Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Go Back   Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community > Main Forums > The Off Topic Forum
Ivrnet

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-29-2011, 01:06 PM   #41
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Kingston
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay View Post
Please elaborate. Are you saying we already have them?
From what I understand, we have the components, they just need some minor assembling.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
FlamesAddiction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 01:30 PM   #42
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay View Post
Please elaborate. Are you saying we already have them?
I was making a joke, back in the day, Canada was a nuclear nation. We had nuclear depth charges, air to air missiles for the 104 starfighter, and surface to surface nuclear tipped missiles.

When we got rid of them, there was always a rumor in the military that this arsenal was never returned to the U.S. but was stored up at CFB Alert in case we ever needed them.

In real life, I doubt we would have them, plus they'd be about 40 years old and we wouldn't have the equipment and training to use them.

But it made for some excellent drunken conversations in the mess.

We might have the components, which aren't that different from what you'd see used at a mine, precision triggers, precision shaped explosives, but I don't think we have the material or the means to shape it.
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 01:41 PM   #43
Envitro
First Line Centre
 
Envitro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Saddledome, Calgary
Exp:
Default

A few buddies of mine are in the forces, and two of them having worked in intelligence with some pretty high clearance. Every time I brought up nukes and asked if we had them they had a smirk on their face and the typical "can neither confirm nor deny" comment LOL

Think what you want but I'm sure we're packing heat, one way or another.
Envitro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 02:07 PM   #44
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

They're in intelligence, half of the fun in their life is based around stirring the information pot.

I have my doubts that we have nukes, we really don't have the delivery systems that make it worth our while to have them.

The only real delivery systems that we have are either with our battlefield howitzers, or on the missile systems on the frigates.

We could modify the f-18's, but I don't think that they're capable now.
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 02:47 PM   #45
Flash Walken
Franchise Player
 
Flash Walken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
They're in intelligence, half of the fun in their life is based around stirring the information pot.
Love that line.

The job description is often more about misinformation delivery than intelligence gathering.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by erikk3 View Post
Hell yeah neck tats let's go
Flash Walken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 03:08 PM   #46
sclitheroe
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
air to air missiles for the 104 starfighter
Slight correction, which makes them infinitely cooler - they were Genie air-to-air rockets which means they were unguided. Point them at a formation of incoming bombers, and as long as they go off close enough, mission accomplished.

Here is a Canadian CF-101 launching a Genie, 1.5kilotons of nuclear welcome mat



God I love nukes. It's unhealthy and unbalanced, but the raw power combined with the engineering gets me lathered up.
__________________
-Scott
sclitheroe is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sclitheroe For This Useful Post:
Old 10-29-2011, 04:59 PM   #47
Fire
Franchise Player
 
Fire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacGr3gor View Post
We don't need nukes, the good ol' US of A has enough to go around.
Canada should have control of their own nukes and you never know if we will need them to prevent an attack from the USA.
__________________

Fire is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 05:16 PM   #48
peter12
Lifetime Suspension
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fire View Post
Canada should have control of their own nukes and you never know if we will need them to prevent an attack from the USA.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 05:17 PM   #49
burn_this_city
Franchise Player
 
burn_this_city's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Nukes are pretty useless when everyone knows they can't use them without facing total destruction.
burn_this_city is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 05:56 PM   #50
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by burn_this_city View Post
Nukes are pretty useless when everyone knows they can't use them without facing total destruction.
That is exactly why we should have 20 of them.

Sent from my SGH-T959D using Tapatalk
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-29-2011, 06:44 PM   #51
RougeUnderoos
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clinching Party
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure View Post
I don't know why its so hard to understand the need for nuclear powered subs.

The subs we have now have cost over $1 billion just to repair. That money would have been better spent in purchasing new ones.

Beyond that, they give us a MUCH greater ability to control our interests everywhere in the world.
Can you provide an example of an interest "everywhere in the world" that we'd need a nuclear sub to exercise "control" over?

