Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Amusing, Hawaii, Canadian Navy, Canadians, military exercise, Japanese, Canadian soldiers, Mackay, sailors  
•       •       •

10026 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Jul 2012 at 1:02 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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 25 of 125 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


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