If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CTV News)   Canadian submarine destroys target for the first time in a military war games in Hawaii and makes history. Canadian sailors were last seen at bars, drinking Molsons and taunting the Japanese   (ctvnews.ca) divider line 125
    More: Amusing, Hawaii, Canadian Navy, Canadians, military exercise, Japanese, Canadian soldiers, Mackay, sailors  
•       •       •

10015 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jul 2012 at 1:02 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



125 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-19 12:18:32 AM  
I heard that was the first time since WW2 that a Canadian submarine launched a torpedo.

You may begin to mock Canada in 3...2...1..NOW!
 
2012-07-19 12:25:07 AM  

ontariolightning: I heard that was the first time since WW2 that a Canadian submarine launched a torpedo.

You may begin to mock Canada in 3...2...1..NOW!


Other than the 6 formerly stationed at West Edmonton Mall, Canada went a lot of years without having many viable subs in the fleet at all. The three most recent were purchased second hand from the Brits, and one of them had a nasty fire on board.

The fact that we successfully did this without blowing ourselves up is an accomplishment, and is cause for overreactive chest thumping, IMO.

SAIL THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE AT YOUR OWN PERIL, TRESPASSERS!!
 
2012-07-19 10:52:53 AM  
mojoimage.com


/better than Subway
 
2012-07-19 10:59:39 AM  
OK, this comment made me laugh:

We should be proud; Be proud that despite its small contingent the Canadian Forces are among the best trained in the world our personal are arguably better trained as a whole then the US Army. Although the US has better equipment, you can give monkey a state-of-the-art combat weapon but it is still a money using a state-of-the-art weapon. We should be proud that even with a small armed forces we have shown the high degree of organization, strategy and combat skills our men and woman posses. and that despite our many logistical issues we can still be a respected military force on the world stage. We should be proud that our military does not have a tarnished reputation of invading foreign nations and occupying them at the expense of our own people. And we should be proud that Canada was largely responsible for preventing the Germans from overwhelming England in WWII and fought in that war longer then the America's. We should also be proud that Canadians as a people are strong, proud, reserved but ready to jump to the challenge of defending our nation should the need arise.

excuse me, but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

/think that was typed by a retarded "money"
 
2012-07-19 01:04:53 PM  
As someone who just ate a sub sandwich.....
 
2012-07-19 01:06:58 PM  
Obligatory.

/Canada has a warship? Like for war?
 
2012-07-19 01:07:01 PM  

unyon: ontariolightning: I heard that was the first time since WW2 that a Canadian submarine launched a torpedo.

You may begin to mock Canada in 3...2...1..NOW!

Other than the 6 formerly stationed at West Edmonton Mall, Canada went a lot of years without having many viable subs in the fleet at all. The three most recent were purchased second hand from the Brits, and one of them had a nasty fire on board.

The fact that we successfully did this without blowing ourselves up is an accomplishment, and is cause for overreactive chest thumping, IMO.

SAIL THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE AT YOUR OWN PERIL, TRESPASSERS!!


I piss on your Northwest Passage, by dumping barrel and barrels of miller lite in it! AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, stop me now, Canada!
 
2012-07-19 01:10:17 PM  
CROSE ENOUGH

oh, and obligatory.
 
2012-07-19 01:10:17 PM  
In before

northpole.fi

/bad modmins & Subtard
 
2012-07-19 01:11:12 PM  
Canadaaaaa...
Canadaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Bluuuue!
Bruuuuuuuuuuuuuuue!
Close enough!
Cwose enuuuffff!
 
2012-07-19 01:12:00 PM  
Canadian submarine? Like a boat with a hole drilled in the bottom? Oh wait, thought this was the Polish thread.
 
2012-07-19 01:12:03 PM  
what do you do as an Admiral in the Canadian Navy?
 
2012-07-19 01:12:46 PM  
So, uhh, what's the big deal? They hit an unmoving and unmanned target? Yay?
 
2012-07-19 01:14:18 PM  
Let's see, Justin Bieber, Nickleback, Celine Dion..... Canada can torpedo shiat all day long but they will never have credibility after producing the likes of those.
 
2012-07-19 01:14:31 PM  

ontariolightning: I heard that was the first time since WW2 that a Canadian submarine launched a torpedo.

You may begin to mock Canada in 3...2...1..NOW!


At a target vessel...first time in about 15 years. They fire them on ranges all the time.
 
2012-07-19 01:16:45 PM  

lucksi: So, uhh, what's the big deal? They hit an unmoving and unmanned target? Yay?


The "historic moment" is that they took one of 4 second hand submarines from the British that would have been better off being sold for scrap metal, fixed it up and it actually farking worked. Meaning we have another tool, and possibly more, to defend the second largest sovereign coastline in the world.
 
2012-07-19 01:17:59 PM  
The entire crew of the Canadian submarine apologized to the target immediately afterwards.

/Canadia's Motto: "It's easier to get along than to argue, eh?"
 
2012-07-19 01:18:05 PM  
Jebus, it sounds like the Canucks got a raw deal with buying those subs from the British... Two of them had fires (due to operational errors) and one spent so long in drydock that they couldn't keep the pigeons from nesting. Ouch.
 
2012-07-19 01:18:09 PM  
I guess I'll know who to call if I ever need a submarine target blasted or a moose farked.
 
2012-07-19 01:18:55 PM  

bim1154: Let's see, Justin Bieber, Nickleback, Celine Dion..... Canada can torpedo shiat all day long but they will never have credibility after producing the likes of those.


Kanye West, R Kelly, Creed, Jonas Brothers, Lil' Wayne, ICP...and so on.
 
2012-07-19 01:23:08 PM  

Towermonkey: Jebus, it sounds like the Canucks got a raw deal with buying those subs from the British... Two of them had fires (due to operational errors) and one spent so long in drydock that they couldn't keep the pigeons from nesting. Ouch.


They, they could have bought in the Swedish/Australian project (the Collins boats) or just picked up some standard Type 212s (or 214s) off the Germans. Heck for the price of the Upholders in the end (including refits) they could have bought some 688i boats off America and had money left over. Plus the 668i is nuclear so you can dick around under the ice with them for longer periods of time.
 
2012-07-19 01:23:50 PM  
in other news Canadian has a submarine...
 
2012-07-19 01:24:39 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Towermonkey: Jebus, it sounds like the Canucks got a raw deal with buying those subs from the British... Two of them had fires (due to operational errors) and one spent so long in drydock that they couldn't keep the pigeons from nesting. Ouch.

They, they could have bought in the Swedish/Australian project (the Collins boats) or just picked up some standard Type 212s (or 214s) off the Germans. Heck for the price of the Upholders in the end (including refits) they could have bought some 688i boats off America and had money left over. Plus the 668i is nuclear so you can dick around under the ice with them for longer periods of time.


Yeah well, Liberal Party.
 
2012-07-19 01:25:12 PM  
The subs at West Edmonton Mall are ferocious
 
2012-07-19 01:27:51 PM  
All Canucks will sleep much better now knowing there's a chance they could actually hit something if need be.

Then again, maybe not, for the same reason.
 
2012-07-19 01:29:03 PM  
Molson? I've only ever seen Canadians drinking Labat's.
 
2012-07-19 01:29:05 PM  

SultanofSchwing: bim1154: Let's see, Justin Bieber, Nickleback, Celine Dion..... Canada can torpedo shiat all day long but they will never have credibility after producing the likes of those.

Kanye West, R Kelly, Creed, Jonas Brothers, Lil' Wayne, ICP...and so on.


