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 19
    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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-07-19 01:54:42 PM  
3 votes:

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 01:33:05 PM  
2 votes:

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 06:06:23 PM  
1 votes:

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 03:30:41 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:23:18 PM  
1 votes:
Doesn't change the fact that Canada got pantsed by the British and sold some pieces of junk.
2012-07-19 02:17:20 PM  
1 votes:

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 02:02:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:58:21 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:50:34 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:41:13 PM  
1 votes:

Robo Beat: Obligatory.

/Canada has a warship? Like for war?


Yep, more ships per capita than the US.

/Hilarious link, BTW.
2012-07-19 01:35:50 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:29:58 PM  
1 votes:
There are no longer any subs at West Edmonton Mall, actually

/their new location is a government secret
2012-07-19 01:24:39 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:23:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 01:18:05 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:17:59 PM  
1 votes:
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 01:16:45 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:52:53 AM  
1 votes:
mojoimage.com


/better than Subway
2012-07-19 12:25:07 AM  
1 votes:

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!!
 
Displayed 19 of 19 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