight? Egh! For some reason, I was thinking the Constellation was the JFK type or "modified Kitty Hawk". I have no idea what I was thinking on the Kitty Hawk herself.

Isn't the Kitty on her last cruise though?

With the current ops tempo who knows. She, the Constellation, JFK, and Enterprise are all due to be decommisioned in the near future. They're all developing serious maintenance issues so I doubt they'll stay in commision much longer, certainly not once we get their replacements commisioned.

[Ted]

The few times we've deployed our navy for anything, it was against fishermen. Seriously. Any Coast Guard ship could get the job done.

Not true.

We deployed a ship to retreve the Army's equipment when the shipper refused to land.

[RogueIce]

The few times we've deployed our navy for anything, it was against fishermen. Seriously. Any Coast Guard ship could get the job done.

You can borrow ours if you need it. We have a few cutters I'm sure you could use sometimes.

[Stormbringer]

A quick postscript to my last post. Some projected decomissioning dates:

Kitty Hawk (CV 63): 2003. This seems possible but unlikely given the present operations tempo. More likely late 2004 or 2005.

Constellation (CV 64): 2008. Seems likely enough if the military keeps a decent level of spending

Enterprise (CVN 65): 2018. If the rumors of serious maintenance problems in her vital systems are to be believed it's probably going to be sooner. She's supposed to be replace by the first of the CVNX program so what her eventual decommisioning date and replacement will be is still unclear.

[weemadando]

Can I just drop in and say:

"Ph34r t3h Collins Class for it shall 0wNz0r j00 a11."

*drops to ground laughing*

[Warspite]

Canada would be better off with assault ships, more versatile for their missions.

[Col. Crackpot]

If pride isn't an issue, im sure the gang ant Newport News or Ingallis can build the Cannucks a fine Amphibious Assault Carrier....maybe even throw in some AV8-B Harriers to sweeten the deal. A CVN for a navy the size of Canada would be a bitch, everything would go to maintaining it. Finally ask yourself this, do you really want a ship filled with 40 year old American electronics?

[phongn]

A quick postscript to my last post. Some projected decomissioning dates:

Kitty Hawk (CV 63): 2003. This seems possible but unlikely given the present operations tempo. More likely late 2004 or 2005.

Constellation (CV 64): 2008. Seems likely enough if the military keeps a decent level of spending

I'm not sure if Canada wants or needs either of them. They're getting worn out and the increased optempo isn't doing them any good.

Enterprise (CVN 65): 2018. If the rumors of serious maintenance problems in her vital systems are to be believed it's probably going to be sooner. She's supposed to be replace by the first of the CVNX program so what her eventual decommisioning date and replacement will be is still unclear.

CVN-78 (CVN(X) 1) will replace her in 2013.

[MKSheppard]

CVN-78 (CVN(X) 1) will replace her in 2013.

I certainly hope Enterprise is preserved, unlike the WWII one..

[phongn]

If pride isn't an issue, im sure the gang ant Newport News or Ingallis can build the Cannucks a fine Amphibious Assault Carrier....maybe even throw in some AV8-B Harriers to sweeten the deal.

Perhaps something like the old Sea Control Ship (which later became the basis for the Spanish CVL) would work for Canada. Even the AV-8B is getting kinda old in the tooth, by the time Canada would get one they might as well procure the STOVL varient of the F-35.

A CVN for a navy the size of Canada would be a bitch, everything would go to maintaining it. Finally ask yourself this, do you really want a ship filled with 40 year old American electronics?

The electronics have been constantly updated, and AFAIK, Canada is pretty high on the list for what goods they can get.

[phongn]

CVN-78 (CVN(X) 1) will replace her in 2013.

I certainly hope Enterprise is preserved, unlike the WWII one..

I'm not sure if she will be. The WW2 one should have been, alas.

[Solid Snake]

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.

Lets see, I think we still use a plane from the 1960's... I think its called the U-2 or something. Cause you know everything from the 60's is shit.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I believe the MoD is retiring the original Invincible in 2006 much to the RN's disgust since they have then only two ASW carriers and one LHD when they could've had two or three Ocean classes as planned.

They could try and get Thales and BAE Systems to get going on a third future carrier though to make up, this would allow the usual two on duty whilst one is training/in drydock so we can have one carrier doing foreign duties and another helping in Defence of the Realm.

[phongn]

Lets see, I think we still use a plane from the 1960's... I think its called the U-2 or something. Cause you know everything from the 60's is shit.

The U-2 also has been considerably upgraded from the 1960s, as has the B-52 and C-130 (which date from the 1950s). Furthermore, if you notice, the U-2 tends not to go places where decent air-defenses exist (for that matter, neither does the B-52H or C-130J)

Sending out a 1960s-era SSK is not a formula for succcess! It's probably too slow, too noisy and too old to do much good.

[phongn]

I believe the MoD is retiring the original Invincible in 2006 much to the RN's disgust since they have then only two ASW carriers and one LHD when they could've had two or three Ocean classes as planned.

They could try and get Thales and BAE Systems to get going on a third future carrier though to make up, this would allow the usual two on duty whilst one is training/in drydock so we can have one carrier doing foreign duties and another helping in Defence of the Realm.

Three CVFs for the RN would be quite nice, though with the MoD's budget I doubt it

[Sea Skimmer]

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.

The Upholders are amoung the worlds best SSK's, and are low mileage. Canada has also paid a fraction of what there worth. However the CDF has no real need for submarines.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I believe the MoD is retiring the original Invincible in 2006 much to the RN's disgust since they have then only two ASW carriers and one LHD when they could've had two or three Ocean classes as planned.

They could try and get Thales and BAE Systems to get going on a third future carrier though to make up, this would allow the usual two on duty whilst one is training/in drydock so we can have one carrier doing foreign duties and another helping in Defence of the Realm.

Three CVFs for the RN would be quite nice, though with the MoD's budget I doubt it

With the current Labour administration in Whitehall and their love of war and peacekeeping whilst also killing the budget for the military off, I too doubt it. We need a bigger budget like yesteryear if we are to justify expending huge amounts of our forces on global duties, we are no longer able nor willing to be world policemen, that's for the US now yet Blair thinks otherwise.

[Sea Skimmer]

Mostly against European fishermen depleting our salmon stocks

The Cod war showed the superiority of dedicated ocean patrol vessels over frigates and destroyers for fishery protection. In a ramming actions Iceland's OPV’s suffered dents and scratched paint while British warships had holes knocked in there sides.

Argentina had a better solution to Russian poaching in the late 1970’s though. Send out a lighter cruiser and open fire. Soviets got rather pissed after the General Belgrano damaged several trawlers and seized a number more.

But the poaching stopped.