Yea... they all suck.
 
2012-07-19 01:29:58 PM  
There are no longer any subs at West Edmonton Mall, actually

/their new location is a government secret
 
2012-07-19 01:32:02 PM  
I like the canadas, i think they are a fine bunch up there and i am happy to have them on our border. They are clean and polite and they do suck great things with french fries up there.
 
2012-07-19 01:33:05 PM  

SultanofSchwing: ha-ha-guy: Towermonkey: Jebus, it sounds like the Canucks got a raw deal with buying those subs from the British... Two of them had fires (due to operational errors) and one spent so long in drydock that they couldn't keep the pigeons from nesting. Ouch.

They, they could have bought in the Swedish/Australian project (the Collins boats) or just picked up some standard Type 212s (or 214s) off the Germans. Heck for the price of the Upholders in the end (including refits) they could have bought some 688i boats off America and had money left over. Plus the 668i is nuclear so you can dick around under the ice with them for longer periods of time.

Yeah well, Liberal Party.



Now, now, I think all the major Canadian political parties have proven themselves inept when it comes to efficient military spending.
 
2012-07-19 01:33:21 PM  
Das Boot reference in the headline?
 
2012-07-19 01:35:50 PM  
To follow on, I'm amazed by the retardation that seems to fill the Canadian purchasing department. For most of their needs the most effective thing would just to be buy American. Just tag along on the American purchasing contracts so their units are the last out of the factory (read: after the US military has paid to fix all the bugs in the production line).

For example the submarines are just plain retarded. Canada bought the only four submarines in the class (that were made in the 1970s) instead of buying a type widely used by ABAC or NATO. So now they're the only people in the world with them and on the hook for doing all upgrades and parts purchasing on their own. No farking economies of scale. Meanwhile everyone else is bulk buying AIP upgrades for the Type 212 and laughing at the Canucks. The Oberons, the previous class of Canadian submarines were used by five different nations and various upgrades and mods were released for them (Harpoon firing ability, Mk48 torpedo tubes, etc). Now if the Canadians say want to refit the Upholders to hand mine clearing drones, they have to foot the entire bill by themselves instead of going in with other nations on the project. Also on any any joint NATO deployments they have to bring all their own parts.

The G-Wagen purchase was also questionable considering they paid to ship the farkers across the Atlantic to Canada (and then right back across to Kabul) instead of having some Hummers thrown on a train and shipped north. At least the G-Wagen is widely used in NATO so they can pull off other countries logistic chains, although the ones the Canadians received had an 85% defect rate. At least it was a minor defect.

/next thing you know they'll be designing their own fighters again and then biatching about engineering costs
 
2012-07-19 01:38:30 PM  
This is an exercise in formality, right? Like England having a queen? Who in their right mind is going to fark with Canada when
1. They don't bother anyone
2. They have full protection of a country to the south that has enough weapons to kill the earth's human population 5 times over
3. Jack Bauer was really Canadian
4. In hand to hand combat, each and every last citizen is skilled in knocking your helmet off, pulling your shirt over your head, and punching you repeatedly.

/in war, there are no referees
 
2012-07-19 01:41:13 PM  

Robo Beat: Obligatory.

/Canada has a warship? Like for war?


Yep, more ships per capita than the US.

/Hilarious link, BTW.
 
2012-07-19 01:44:51 PM  
Defence Minister Peter MacKay, who just wrapped up a fishing trip next to the exercises, told CTV News Channel the contingent marks the largest contribution Canada has ever made to the military war games, which take place every two years.

Fixed
 
2012-07-19 01:45:24 PM  

ha-ha-guy: For most of their needs the most effective thing would just to be buy American.


Yeah... Tagging along with the Americans is working out really well for us in sourcing a replacement to our CF-18s.

To be honest, I think the entire defense industry is a scam. We should all go back to pointy sticks and big rocks; they're much cheaper and more environmentally friendly.
 
2012-07-19 01:47:41 PM  

unyon: SAIL THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE AT YOUR OWN PERIL, TRESPASSERS!!


The USS Virginia would like a word with you. If you can find it.
 
2012-07-19 01:49:45 PM  
Finally, RIMPAC on Fark.

/figured the name alone would have gotten it on here long ago
 
2012-07-19 01:50:34 PM  

ha-ha-guy: /next thing you know they'll be designing their own fighters again and then biatching about engineering costs


And when they cancel the program due to ballooning costs, they'll biatch about how the US made them do it.

tko78: Tagging along with the Americans is working out really well for us in sourcing a replacement to our CF-18s.


To be fair, though, everybody is taking it in the shorts on that one. The Candians aren't alone in paying way more for those things than originally promised.
 
2012-07-19 01:52:15 PM  

MBooda: Finally, RIMPAC on Fark.

/figured the name alone would have gotten it on here long ago


I lol'ed when I saw that in TFA, and figured it woulda been mentioned sooner as well...
 
2012-07-19 01:54:42 PM  

ha-ha-guy: To follow on, I'm amazed by the retardation that seems to fill the Canadian purchasing department. For most of their needs the most effective thing would just to be buy American. Just tag along on the American purchasing contracts so their units are the last out of the factory (read: after the US military has paid to fix all the bugs in the production line).

/next thing you know they'll be designing their own fighters again and then biatching about engineering costs


In many respects I agree with you. Having spent 5 years in the Canadian FOrces, I saw first-hand some of the equipment issues. Certainly what Canada REALLY needs are 2 nuclear-powered subs for Arctic duty (because of the ice caps). That said, we designed and built our own next-gen frigates in the 1990's and they were (and are)outstanding. There's probably a balance to be had somewhere in the middle.

The other challenge is that our military roles are very different form America's. Our primary NATO role is still ASW in the North atlantic, just like WWII. Secondary to that on the priority list is international participation (Afghanistan, UN, etc.) Not all of the american equipment would suit our tasks, but much of it would, I suppose.

What we've failed at the most is in allowing individual pieces of the puzzle to hinder the bigger picture:
-Our air force training is second to none, but our aging fleet of F-18s should havebeen replaced 10 years ago. The Eurofighter was probably the best option at the time, but now we're spending way more on F-35s which are really no better as far as our mission parameters go.
-Our naval ASW equipment is also mostly top-notch, except that our helos are 40-year-old Sea Kings. Disgraceful. We had a plan but cancelled replacing them back in the 1990's.
Our Army units are well-equipped and fully modernized, with the exception of our aging tanks - The Leopard II is a good but outmoded platform. We probably need to de-emphasize MBTs and instead move towards faster, lighter, more transportable vehicles like Strykers or even something akin to the Bradley.

One must bear in mind that we have less than 1 10th of your population. Our total defense budget is about $15B. After all, we're not a superpower, we're not a nuclear power, and we're not interested in the same sort of influence-projection that the U.S. needs to undertake. Carriers would be neat toys, but impractical for us.

At the end of the day, we have sufficient resources to keep our own citizens safe and secure from any imminent threat. When you're a nation of only 30 million people, everything else is a luxury.
 
2012-07-19 01:54:54 PM  

Posh Naranek: Canadian submarine? Like a boat with a hole drilled in the bottom? Oh wait, thought this was the Polish thread.


You mean a Newfie thread, then. :)
 
2012-07-19 01:55:53 PM  

unyon: The three most recent were purchased second hand from the Brits, and one of them had a nasty fire on board.


Shouldn't have brought the Australian cook on board, he uses the barbie too often.
 
