Canadian Military News

[CaptainCrunch]

There was a bunker under Old's college that was designed for the evacuation of key government figures.

(BTW) sitting in that place for a week does drive one crazy and destroy your sense of time.

There was a deep bunker at Penhold as well.

They wouldn't have really put a bunker in a major city like Calgary or Edmonton as they were targeted by multiple fairly large warheads during the Cold War.

I don't recall there being a government or military deep bunker in Calgary. The idea of an evacuation was to get leaders out of town and away from the blast zone.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

They wouldn't have really put a bunker in a major city like Calgary or Edmonton as they were targeted by multiple fairly large warheads during the Cold War.

What? Can you elaborate on that? Why would Calgary have been a target during the cold war?

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

What? Can you elaborate on that? Why would Calgary have been a target during the cold war?

Major population centre of an enemy state for starters. Add in it was the nerve centre for the nation's energy (oil and gas) industry and there you have it.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Lubicon

Major population centre of an enemy state for starters. Add in it was the nerve centre for the nation's energy (oil and gas) industry and there you have it.

Runway 34/16, now 35L/17R was the reason Calgary was targeted, more than long enough for fully loaded bombers to take off.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

What? Can you elaborate on that? Why would Calgary have been a target during the cold war?

Because it was a major energy center, and it was also a major logistical center for the Canadian Forces and was home to a rapid response NATO unit, and had a major airport.

Edmonton would have been flattened as a major population center and government center and major communications and logistical/road hub it also had a major airport

It would depend on the Soviet War plan at the time. If it was counterforce, or the removal of American, nuclear weapons and military bases, Calgary for example gets off clean.

But if it was a general city busting war, Calgary would probably be considered a secondary target to major American military and Norad targets, but that doesn't mean they get off scott free in Calgary and Edmonton.

Calgary would have probably been hit by all three legs of the Nuclear Triad (Land Sea and Air) even though later on in the Cold war the use of strategic Bombers had fell into disfavor, Calgary probably still would have been hit by a Mirv'd ICBM and probably also hit with a depressed shot from a Sub launched Medium Range missile with multiple war heads.

Also Calgary again would have been a secondary target of some importance, so it would have been subject to the common concept of over kill, which is to kit it with multiple weapons to ensure at least one weapon arrives.

A scondary target would see a attack of between 5 and 8 war heads, considering that at its height the Soviets had about 40,000 nukes in 1985 this doesn't even represent a tiny fraction of the total output. The thought for example is that Ontario would be hit by between 40 and 50 war heads.

While Calgary probably wouldn't have been hit by the rarer heavy warheads in the megaton range, getting hit by 5 to 8 20 kt to 50 kt weapons would be devastating enough.

If you hit downtown Calgary with a 50 kt weapon the fireball would pretty much devour everything out to the Calgary zoo on one side, Crowchild trail to the East and 16th ave to the North and about 33rd avenue to the South.

Earlier this year there were cold war documents released that had an expected target list and Canada's defense plans against Nuclear attacks.

[GoinAllTheWay]

Guess that would explain why the cities air raid sirens stuck around long after WW2?

[automaton 3]

A growing up, a friend's father was a senior officer in the air force.

At the peak of the cold war he said that the Soviets had such a huge number of warheads that basically anything of value was probably targeted. At that time, even tiny Lethbridge was a potential target in an all-out launch scenario.

Would have been moot in any event whether any warheads were directly targeted, as the missile sites in Montana would likely to have been heavily targeted, and the potential fallout on Southern Alberta could have been devastating.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

(BTW) sitting in that place for a week does drive one crazy and destroy your sense of time.
.

I lived in the one in Borden for 6 weeks during a course.


You are bang on about your sense of time.

[Harry Lime]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I lived in the one in Borden for 6 weeks during a course.

You are bang on about your sense of time.

*quiet voice* Are you sure you got out?

*hushed voice* ....maybe.....maybe.....

*whisper*...you're still there....

[browna]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

There was a bunker under Old's college that was designed for the evacuation of key government figures.

(BTW) sitting in that place for a week does drive one crazy and destroy your sense of time.

There was a deep bunker at Penhold as well.

They wouldn't have really put a bunker in a major city like Calgary or Edmonton as they were targeted by multiple fairly large warheads during the Cold War.

I don't recall there being a government or military deep bunker in Calgary. The idea of an evacuation was to get leaders out of town and away from the blast zone.

