[Jabberwalker]

"Forrest Gump"

[Jabberwalker]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

You don't have a hope in Hades of being elected as a school trustee.

A couple years ago the parents association for my old elementary school campaigned to keep the school open. The superintendent said he didn't care how much they campaigned, he wouldn't listen to anything but demographics and statistics. Ok, so I overwhelmed them with demographics and statistics. Parents gave impassioned pleas, but I gave hard numbers. We kept the school open.

Your numbers about the forces are utter nonsense. You should really stick a little closer to home.

[saturn_656]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

What I would like to see.
(And no, I don't have a lot of influence with the Liberal Party. I can hope, but not right now.)

• Build one destroyer to replace Huron.
• Refit our existing destroyers and frigates.
• Refit our existing AOR ships.
• Build one more AOR, but this one would have a "dual acting hull". That means heavy ice breaker, and able to cross deep ocean in heavy seas.
• Build one Roll-On/Roll-Off auto-transport ship. To transport army vehicles. Designate it "merchant marine" so it can carry commercial cargo when not needed by the military. That would defray cost. But military has priority; if they need it, travel to the nearest port to off-load commercial cargo and head directly to where ever the military needs.
• Keep our CF-18 fighter jets, and schedule yet another upgrade for the electronics. It's amazing how quick electronics gets obsolete.
• Fix as many as possible of the 17 aircraft written off. Raise the one that crashed into the ocean off the BC coast. Apply the last round of upgrades to those. Could we get 14 to work, scavenge parts, and shred the rest for scrap metal? Buy some surplus F/A-18C aircraft from the Americans. Becoming surplus as they get F-35C. And convert them to upgraded CF-18. If we repair 14 and buy 12, that should be enough for one operational combat squadron plus 2 more for maintenance cycle. We have enough in inventory now for another squadron. We currently have 1 training squadron plus 2 combat; this would give us 1 training plus 4 combat.
• Re-commission the air force station at Resolute. Ensure it has a heated hanger for one full squadron of CF-18 fighters. And tarmac (aircraft parking lot) for a second squadron. And barracks for pilots and support technicians for two combat squadrons. Not intended to permanently base a squadron there, but can house two squadrons for an "action". Plus support for Hercules cargo planes, and Aurora patrol aircraft.
• Permanently base at Resolute reconnaissance UAVs. Could we get a few MQ-9 Reapers fitted with all the sensors of an E-2D Advanced Hawkeye?
• Complete the Conservative's new heavy icebreaker: Diefenbaker. However, keep the CCGS Louis S. St. Laurent as well, and refit it. The refit would add hard points for the same weaponry as a Halifax class frigate, and the same radar. Keep the weapons at Resolute. And have a Skycrane model helicopter available to transport the weapons to the icebreaker while at sea. Do the same with the intermediate icebreaker CCGS Amundsen.
• Fix the God damn submarines.
• Send a crew of prisoners to Nanisivik for hard labour. Dismantle the sea port; clean the mooring posts for re-use. Remove steel re-bar and sell to a steel smelter for recycling. And recycle the concrete to cement powder on-site at Nanisivik. That would require some fresh limestone; find a quarry near Nanisivik. The key to recycling concrete is cheap labour; that's why we would use prisoners. Use that cement and mooring posts to build a new port at Resolute. The new port would be specifically built to service the largest oil tanker ever built, and the largest container ship ever built. After all, that's what would go there. And ensure all our Coast Guard and Navy ships could port there. Dismantle the steel buildings for the port at Nanisivik, clean, and re-assemble at Resolute. So the whole port is moved.
• Start a program to develop a new unmanned combat drone: high performance. Able to carry 2 HARM missiles internally, or intercept a Tu-22M Backfire, or Tu-160 Blackjack (Russian nickname White Swan).
• Have CF-18 pilots practice a manoeuvre to drop a bomb on arctic ice, fly around, then drop a Mark 48 heavyweight torpedo through the hole. Intended to target a Russian sub. Ensure the torpedo can handle that.

And I want to be the Finance Minister. Mwa ha ha ha ha. (evil laugh)

A new class of destroyer with only one ship built isn't economic.