2012-07-19 01:57:23 PM  

tko78: ha-ha-guy: For most of their needs the most effective thing would just to be buy American.

Yeah... Tagging along with the Americans is working out really well for us in sourcing a replacement to our CF-18s.

To be honest, I think the entire defense industry is a scam. We should all go back to pointy sticks and big rocks; they're much cheaper and more environmentally friendly.


Well our GOA estimates we'll be using them for 50 years and the price per unit is 135 million per plane given the latest state of the project in 2012. So that's 50 years of access for upgrades and the like for a decent per unit price. A Gen 1 EF2K is 105 million and a Gen 2 is 196 million dollars. For 4.5 gen fighters you could get a Saab Gripen at 60 million a unit, a top of the line Su-35 at 65 million, or 100 million for a Silent Eagle (although that is Boeing's sale price and they always have overruns). So it's like we ripped you off on the price of a 5th gen fighter. It's just going to take a couple of years longer and these things always farking take longer than planned.
 
2012-07-19 01:58:07 PM  
Is it me or, does the submarine look like the Monitor?

Link
 
2012-07-19 01:58:21 PM  

Highroller48: After all, we're not a superpower, we're not a nuclear power, and we're not interested in the same sort of influence-projection that the U.S. needs to undertake. Carriers would be neat toys, but impractical for us.


Canada could probably use a carrier, if only as a platform for ferrying aircraft to the UK the next time they pick a fight too heavy for their weight class.
 
2012-07-19 01:58:40 PM  

taunting the Japanese


I think I'm taunting Japanese
I think I'm taunting Japanese
I really think so.

Eh
 
2012-07-19 02:01:00 PM  

the_celt: Is it me or, does the submarine look like the Monitor?


Don't make fun of this fully ARMED and OPERATIONAL battle station!
 
2012-07-19 02:02:18 PM  

Highroller48: ha-ha-guy: To follow on, I'm amazed by the retardation that seems to fill the Canadian purchasing department. For most of their needs the most effective thing would just to be buy American. Just tag along on the American purchasing contracts so their units are the last out of the factory (read: after the US military has paid to fix all the bugs in the production line).

/next thing you know they'll be designing their own fighters again and then biatching about engineering costs

In many respects I agree with you. Having spent 5 years in the Canadian FOrces, I saw first-hand some of the equipment issues. Certainly what Canada REALLY needs are 2 nuclear-powered subs for Arctic duty (because of the ice caps). That said, we designed and built our own next-gen frigates in the 1990's and they were (and are)outstanding. There's probably a balance to be had somewhere in the middle.

The other challenge is that our military roles are very different form America's. Our primary NATO role is still ASW in the North atlantic, just like WWII. Secondary to that on the priority list is international participation (Afghanistan, UN, etc.) Not all of the american equipment would suit our tasks, but much of it would, I suppose.

What we've failed at the most is in allowing individual pieces of the puzzle to hinder the bigger picture:
-Our air force training is second to none, but our aging fleet of F-18s should havebeen replaced 10 years ago. The Eurofighter was probably the best option at the time, but now we're spending way more on F-35s which are really no better as far as our mission parameters go.
-Our naval ASW equipment is also mostly top-notch, except that our helos are 40-year-old Sea Kings. Disgraceful. We had a plan but cancelled replacing them back in the 1990's.
Our Army units are well-equipped and fully modernized, with the exception of our aging tanks - The Leopard II is a good but outmoded platform. We probably need to de-emphasize MBTs and instead move towards ...


Very well stated. I work with the Canadian forces and have nothing but respect.

/Too bad about your CF-105 Arrow
 
2012-07-19 02:02:27 PM  
I know this is a joke but also oblig.

This is the transcript of a radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.

Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a Collision.
Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.
Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.
Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.
Americans: This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States' Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that YOU change your course 15 degrees north, that's one five degrees north, or countermeasures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.
Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

//Canadian living in the states... lol
 
2012-07-19 02:04:48 PM  

This text is now purple: Canada could probably use a carrier, if only as a platform for ferrying aircraft to the UK the next time they pick a fight too heavy for their weight class


I wonder how many Spitfires a supercarrier can hold.
 
2012-07-19 02:04:52 PM  

daniesmiley: I know this is a joke but also oblig.

This is the transcript of a radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.

Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a Collision.
Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.
Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.
Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.
Americans: This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States' Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that YOU change your course 15 degrees north, that's one five degrees north, or countermeasures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.
Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

//Canadian living in the states... lol


This joke is soooooo overused. Last time I heard this, it was Ireland in lieu of Canada. Now, don't get me started on the Irish military...
 
2012-07-19 02:06:36 PM  

daniesmiley: //Canadian living in the states... lol


Not just "the states" but Florida even. I don't think I could do that.
 
2012-07-19 02:07:12 PM  

Frothy Panties: daniesmiley: I know this is a joke but also oblig.

This is the transcript of a radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.

Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a Collision.
Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.
Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.
Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.
Americans: This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States' Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that YOU change your course 15 degrees north, that's one five degrees north, or countermeasures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.
Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

//Canadian living in the states... lol

This joke is soooooo overused. Last time I heard this, it was Ireland in lieu of Canada. Now, don't get me started on the Irish military...


I've heard the Americans changed to British, Canadians changed to 5 different countries. Yeah. Nobody knows the original.
 
2012-07-19 02:08:15 PM  

unyon: ontariolightning: I heard that was the first time since WW2 that a Canadian submarine launched a torpedo.
You may begin to mock Canada in 3...2...1..NOW!
Other than the 6 formerly stationed at West Edmonton Mall


The fountain in the food court must be REALLY deep...
 
2012-07-19 02:09:13 PM  
Canadian telling a joke at a party:

Canaidan: "What's the difference between a Canadian and an American?"
American: "I don't know."
Canadian: "Correct!"
 
2012-07-19 02:10:09 PM  
(Farking Citrix desktop! Takes about 8 seconds for what I type to show up...causes many typos.)
 
2012-07-19 02:11:29 PM  

Highroller48: This text is now purple: Canada could probably use a carrier, if only as a platform for ferrying aircraft to the UK the next time they pick a fight too heavy for their weight class

I wonder how many Spitfires a supercarrier can hold.


The Brits, since the 1960s, have been notorious for poor defense related decisions. FIrst, it was the fantastic TSR-2 that got chopped by the government even though it proved superior to the American F-111...and ended up not even buying the damn thing, then the retirement of the Vulcan without a replacement (Tornados were not ready for deployment in 1982), then scrapping of its carrier fleet, then the Harriers (though they brough back only a few), now its a 20% reduction in ground forces....
 
2012-07-19 02:13:19 PM  

orange storm: what do you do as an Admiral in the Canadian Navy?


Beat the drum to keep the other two guys paddling at the same pace.
 
2012-07-19 02:14:44 PM  
I watched that whole video that wouldn't fast forward to see a torpedo snapping a skimmer ship in two. Spoiler alert: no video.

FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU!!!
 
2012-07-19 02:15:58 PM  

Frothy Panties: Highroller48: This text is now purple: Canada could probably use a carrier, if only as a platform for ferrying aircraft to the UK the next time they pick a fight too heavy for their weight class

I wonder how many Spitfires a supercarrier can hold.

The Brits, since the 1960s, have been notorious for poor defense related decisions. FIrst, it was the fantastic TSR-2 that got chopped by the government even though it proved superior to the American F-111...and ended up not even buying the damn thing, then the retirement of the Vulcan without a replacement (Tornados were not ready for deployment in 1982), then scrapping of its carrier fleet, then the Harriers (though they brough back only a few), now its a 20% reduction in ground forces....