Here’s the link, Calgary mention about 2/3 down.

http://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4424523

[undercoverbrother]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/nation...ly-ship-really

Politicians and unions in Quebec are turning up the heat on the Liberal government, questioning why Davie shipyards in the province isn’t getting any more work from the federal government. Davie converted a commercial container ship into a supply vessel for the Royal Canadian Navy. It was on time and on budget. The ship, the Asterix, goes into service early next year and under the agreement will be leased to the RCN.

Transport Minister, and former navy officer, Marc Garneau said the federal government doesn’t need another supply ship.
”We cannot artificially create a need for something that doesn’t exist,” he told reporters on the weekend.

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHA

Two coasts 1 ship, well at least it is easy to get a ship from the west coast to the east coast and back again.

[btimbit]

If it was on time and on budget that's why the government isn't interested

[GoinAllTheWay]

Sweet Jesus. Haven't we,until recent times anyways, had at least 2 supply ships?

If it was on time and on budget that's why the government isn't interested

Clearly they're intimidated by their competence. They don't tolerate that kinda crap in Ottawa.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay

Sweet Jesus. Haven't we,until recent times anyways, had at least 2 supply ships?
.

HMSC Preserver: decommissioned Oct 2016

HMSC Provider: decommissioned June 1998

[socktape]

https://ca.yahoo.com/news/canada-scr...231800010.html

Canada to possibly buy Australian F-18s instead of the Super Hornets, with spare parts included in the box.

[CaptainCrunch]

Why don't we just buy a fleet of P-51 Mustangs.

This is so completely idiotic, we're pissing away money on a strategy of replacing our current jets with basically older jets.

That's some executive thinking.

So this government is completely futzing up due to pride.

We're not buying the F-35 one of the most capable fighter planes in the world that can support this airforce and keep it current for the next 30 to 35 years, because of stupidity. Even though the manufacturer has said that they'll sell us interim's for about $80 million US.

Then they go out and spec out Super hornets that they're going to pay over $100 million bucks a copy for as interim fighters, But at least they're semi modern and not worn out. But instead decide not to not for military concerns as much as for political concerns.

So where does that leave us.

Lets see.

The Liberal's in true Liberal fashion are probably going to over pay on obsolete equipment that's well used, and then kick the decision to do the actual fighter jet replacement down the road by a decade or two until they can pork barrel something with Bombardier.

Moron's

If we pay anymore then lets say $10 million a plane, its a massive overpayment.

Hey I have a solution, lets buy some Mig 23's on Kijiji they're only about a million bucks a copy.

So here's the irony, the Australians are going to sell us their well worn F-18's and they're probably snickering about that as they promise to throw in those mirror hanging air fresheners, and they're going to take that money and put it towards their purchase of F-35's.

that sound you hear, is the Aussie's laughing at our stupidity Oy OY OY

[speede5]

This just seems like the Gov is playing games to buy time until the next election. The Aussie 18's will probably get dragged out for a year or two and I can almost see them conceding to buy F-35's a few months before the election if they are in a tight race.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Why don't we just buy a fleet of P-51 Mustangs.

This is so completely idiotic, we're pissing away money on a strategy of replacing our current jets with basically older jets.

That's some executive thinking.

So this government is completely futzing up due to pride.

We're not buying the F-35 one of the most capable fighter planes in the world that can support this airforce and keep it current for the next 30 to 35 years, because of stupidity. Even though the manufacturer has said that they'll sell us interim's for about $80 million US.

Then they go out and spec out Super hornets that they're going to pay over $100 million bucks a copy for as interim fighters, But at least they're semi modern and not worn out. But instead decide not to not for military concerns as much as for political concerns.

So where does that leave us.

Lets see.

The Liberal's in true Liberal fashion are probably going to over pay on obsolete equipment that's well used, and then kick the decision to do the actual fighter jet replacement down the road by a decade or two until they can pork barrel something with Bombardier.

Moron's

If we pay anymore then lets say $10 million a plane, its a massive overpayment.

Hey I have a solution, lets buy some Mig 23's on Kijiji they're only about a million bucks a copy.

So here's the irony, the Australians are going to sell us their well worn F-18's and they're probably snickering about that as they promise to throw in those mirror hanging air fresheners, and they're going to take that money and put it towards their purchase of F-35's.

that sound you hear, is the Aussie's laughing at our stupidity Oy OY OY

Just complete and utter stupidity. On military issues his government couldn’t tell its ass from a hole in the ground. What a joke.

[CaptainCrunch]

[CaptainCrunch]