The destroyers are tapped out, Iroquois has serious hull corrosion and the others are not far behind. Four new vessels with more capable radar sets and increased missile capacity are required.

The frigates just had a major refit, another is not required.

AOR 509 is beyond economic repair. She should be cannibalized for spares to keep 510 running until the Queenston arrives.

A third AOR (of the Queenston class) should be acquired.

Overtures should be made to the French for one of the Mistrals originally intended for Russia.

Our (operational) Hornet fleet just received an update. Another one is not economical considering the impending obsolescence of the aircraft. Retrieving and rebuilding a sunk Hornet is uneconomical if not impossible.

The subs are not worth any major infusions of cash. They are nearing 30. Replacements should be ordered from a foreign yard for delivery sometime in the next decade.

That's just off the top of my head.

[Jabberwalker]

The subs are not worth any major infusions of cash. They are nearing 30. Replacements should be ordered from a foreign yard for delivery sometime in the next decade.


Buy them from the Germans, this time.

No more Lucas "Prince of Darkness" skookum wiring stuff.

[Winnipegger]

Oh, did I mention? Canada invented the process to make bomb grade plutonium. That's one reason why Canada was one of the three equal partners with the US and UK in the Manhattan Project in World War 2. We taught the Americans how to do it. They invented the process to enrich uranium, but we invented bomb grade plutonium. And since we were part of the Manhattan Project, we have the technology to fashion it into a bomb. That research was done at the Chalk River Nuclear Research Facility, on the Chalk river, just north of Ottawa. After World War 2, that facility was converted to make medical isotopes. When the NRX reactor wore out, we replaced it with the NRU reactor. It had all the same capabilities, including making bomb grade plutonium in required quantities for a small number of bombs, and fashioning the plutonium into the finely machined nuclear core. There is no capability to handle chemical explosives at Chalk River for the detonator, but that's the only thing missing. Pierre Trudeau got rid of the last nuclear weapons we acquired from the US, but most people ignore the fact we retained a factory that can be easily and quickly converted into a nuclear weapons factory. And medical isotopes are being made in a manner that ensures workers actively practice the skills they need to make nuclear bombs.

Oops! I guess that was supposed to be secret. But a secret that every military already knows. In fact Iran tried to claim their nuclear facility was for medical isotopes. Can't fool Canada, we invented that scam.

[Winnipegger]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The frigates just had a major refit, another is not required.

That's part of my point.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Our (operational) Hornet fleet just received an update. Another one is not economical considering the impending obsolescence of the aircraft.

Also part of my point. But rather than replace them, schedule another update when the current one becomes obsolete.

Instead of replacing them, I envision the Hornets taking on a new role. Instead of front-line fighter, they would become "bomb trucks". The new combat UAV would be the front line fighter.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Overtures should be made to the French for one of the Mistrals originally intended for Russia.

Good idea. Depending on cost.

[saturn_656]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

The frigates just had a major refit, another is not required.

That's part of my point.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Our (operational) Hornet fleet just received an update. Another one is not economical considering the impending obsolescence of the aircraft.

Also part of my point. But rather than replace them, schedule another update when the current one becomes obsolete.

Instead of replacing them, I envision the Hornets taking on a new role. Instead of front-line fighter, they would become "bomb trucks". The new combat UAV would be the front line fighter.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Overtures should be made to the French for one of the Mistrals originally intended for Russia.

Good idea. Depending on cost.

I'm confused, in your list you called for a refit for the frigates, but one was just completed. Another refit isn't necessary.

UCAV's haven't advanced to the point where they can replace manned fighters. Supplement yes, replace no.

[Winnipegger]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I'm confused, in your list you called for a refit for the frigates, but one was just completed. Another refit isn't necessary.

How far along is it? In the future for some ships? In process. Or fully completed? In either case, that's all we need. Not some new ship to replace what we just paid to refit.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

UCAV's haven't advanced to the point where they can replace manned fighters. Supplement yes, replace no.