Heck, it goes back further than that. They used to just fire the sailors and let the ships rot in the harbour between wars.
 
2012-07-19 02:17:20 PM  

Highroller48: In many respects I agree with you. Having spent 5 years in the Canadian FOrces, I saw first-hand some of the equipment issues. Certainly what Canada REALLY needs are 2 nuclear-powered subs for Arctic duty (because of the ice caps). That said, we designed and built our own next-gen frigates in the 1990's and they were (and are)outstanding. There's probably a balance to be had somewhere in the middle.

The other challenge is that our military roles are very different form America's. Our primary NATO role is still ASW in the North atlantic, just like WWII. Secondary to that on the priority list is international participation (Afghanistan, UN, etc.) Not all of the american equipment would suit our tasks, but much of it would, I suppose.


You guys have definitely made some excellent frigates. Not just the recent Halifax ones, but the Iroquois ones and their sea keeping ability as well. That being said, the Halifax frigates to my understanding have heavy parts commonality with USN units, for example their propulsion is the same plant the Alreigh Burke and other largeish USN surface combatants use. Also the older Iroquois frigates used a lot of weapons systems that the Perry Class used. So those units can pull up to an American supply ship in the middle of Atlantic and use parts. Whereas the Upholders need to seek out the specific ships that have parts for them.

I just wise the Halifax units had Aegis on them so we could potentially rope them in as air defense units for the convoys. Weapons space on the deck seems like it could have been rearranged to remove the Harpoon box launchers and toss in a VLS for SMs. Otherwise their excellent at what they do and it makes sense for Canada to roll its own hulls since you guys give much more of a fark about working in the Arctic than USN units do.

My thinking is more than in these little miniwars we drag you into (Iraq and Afghanistan) you're paying a premium to ship your own supply chain as opposed to just pulling off the Americans chain. If we ever get into a real war it will be like WWII where America is handling a lot of the logistics and everyone is using M4 Shermans.

I definitely agree Canada should scale down the land forces. Let the more populace countries do the big armored divisions and all that. The Canadians and their Leos are likely just ending up attached to some American Army unit in a real war at this point, so it's just owning tanks for the sake of the national pride. It would be nice to to see the Navy expand as you said to do more ASW work. Maybe some helicopter destroyers or something off the Sea Control Ship project idea. Plus you can actually get value out of them in peace time in anti piracy or patrolling the northwest passage. I'm sure some Virginia Class submarines could also be fitted out with more extensive under ice capability and sent north as well (or if you want to be spendy, Seawolf class boats).

It just seems weird to me that if Canada ever goes to war its pulling off German supply chains (G-Wagen, LeoII, etc), British ones (the Upholders), and American ones (F-35 and naval weaponry). Canada is basically assured any war they're in involves America or the British Commonwealth. With the former America is likely supplying everyone directly, with the latter America is at the very least supplying people covertly (as we did the UK in Argentina). It strikes me more logical as buying from the guy who can just load it on trains and then them across the border.
 
2012-07-19 02:18:07 PM  

Aidan: daniesmiley: //Canadian living in the states... lol

Not just "the states" but Florida even. I don't think I could do that.


Yep its really hot out today... feel like temp is 104 with 60% humidity
 
2012-07-19 02:21:57 PM  

general tso: MBooda: Finally, RIMPAC on Fark.

/figured the name alone would have gotten it on here long ago

I lol'ed when I saw that in TFA, and figured it woulda been mentioned sooner as well...


It actually stopped being funny here at work before I came here in the '70s. A greater source of humor are the acronym exercises (e.g. PASSEX) or two-word operational names like Bold Alligator. We're always generating imaginary operational names here: e.g. Operation Pregnant Unicorn; Army-Navy Land-Sea Exercise (ANLSEX), etc.
 
2012-07-19 02:25:49 PM  

Frothy Panties: Highroller48: This text is now purple: Canada could probably use a carrier, if only as a platform for ferrying aircraft to the UK the next time they pick a fight too heavy for their weight class

I wonder how many Spitfires a supercarrier can hold.

The Brits, since the 1960s, have been notorious for poor defense related decisions. FIrst, it was the fantastic TSR-2 that got chopped by the government even though it proved superior to the American F-111...and ended up not even buying the damn thing, then the retirement of the Vulcan without a replacement (Tornados were not ready for deployment in 1982), then scrapping of its carrier fleet, then the Harriers (though they brough back only a few), now its a 20% reduction in ground forces....


The Starstreak SAM, the Challenger series MBT, and their SSNs are their greatest hits.

My current favorite is the Type 45 and it's VLS that can't fire a surface attack missile. So if the RN wants them to shoot at anything beside aircraft and missiles they have to bolt Tomahawk box launchers onto the deck and compromise the Type 45's stealth feature. All because the Brits let the French talk them into using the Slyver VLS instead of the Mk41 that practically everyone else in NATO uses. So currently the RN is no carriers and no modern surface ships will anti shipping or land attack capability. Gah.

/the SSNs do have sea attack and land attack of course
 
2012-07-19 02:26:20 PM  

MBooda: general tso: MBooda: Finally, RIMPAC on Fark.

/figured the name alone would have gotten it on here long ago

I lol'ed when I saw that in TFA, and figured it woulda been mentioned sooner as well...

It actually stopped being funny here at work before I came here in the '70s. A greater source of humor are the acronym exercises (e.g. PASSEX) or two-word operational names like Bold Alligator. We're always generating imaginary operational names here: e.g. Operation Pregnant Unicorn; Army-Navy Land-Sea Exercise (ANLSEX), etc.


Market-Garden...there's an operational name. The ones we currently use for US operations are soooo dull....freedom this freedom this, glory unto the flag that, restoring something bla bla bla. The exercises aren't so bad, though: Sabre Strike, Combined Endeavour, Juniper Falcon, etc.
 
2012-07-19 02:28:10 PM  
Ca-nadian!!

Kilted!!

Yaksmen!!
 
2012-07-19 02:29:40 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Frothy Panties: Highroller48: This text is now purple: Canada could probably use a carrier, if only as a platform for ferrying aircraft to the UK the next time they pick a fight too heavy for their weight class

I wonder how many Spitfires a supercarrier can hold.

The Brits, since the 1960s, have been notorious for poor defense related decisions. FIrst, it was the fantastic TSR-2 that got chopped by the government even though it proved superior to the American F-111...and ended up not even buying the damn thing, then the retirement of the Vulcan without a replacement (Tornados were not ready for deployment in 1982), then scrapping of its carrier fleet, then the Harriers (though they brough back only a few), now its a 20% reduction in ground forces....

The Starstreak SAM, the Challenger series MBT, and their SSNs are their greatest hits.

My current favorite is the Type 45 and it's VLS that can't fire a surface attack missile. So if the RN wants them to shoot at anything beside aircraft and missiles they have to bolt Tomahawk box launchers onto the deck and compromise the Type 45's stealth feature. All because the Brits let the French talk them into using the Slyver VLS instead of the Mk41 that practically everyone else in NATO uses. So currently the RN is no carriers and no modern surface ships will anti shipping or land attack capability. Gah.

/the SSNs do have sea attack and land attack of course


What about the Astute class? Looks like a pretty nice system.
 
2012-07-19 02:31:38 PM  

Highroller48: This text is now purple: Canada could probably use a carrier, if only as a platform for ferrying aircraft to the UK the next time they pick a fight too heavy for their weight class

I wonder how many Spitfires a supercarrier can hold.


What's the difference? The Chinese have a flying supercarrier. We're all hosed.
www.aiai.ed.ac.uk
 
2012-07-19 02:32:44 PM  

Frothy Panties: What about the Astute class? Looks like a pretty nice system.


Astute is a SSN. As I said they've been doing SSNs right. The Trafalgars were great and the Astute looks nice as well.

/The Canadian military wanted 10 to 12 Trafalgars to patrol the Arctic and their seaboards
//they got the Upholders instead
 
2012-07-19 02:35:46 PM  
Farkin' eh
 
2012-07-19 02:41:53 PM  

jayphat: Frothy Panties: daniesmiley: I know this is a joke but also oblig.

This is the transcript of a radio conversation of a US naval ship with Canadian authorities off the coast of Newfoundland in October, 1995. Radio conversation released by the Chief of Naval Operations 10-10-95.

Americans: Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a Collision.
Canadians: Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.
Americans: This is the Captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.
Canadians: No. I say again, you divert YOUR course.
Americans: This is the aircraft carrier USS Lincoln, the second largest ship in the United States' Atlantic fleet. We are accompanied by three destroyers, three cruisers and numerous support vessels. I demand that YOU change your course 15 degrees north, that's one five degrees north, or countermeasures will be undertaken to ensure the safety of this ship.
Canadians: This is a lighthouse. Your call.

//Canadian living in the states... lol

This joke is soooooo overused. Last time I heard this, it was Ireland in lieu of Canada. Now, don't get me started on the Irish military...

I've heard the Americans changed to British, Canadians changed to 5 different countries. Yeah. Nobody knows the original.


It's rumored that the joke goes as far back as Xerxes' fleet and a Greek torchbearer. Signal fires were a pain to interpret though all the haze.
 
2012-07-19 02:43:00 PM  
Wow Canada hit an anchored stationary ship with a torpedo?

/just Wow man
 
2012-07-19 02:43:47 PM  

ha-ha-guy: Well our GOA estimates we'll be using them for 50 years and the price per unit is 135 million per plane given the latest state of the project in 2012. So that's 50 years of access for upgrades and the like for a decent per unit price. A Gen 1 EF2K is 105 million and a Gen 2 is 196 million dollars. For 4.5 gen fighters you could get a Saab Gripen at 60 million a unit, a top of the line Su-35 at 65 million, or 100 million for a Silent Eagle (although that is Boeing's sale price and they always have overruns). So it's like we ripped you off on the price of a 5th gen fighter. It's just going to take a couple of years longer and these things always farking take longer than planned.


I'm not saying the US ripped us off on that deal. I'm saying that, whether we're tagging along with our southern cousins or not, our procurement record is absolute shiate with few exceptions. The Halifax class frigate being one of those exceptions, as you point out elsewhere in the thread.

As for the Upholder/Victoria purchase, I don't think the Canadian public will ever, in my lifetime, have an appetite for SSNs, thus the SSK purchase. This is, in my uneducated and taking a wild guess opinion, due to the fact that as soon as somebody says "nucular submarine", our average citizen has images of Dubya's talking head accompanied by an inset video image of a Trident II poking its nose out of the water.
 
2012-07-19 02:45:47 PM  
FTA: Pacific Missile Range Facility Barking Sands

Now there's a name.
 
2012-07-19 02:50:39 PM  

Frothy Panties: Highroller48: This text is now purple: Canada could probably use a carrier, if only as a platform for ferrying aircraft to the UK the next time they pick a fight too heavy for their weight class

I wonder how many Spitfires a supercarrier can hold.

The Brits, since the 1960s, have been notorious for poor defense related decisions. FIrst, it was the fantastic TSR-2 that got chopped by the government even though it proved superior to the American F-111...and ended up not even buying the damn thing, then the retirement of the Vulcan without a replacement (Tornados were not ready for deployment in 1982), then scrapping of its carrier fleet, then the Harriers (though they brough back only a few), now its a 20% reduction in ground forces....



And then of course, there's the history of Britain's SA-80 assault rifle program.

I'll let the Guardian speak for it here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/oct/10/military.jamesmeek
 
2012-07-19 02:55:37 PM  
With the old jokes, my favorite was a brit commercial flight going into Berlin. The pilot was yelled at by the control tower and asked if he had been to Berlin before. The pilot calmly commented "yes, but it was in the '40's and I didn't stop to land. I just turned around and went back home."
 
2012-07-19 03:03:17 PM  

tko78: As for the Upholder/Victoria purchase, I don't think the Canadian public will ever, in my lifetime, have an appetite for SSNs, thus the SSK purchase. This is, in my uneducated and taking a wild guess opinion, due to the fact that as soon as somebody says "nucular submarine", our average citizen has images of Dubya's talking head accompanied by an inset video image of a Trident II poking its nose out of the water.


Plus if you guys ever get a good submarine fleet, it makes it harder for us to sneak into your waters and dump our reactor tailings.

/sorry about that
//we thought they'd be inert by the time the ice caps melted

Valarius: And then of course, there's the history of Britain's SA-80 assault rifle program.


I like not even H&K could fix the thing when the UK subcontracted them into the mess. Their main contribution was: "You know it fires when you drop it right?". UK: "Ummm, shiat...".

/I kind of want to buy a SA-80 at some point just for the display value of it, I doubt I'd ever even try to load it
 
2012-07-19 03:07:42 PM  
A US Naval spokesperson was quoted as saying, "Well, we felt bad that they hadn't ever destroyed a target so we sort of decided to let them slip one by. We figured it'd be good for morale. I mean, we feel really bad for them, it's so cold up there with them living in their igloos with their pet polar bears and what-not, it just seemed to be a gentlemanly thing to do by letting them win one, we figured it'd raise their spirits."
 
2012-07-19 03:14:20 PM  
Their next boat should be called the "HMCS Hoser" or the "HMCS Eh" or even better... the "HMCS 2112".
 
2012-07-19 03:14:21 PM  

Strobeguy: Wow Canada hit an anchored stationary ship with a torpedo?

/just Wow man


Yeah... sounds dumb enough for a movie to be made about it.

www.eastsidedavecountry.com

Oh... wait...
 
2012-07-19 03:14:33 PM  
Firing a torpedo is 'historic'? No wonder Canaduh doesn't matter.
 
2012-07-19 03:22:09 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: Firing a torpedo is 'historic'? No wonder Canaduh doesn't matter.


You say that now...

forum.smartcanucks.ca
 
2012-07-19 03:23:18 PM  
Doesn't change the fact that Canada got pantsed by the British and sold some pieces of junk.
 
2012-07-19 03:26:56 PM  
taunting the Japanese

Were these Canadian sailors, or just the Quebecois?

thewisecracker.com
 
2012-07-19 03:27:37 PM  
It's all part of our plan. We lull the world into thinking the Canadian military is incompetent, then sucker punch when the world least suspects it.
 
2012-07-19 03:30:41 PM  
Trust us when we say, we're just as embarrassed as the rest of the world is by our cheap ass discount subs. We got reamed by the U.K. on this one. They know it. We know it. What can the average Canadian about it? Nothing....Fire away though...
 
2012-07-19 03:33:17 PM  
Meanwhile the real purpose of all of the US sponsored military exercises is so we can evaluate our potential enemies' performance.
 