And manned fighters in 1953 weren't advanced enough to supercruise at mach 1.5, or fly with afterburner at mach 2.5. But development of the Avro Arrow was started in 1953, mark 1 prototype finished in 1958, and mark 2 only required integration of engine for completion, one day work in 1959. I'm saying an Avro Arrow scale project, but for a new UCAV.

[Gunnair]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I'm confused, in your list you called for a refit for the frigates, but one was just completed. Another refit isn't necessary.

How far along is it? In the future for some ships? In process. Or fully completed? In either case, that's all we need. Not some new ship to replace what we just paid to refit.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

UCAV's haven't advanced to the point where they can replace manned fighters. Supplement yes, replace no.

And manned fighters in 1953 weren't advanced enough to supercruise at mach 1.5, or fly with afterburner at mach 2.5. But development of the Avro Arrow was started in 1953, mark 1 prototype finished in 1958, and mark 2 only required integration of engine for completion, one day work in 1959. I'm saying an Avro Arrow scale project, but for a new UCAV.

Honestly, it's like arguing with a child when it comes to discussing things with you. FELEX is in process and the new combat ships aren't meant to replace them until the HAL reaches end of life. The first four that come online will be to replace the DDHs. That will be over a staggered number of years so as to avoid the boom and bust of the traditional Canadian approach. The fact that can't wrap your mind around that is hardly our problem though the utter nonsense you continue to inject into the conversation is our cross to bear.

[Winnipegger]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Honestly, it's like arguing with a child when it comes to discussing things with you. FELEX is in process and the new combat ships aren't meant to replace them until the HAL reaches end of life. The first four that come online will be to replace the DDHs. That will be over a staggered number of years so as to avoid the boom and bust of the traditional Canadian approach. The fact that can't wrap your mind around that is hardly our problem though the utter nonsense you continue to inject into the conversation is our cross to bear.

Except the metal fatigue argument is not credible. And ship bow design has not had a major breakthrough. The new ships will not be catamaran or trimaran, they will not be fibreglass or carbon fibre. That isn't nonsense, that means there is no new technology. The new hull is the same as the old. Refit means replacing electronics and weapons, except there are no newer weapons available. There is some research for new weapons, but you consider mention that a distraction. The point is our ship weapons have been upgraded sufficiently that there are no newer ship weapons currently available. When anti-missile lasers become available, then we'll talk.

[saturn_656]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I'm confused, in your list you called for a refit for the frigates, but one was just completed. Another refit isn't necessary.

How far along is it? In the future for some ships? In process. Or fully completed? In either case, that's all we need. Not some new ship to replace what we just paid to refit.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

UCAV's haven't advanced to the point where they can replace manned fighters. Supplement yes, replace no.

And manned fighters in 1953 weren't advanced enough to supercruise at mach 1.5, or fly with afterburner at mach 2.5. But development of the Avro Arrow was started in 1953, mark 1 prototype finished in 1958, and mark 2 only required integration of engine for completion, one day work in 1959. I'm saying an Avro Arrow scale project, but for a new UCAV.

The refit program should be complete by 2017, last I read.

The replacement for the first Halifax vessel won't be until sometime in the next decade (hull 4 or 5 in the new combatant program) by the time she is replaced Halifax will have 30+ years under her belt.

So you want a multi-billion dollar program to create a new breed of UCAV? Fair enough. I don't see it happening though.

[Gunnair]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Honestly, it's like arguing with a child when it comes to discussing things with you. FELEX is in process and the new combat ships aren't meant to replace them until the HAL reaches end of life. The first four that come online will be to replace the DDHs. That will be over a staggered number of years so as to avoid the boom and bust of the traditional Canadian approach. The fact that can't wrap your mind around that is hardly our problem though the utter nonsense you continue to inject into the conversation is our cross to bear.

Except the metal fatigue argument is not credible. And ship bow design has not had a major breakthrough. The new ships will not be catamaran or trimaran, they will not be fibreglass or carbon fibre. That isn't nonsense, that means there is no new technology. The new hull is the same as the old. Refit means replacing electronics and weapons, except there are no newer weapons available. There is some research for new weapons, but you consider mention that a distraction. The point is our ship weapons have been upgraded sufficiently that there are no newer ship weapons currently available. When anti-missile lasers become available, then we'll talk.