2012-07-19 03:34:03 PM  
www.motifake.com

/oblig
 
2012-07-19 03:36:50 PM  

Highroller48: Canadian telling a joke at a party:

Canaidan: "What's the difference between a Canadian and an American?"
American: "I don't know."
Canadian: "Correct!"


They're richer on average and less corrupt?
 
2012-07-19 03:41:05 PM  

bbfreak: Highroller48: Canadian telling a joke at a party:

Canaidan: "What's the difference between a Canadian and an American?"
American: "I don't know."
Canadian: "Correct!"

They're richer whiter on average and less corrupt?


FTFY
 
2012-07-19 03:41:56 PM  

bbfreak: Highroller48: Canadian telling a joke at a party:

Canaidan: "What's the difference between a Canadian and an American?"
American: "I don't know."
Canadian: "Correct!"

They're richer on average and less corrupt?


But that can't be! I mean, Canada pays like 300% in income taxes!!

/// And $0 in Healthcare premiums.
 
2012-07-19 03:49:17 PM  
Wow, great warriors there. They sank a stationary, unmanned, unarmed, decommissioned (2009), supply ship.

AFS-1 Mars Combat Stores Ship
Specifications
Builder
National Steel and Shipbuilding
Displacement
Light Displacement: 9852 tons Full Displacement: 17381 tons Dead Weight: 7529 tons
Length
Overall Length: 581 ft Waterline Length: 530 ft
Beam
Extreme Beam: 79 ft Waterline Beam: 79 ft
Draft
Maximum Navigational Draft: 27 ft Draft Limit: 28 ft
Speed 20 knots
Power Plant Three boilers, steam turbines, one shaft 22,000 shaft horsepower

US Navy (USS)
Aircraft
Two UH-46 Sea Knight
Armament
4 - three-inch / 50-caliber guns;
2 - Phalanx close-in weapons systems to be fitted
Complement
Officers: 42
Enlisted: 445

MSC (USNS)
Aircraft
Two MH-60S Knighthawk
Armament
None
Complement
Officers: 28
Enlisted: 115
 
2012-07-19 03:50:20 PM  
Here's the video:

Link

Filmed from the camera on a Canadian version of the P-3.
 
2012-07-19 03:51:33 PM  

MrStench: FTA: Pacific Missile Range Facility Barking Sands

Now there's a name.


It's called that because when you walk on the sand, it makes a barking noise. Something to do with the physical structure of the sand grains and how the sand grains move against each other when you step on them. Kaua'i isn't the only place where it exists.
 
2012-07-19 04:07:44 PM  

Mishno: MrStench: FTA: Pacific Missile Range Facility Barking Sands

Now there's a name.

It's called that because when you walk on the sand, it makes a barking noise. Something to do with the physical structure of the sand grains and how the sand grains move against each other when you step on them. Kaua'i isn't the only place where it exists.


Sufficiently fine sand will do that. Michigan has some singing sands as well.
 
2012-07-19 04:09:14 PM  
The RIMPAC exercises included participation from the following countries:

Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Philippines, South Korea, Russia, Singapore, Thailand, Tonga, the U.K. and the U.S.


This entire exercise would of fallen apart without the contribution of the mighty Tongan navy.
 
2012-07-19 04:12:04 PM  

gopher321: OK, this comment made me laugh:
And we should be proud that Canada was largely responsible for preventing the Germans from overwhelming England in WWII

excuse me, but HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

/think that was typed by a retarded "money"




Actually Canada had the third largest navy in the world by the end of world war 2 due to all the convoys of materials that they were resuplying Britain with.
 
2012-07-19 04:18:02 PM  
"Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, also lauded the accomplishment by the submarine and her crew. One of several subs purchased from the U.K. in 1998, HMCS Victoria has spent much of her time in Canada undergoing repairs and was only released for service earlier this year."

1998... that's 14 years ago that we (Canada) bought those useless pieces of sh*t from the Brits. They were 20 years old then. Then two of them caught on fire - one while being transported to Canada 9it wasn't even running), and one is STILL in drydock.

HUGE waste of $$$ all so smiley McKay can claim we have torpedoes.

What a laugh. Love my country. Hate my government.
 
2012-07-19 04:22:35 PM  
Sopwith: Actually Canada had the third largest navy in the world by the end of world war 2 due to all the convoys of materials that they were resuplying Britain with.

Having the third largest navy means nothing if 95% of them are unarmed, or lightly armed Q-ships which make great target practice for the Post-War Soviet Navy.

That said, golf clap to Canada.
 
2012-07-19 04:44:32 PM  

mantoast: Here's the video:

Link

Filmed from the camera on a Canadian version of the P-3.


There we are... 17 minutes from afloat to gone even with what looked like a light torpedo. Pretty scary.
 
2012-07-19 04:48:33 PM  

Valarius: Frothy Panties: Highroller48: This text is now purple: Canada could probably use a carrier, if only as a platform for ferrying aircraft to the UK the next time they pick a fight too heavy for their weight class

I wonder how many Spitfires a supercarrier can hold.

The Brits, since the 1960s, have been notorious for poor defense related decisions. FIrst, it was the fantastic TSR-2 that got chopped by the government even though it proved superior to the American F-111...and ended up not even buying the damn thing, then the retirement of the Vulcan without a replacement (Tornados were not ready for deployment in 1982), then scrapping of its carrier fleet, then the Harriers (though they brough back only a few), now its a 20% reduction in ground forces....


And then of course, there's the history of Britain's SA-80 assault rifle program.

I'll let the Guardian speak for it here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/oct/10/military.jamesmeek


Thanks for the link...and I thought we had it bad with the early M-16 variants.

But, this part floored me...FTFA. "Fat brass cartridge cases of different sizes, with copper-jacketed bullets sticking out of them, roll around inside. It is live ammunition, although the man, a former military armourer, promises that he has them legally."

Quite the contrast to our 2nd Amendment.
 
2012-07-19 04:50:49 PM  

Trucker: Wow, great warriors there. They sank a stationary, unmanned, unarmed, decommissioned (2009), supply ship.


That's all the U.S. Navy ever does in peace time, too, you know.
 
2012-07-19 05:02:55 PM  

Highroller48: Trucker: Wow, great warriors there. They sank a stationary, unmanned, unarmed, decommissioned (2009), supply ship.

That's all the U.S. Navy ever does in peace time, too, you know.


Yep (by definition of "peace time").
nealgoswami.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-07-19 05:05:12 PM  

unyon: ontariolightning: I heard that was the first time since WW2 that a Canadian submarine launched a torpedo.

You may begin to mock Canada in 3...2...1..NOW!

Other than the 6 formerly stationed at West Edmonton Mall, Canada went a lot of years without having many viable subs in the fleet at all. The three most recent were purchased second hand from the Brits, and one of them had a nasty fire on board.

The fact that we successfully did this without blowing ourselves up is an accomplishment, and is cause for overreactive chest thumping, IMO.

SAIL THE NORTHWEST PASSAGE AT YOUR OWN PERIL, TRESPASSERS!!


nice! +2
 
2012-07-19 05:12:34 PM  

gelovani: "Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, also lauded the accomplishment by the submarine and her crew. One of several subs purchased from the U.K. in 1998, HMCS Victoria has spent much of her time in Canada undergoing repairs and was only released for service earlier this year."

1998... that's 14 years ago that we (Canada) bought those useless pieces of sh*t from the Brits. They were 20 years old then. Then two of them caught on fire - one while being transported to Canada 9it wasn't even running), and one is STILL in drydock.

HUGE waste of $$$ all so smiley McKay can claim we have torpedoes.

What a laugh. Love my country. Hate my government.


It was three years old (commissioned in 1991, decommissioned in 1994), not twenty. Submarine age is mostly gauged on the number of dives it's made as the hull will form micro-cracks and for each hull type and material there is a point where that number of dives puts the ship at too much of a risk without a thorough NDT inspection of all welds and hull penetrations. These boats had three years of fairly light usage on them when they were mothballed and odds are that they didn't see a lot of sea time back when the RN had them seeing as the cold war was over and the GI\UK gap didn't need the type of coverage that the cold war had called for.

As to the fires one was caused by the ships crew trying to connect an AC generator into a DC electrical bus on the pier, not really a design flaw other than perhaps the connectors for both might have been the same causing some confusion. The underway fire was caused by having an open hatch out at sea and seawater shorting out the electrical system, again not really a design issue (outside of perhaps poor insulation allowing seawater to get in) so much as operator error (again) for having an open hatch in rough seas.

Overall the boat class is very capable and will probably serve the Canadian navy quite well for many years to come.
 
2012-07-19 05:16:19 PM  

factoryconnection: There we are... 17 minutes from afloat to gone even with what looked like a light torpedo. Pretty scary.


That was a MK 48. Definitely not a light torpedo with a 650+ lb warhead.
 
2012-07-19 05:20:10 PM  

ontariolightning: I heard that was the first time since WW2 that a Canadian submarine launched a torpedo.

You may begin to mock Canada in 3...2...1..NOW!


"Canada has a submarine"??
 
2012-07-19 05:23:38 PM  

MBooda: Highroller48: Trucker: Wow, great warriors there. They sank a stationary, unmanned, unarmed, decommissioned (2009), supply ship.

That's all the U.S. Navy ever does in peace time, too, you know.

Yep (by definition of "peace time").
[nealgoswami.files.wordpress.com image 650x366]


I'm quite sure that before they fired a warshot they spent some time on the range (either at AUTEC in the Bahamas or the pacific missile range) shooting a bunch of exercise weapons and there they use moving targets surfaced and submerged. Warshot tests are performed to ensure that the warhead and it's arming mechanisms are functioning as designed so they take out the variables of a moving target (which is validated at the torpedo range with reusable exercise weapons that record its performance for each run).
 
2012-07-19 05:26:04 PM  

mantoast: Here's the video:

Link

Filmed from the camera on a Canadian version of the P-3.


That'd be the P-3A?

//pronounced...well, I'm sure you can figure it out.
 
2012-07-19 05:33:56 PM  

bim1154: Let's see, Justin Bieber, Nickleback, Celine Dion..... Canada can torpedo shiat all day long but they will never have credibility after producing the likes of those.


Sez the country that brought us Bob Seger.

While it's true your awesome will always outnumber our awesome... the same is true for your epic suck.

/Nomeansno FTW
 
2012-07-19 05:44:53 PM  

ha-ha-guy: To follow on, I'm amazed by the retardation that seems to fill the Canadian purchasing department. For most of their needs the most effective thing would just to be buy American. Just tag along on the American purchasing contracts so their units are the last out of the factory (read: after the US military has paid to fix all the bugs in the production line).

For example the submarines are just plain retarded. Canada bought the only four submarines in the class (that were made in the 1970s) instead of buying a type widely used by ABAC or NATO. So now they're the only people in the world with them and on the hook for doing all upgrades and parts purchasing on their own. No farking economies of scale. Meanwhile everyone else is bulk buying AIP upgrades for the Type 212 and laughing at the Canucks. The Oberons, the previous class of Canadian submarines were used by five different nations and various upgrades and mods were released for them (Harpoon firing ability, Mk48 torpedo tubes, etc). Now if the Canadians say want to refit the Upholders to hand mine clearing drones, they have to foot the entire bill by themselves instead of going in with other nations on the project. Also on any any joint NATO deployments they have to bring all their own parts.

The G-Wagen purchase was also questionable considering they paid to ship the farkers across the Atlantic to Canada (and then right back across to Kabul) instead of having some Hummers thrown on a train and shipped north. At least the G-Wagen is widely used in NATO so they can pull off other countries logistic chains, although the ones the Canadians received had an 85% defect rate. At least it was a minor defect.

/next thing you know they'll be designing their own fighters again and then biatching about engineering costs


How's blowing out the Queen's candles working out for ya? I guess as good as an excuse as any to pilfer Candaian treasure.

How ever pathetic it is, it pales in comparison to how the US tax payers are "royally" farked.
 
2012-07-19 06:06:23 PM  

ha-ha-guy: To follow on, I'm amazed by the retardation that seems to fill the Canadian purchasing department. For most of their needs the most effective thing would just to be buy American. Just tag along on the American purchasing contracts so their units are the last out of the factory (read: after the US military has paid to fix all the bugs in the production line).

For example the submarines are just plain retarded. Canada bought the only four submarines in the class (that were made in the 1970s) instead of buying a type widely used by ABAC or NATO. So now they're the only people in the world with them and on the hook for doing all upgrades and parts purchasing on their own. No farking economies of scale. Meanwhile everyone else is bulk buying AIP upgrades for the Type 212 and laughing at the Canucks. The Oberons, the previous class of Canadian submarines were used by five different nations and various upgrades and mods were released for them (Harpoon firing ability, Mk48 torpedo tubes, etc). Now if the Canadians say want to refit the Upholders to hand mine clearing drones, they have to foot the entire bill by themselves instead of going in with other nations on the project. Also on any any joint NATO deployments they have to bring all their own parts.

The G-Wagen purchase was also questionable considering they paid to ship the farkers across the Atlantic to Canada (and then right back across to Kabul) instead of having some Hummers thrown on a train and shipped north. At least the G-Wagen is widely used in NATO so they can pull off other countries logistic chains, although the ones the Canadians received had an 85% defect rate. At least it was a minor defect.

/next thing you know they'll be designing their own fighters again and then biatching about engineering costs


If we're not buying used stuff we are obligating ourselves to new stuff then cancelling the contract and shelling out money in penalties for doing so. Money that could have been used to buy stuff. Military spending is certainly not something any Canadian government has actually managed to do correctly in decades.

Take a look at the new F-35 jet we've committed ourselves to. The damn thing is practically still a sketch on an engineer's notebook and we are committing billions to it. Why the fark didn't we just take that money and go to Lockheed or McDonnell Douglas and buy something that is currently rolling off of their assembly lines? Or have them stamp out some F-18s and F-22s. It would still be better than anything our "enemies" could put into the air.
 
2012-07-19 06:26:20 PM  

silverjets: ha-ha-guy: To follow on, I'm amazed by the retardation that seems to fill the Canadian purchasing department. For most of their needs the most effective thing would just to be buy American. Just tag along on the American purchasing contracts so their units are the last out of the factory (read: after the US military has paid to fix all the bugs in the production line).

For example the submarines are just plain retarded. Canada bought the only four submarines in the class (that were made in the 1970s) instead of buying a type widely used by ABAC or NATO. So now they're the only people in the world with them and on the hook for doing all upgrades and parts purchasing on their own. No farking economies of scale. Meanwhile everyone else is bulk buying AIP upgrades for the Type 212 and laughing at the Canucks. The Oberons, the previous class of Canadian submarines were used by five different nations and various upgrades and mods were released for them (Harpoon firing ability, Mk48 torpedo tubes, etc). Now if the Canadians say want to refit the Upholders to hand mine clearing drones, they have to foot the entire bill by themselves instead of going in with other nations on the project. Also on any any joint NATO deployments they have to bring all their own parts.