I get it, you're a hobby blacksmith which suddenly makes you a credible analyst on the current state of RCN ships.

You keep Milli vanilling the topic though each time you wax fake though.

[Gunnair]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I'm confused, in your list you called for a refit for the frigates, but one was just completed. Another refit isn't necessary.

How far along is it? In the future for some ships? In process. Or fully completed? In either case, that's all we need. Not some new ship to replace what we just paid to refit.

saturn_656 saturn_656:

UCAV's haven't advanced to the point where they can replace manned fighters. Supplement yes, replace no.

And manned fighters in 1953 weren't advanced enough to supercruise at mach 1.5, or fly with afterburner at mach 2.5. But development of the Avro Arrow was started in 1953, mark 1 prototype finished in 1958, and mark 2 only required integration of engine for completion, one day work in 1959. I'm saying an Avro Arrow scale project, but for a new UCAV.

The refit program should be complete by 2017, last I read.

The replacement for the first Halifax vessel won't be until sometime in the next decade (hull 4 or 5 in the new combatant program) by the time she is replaced Halifax will have 30+ years under her belt.

So you want a multi-billion dollar program to create a new breed of UCAV? Fair enough. I don't see it happening though.

That's mid life according to the marine architect...or the guy who plays one on the internet. Don't ask him for a ref to back that up though because he won't find one. It's his blacksmith hobby experience kicking in.

[saturn_656]

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Honestly, it's like arguing with a child when it comes to discussing things with you. FELEX is in process and the new combat ships aren't meant to replace them until the HAL reaches end of life. The first four that come online will be to replace the DDHs. That will be over a staggered number of years so as to avoid the boom and bust of the traditional Canadian approach. The fact that can't wrap your mind around that is hardly our problem though the utter nonsense you continue to inject into the conversation is our cross to bear.

Except the metal fatigue argument is not credible. And ship bow design has not had a major breakthrough. The new ships will not be catamaran or trimaran, they will not be fibreglass or carbon fibre. That isn't nonsense, that means there is no new technology. The new hull is the same as the old. Refit means replacing electronics and weapons, except there are no newer weapons available. There is some research for new weapons, but you consider mention that a distraction. The point is our ship weapons have been upgraded sufficiently that there are no newer ship weapons currently available. When anti-missile lasers become available, then we'll talk.

Look into why DDG 280 is currently laid up for more detail on the reasons why hulls are not immortal.

[Gunnair]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

Winnipegger Winnipegger:

Gunnair Gunnair:

Honestly, it's like arguing with a child when it comes to discussing things with you. FELEX is in process and the new combat ships aren't meant to replace them until the HAL reaches end of life. The first four that come online will be to replace the DDHs. That will be over a staggered number of years so as to avoid the boom and bust of the traditional Canadian approach. The fact that can't wrap your mind around that is hardly our problem though the utter nonsense you continue to inject into the conversation is our cross to bear.

Except the metal fatigue argument is not credible. And ship bow design has not had a major breakthrough. The new ships will not be catamaran or trimaran, they will not be fibreglass or carbon fibre. That isn't nonsense, that means there is no new technology. The new hull is the same as the old. Refit means replacing electronics and weapons, except there are no newer weapons available. There is some research for new weapons, but you consider mention that a distraction. The point is our ship weapons have been upgraded sufficiently that there are no newer ship weapons currently available. When anti-missile lasers become available, then we'll talk.

Look into why DDG 280 is currently laid up for more detail on the reasons why hulls are not immortal.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/hmcs-iroquois-corrosion-means-ship-s-future-uncertain-1.2684135

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/here-is-what-the-rust-on-hmcs-iroquois-looks-like-ship-to-remain-tied-up-as-it-may-not-be-safe-to-send-to-sea

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/hmcs-iroquois-limited-in-operations-because-of-cracks

http://o.canada.com/news/national/damage-to-hmcs-iroquois-will-restrict-future-missions