The G-Wagen purchase was also questionable considering they paid to ship the farkers across the Atlantic to Canada (and then right back across to Kabul) instead of having some Hummers thrown on a train and shipped north. At least the G-Wagen is widely used in NATO so they can pull off other countries logistic chains, although the ones the Canadians received had an 85% defect rate. At least it was a minor defect.

/next thing you know they'll be designing their own fighters again and then biatching about engineering costs

If we're not buying used stuff we are obligating ourselves to new stuff then cancelling the contract and shelling out money in penalties for doing so. Money that could have been use ...


Canada's "enemies" are pretty much within the borders of Canada itself. I'm not talking military enemies, I'm talking political and otherwise. Canada is just too big and friendly to be a military target. We're happy enough to sell it, so why try to fight over it. And just try to occupy it. Of course, there's only a small percentage you'd actually want to occupy - like the strip joints in Montreal for example!
 
2012-07-19 06:26:35 PM  

silverjets:
If we're not buying used stuff we are obligating ourselves to new stuff then cancelling the contract and shelling out money in penalties for doing so. Money that could have been used to buy stuff. Military spending is certainly not something any Canadian government has actually managed to do correctly in decades.

Take a look at the new F-35 jet we've committed ourselves to. The damn thing is practically still a sketch on an engineer's notebook and we are committing billions to it. Why the fark didn't we just take that money and go to Lockheed or McDonnell Douglas and buy something that is currently rolling off of their assembly lines? Or have them stamp out some F-18s and F-22s. It would still be better than anything our "enemies" could put into the air.


The purchase or F-35's, was already implied when Canada moved up to level 3 industrial partner in 2002 (Liberals did it...). If Canada doesn't go through with the purchase, it's entirely likely our aviation industry won't be allowed to continue with development contracts for the F-35's; contracts to over 100 companies and institutions worth billions of dollars. Which is why we joined as a Level 3 partner...

There's nothing really wrong with the Hornets other than they're a bit dated, maintenance and replacement costs are only going up as people stop flying them. The Super Hornet is a good alternative, as are the Typhoon or Grippen etc. However purchase of those planes negate the possibility of long term industrial contracts which we've been eligible for...meaning they could end up costing just as much.

The "controversy" only got brought up for elections...which is funny, since the opposition started this whole process to begin with. No money has even been tendered yet beyond the initial partnership investments of about $160M.
 
2012-07-19 07:19:56 PM  
As much as I'd like to thank everyone for their sarcastic congratulations on sinking a stationary hulk, I should point out that it did endure quite a pounding from at least the Americans, Australians and Koreans before it sunk. So I encourage you to not only mock the Canadians but each and every nation and ships' crews that participated in the sinking, since obviously it's quite shameful to launch all those munitions at a disabled naval vessel.

I know, I know, it's just easier to just trash-talk Canada instead of everyone involved. Just pointing out that if you really want to be an ass, make sure you cover everything.
 
2012-07-19 08:12:22 PM  

gelovani: "Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, also lauded the accomplishment by the submarine and her crew. One of several subs purchased from the U.K. in 1998, HMCS Victoria has spent much of her time in Canada undergoing repairs and was only released for service earlier this year."

1998... that's 14 years ago that we (Canada) bought those useless pieces of sh*t from the Brits. They were 20 years old then. Then two of them caught on fire - one while being transported to Canada 9it wasn't even running), and one is STILL in drydock.

HUGE waste of $$$ all so smiley McKay can claim we have torpedoes.

What a laugh. Love my country. Hate my government.


Amen, brother.

I don't care about high taxes, so long as it's critical infrastructure, healthcare for all, and the *proper* tools for our military. We don't need nukes (although part of me wishes all this misspent money is actually going to some kind of secret orbital ice laser that we'll use when we finally have had enough with everyone's shiat), but we do need enough to pragmatically defend our coastline, support our international peacekeeping obligations, and spare our awesome ground, sea, and air forces the humiliation from having to hitch rides from our brothers and sisters in the USN.

/seriously, thanks for that though, rather have them ride shotgun on US aircraft than a seaking or something
//we should just drop those from bombers instead of actual bombs
 
2012-07-19 09:51:16 PM  
When it came time for me to put on the uniform I had given serious consideration to joining the Navy. I ended up in the artillery instead because at that time in my life I just wasn't ready to admit how much I wanted sodomy.

/just kidding Navy Beans.
//not really, ARTY RULES! ;P
 
2012-07-19 10:45:15 PM  
RIMPAC
"Let's all pretend this isn't about China!"
 
2012-07-20 12:30:04 AM  
Isn't treason for a Canadian to be rude?
 
2012-07-20 02:10:24 AM  

Ghastly: When it came time for me to put on the uniform I had given serious consideration to joining the Navy. I ended up in the artillery instead because at that time in my life I just wasn't ready to admit how much I wanted sodomy.

/just kidding Navy Beans.
//not really, ARTY RULES! ;P


I joined the Army only becuase I just couldn't wear those bell-bottoms with a spiffy scarf and the Gilligan hat.
 
2012-07-20 10:46:34 AM  
I really don't mind my country having a small military, land, sea, and air.

What really gets me is the shiatty shipbuilding industry. The second largest country in the world, ocean in every direction but south, minerals and metals up the wazoo, and we can't even make our own farking ships. We should be making ships like crazy and exporting them to Commonwealth/NATO allies.
 
2012-07-20 11:33:24 AM  

silverjets: Take a look at the new F-35 jet we've committed ourselves to. The damn thing is practically still a sketch on an engineer's notebook and we are committing billions to it. Why the fark didn't we just take that money and go to Lockheed or McDonnell Douglas and buy something that is currently rolling off of their assembly lines? Or have them stamp out some F-18s and F-22s. It would still be better than anything our "enemies" could put into the air.


You guys aren't cleared to buy the F-22. That's an American only toy. Stealthy and kills its pilots with glue fumes, so we're not sharing it.
 
2012-07-20 03:14:57 PM  

Radioactive Ass: That was a MK 48. Definitely not a light torpedo with a 650+ lb warhead.


Wow that didn't look like the explosion of a 48. I wonder if they had to do a match-bearings shot because it wasn't moving and so the torpedo hit the side of the ship instead of detonating, properly underneath it. Or perhaps I'm just mis-judging the size of the former USNS Concord.
 
2012-07-20 04:15:47 PM  

factoryconnection: Radioactive Ass: That was a MK 48. Definitely not a light torpedo with a 650+ lb warhead.

Wow that didn't look like the explosion of a 48. I wonder if they had to do a match-bearings shot because it wasn't moving and so the torpedo hit the side of the ship instead of detonating, properly underneath it. Or perhaps I'm just mis-judging the size of the former USNS Concord.


Typically surface ships are sunk by magnetic detection and not by impact due to the nature of the explosives found in the weapon. It most likely had some sort of noise generator to simulate normal ship-type sounds like engines or whatever for the weapon to home in on. As far as matching bearings I'm not quite sure what your talking about unless you mean a straight shot with no attempt at post launch guidance which is pretty unlikely in my opinion, O-Gangers just love to polish that cannonball a bit too much.

As far as the detonation goes it looked pretty typical to me if a bit aft of the ideal shot (which might explain why it took so long to finally sink). Usually the idea is to break it in half by removing the water out from underneath it and snapping its keel in half using its own weight against it which is best accomplished with a dead center hit.
 
Displayed 125 of 125 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report