The Arctic, I can kind of get that (although since global warming is a myth, I do find that a little odd), but it sounds like there are other places we need to control.
__________________

RougeUnderoos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 01:53 PM   #52
Bindair Dundat
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Albert
Exp:
Thumbs up For those who feel like a little "Sunday readin'..."

Quote:
Originally Posted by sclitheroe View Post
Slight correction, which makes them infinitely cooler - they were Genie air-to-air rockets which means they were unguided. Point them at a formation of incoming bombers, and as long as they go off close enough, mission accomplished.

Here is a Canadian CF-101 launching a Genie, 1.5kilotons of nuclear welcome mat



God I love nukes. It's unhealthy and unbalanced, but the raw power combined with the engineering gets me lathered up.
EPIC POST TO FOLLOW...

It's Sunday and I was bored...

What I believe the good "Captain" may have been referencing is the nuclear role of the Canadian CF-104 squadrons serving in 4 ATAF, NATO, during the height of the Cold War.

Canada had made the decision to "go nuclear" in the middle of Diefenbaker's mandate. Over the remainder of Diefenbaker's term (and well into Pearson's), we entered negotiations with the US, with respect to the following capabilities:

The "Bomarc" SAM system (integrated under SAGE/NORAD)

The CF-101/"Genie" combination (also under SAGE/NORAD)

The "Honest John" SSM (to be deployed @ Hemer/W. Germany, under 4CIBG)

The CF-104/B28 gravity bomb.

I can find no evidence of the RCN/MARCOM ever deploying US nukes under a "custodial agreement", depth charges or otherwise.

Canada's CF-104 Squadrons were eventually certified operational for the carriage/delivery of three different "gravity weapons", in a number of distinct configurations:

B 28EX ("variable yield", external carriage, non-retarded) IOC:June 1964

B 28RE ("variable yield", external carriage, equipped with a parachute for low-level "precision" delivery) IOC: "Spring" of 1964

B 43 Mod1("high yield" [1MT], deliverable either retarded or gravity) IOC: Oct 1968

B 57 ("low yield" [15-20KT], "tactical" weapon) IOC: April, 1966

The B 43 capability was short lived in Canadian service; only one Wing ("4 Wing", Baden-Soelingen, FRG) of two Squadrons (421, 422), ever carried the weapon. By late 1969-early 1970 (sources are unclear) the B 43 was withdrawn and supplanted by B 28/ B 57's at 4 Wing.

All of the B 28's "assigned" to Canada were in the lower yield ranges, either 70KT "variable" (set by means of an external "selector" dial; this done by the USAF "armorers" in the QRA) or 350KT "variable" (also set manually prior to flight). Security was provided by a four (later six) digit code, entered by USAF personel into a keypad on the weapon as the final "step", prior to the aircraft departing the QRA for the active runway. The weapon was still not "live" at this point however.

Responsibilty was now transferred to the Canadian pilot, as he was given a copy of the same code by the USAF groundcrewman, just prior to pulling the canopy closed.
Once safely airborne, the pilot would "enable" the bomb delivery system. This sent onboard power to the nuclear device; he would then select for either "air" or "ground" burst (done by enabling the respective safety switch in the cockpit). He would then have to enter the security code given (prior to departure) into the keypad device in his cockpit and only then would he be able to move the bomb selector switch from "off" to "enable". This would then send a signal from the keypad in the cockpit to the keypad in the device...if the codes matched, the bomb would then proceed to arm itself for either ground or airburst.

At the height of the Canadian committment to the nuclear strike role, the RCAF had six CF-104 Squadrons each standing a 4 ship (instantaneous)QRA, all based in the FRG. These were 427, 430 and 434 Sqds (based at 3 Wing, Zweibrucken) and 421, 422 and 444 Sqds at 4 Wing. These aircraft were manned and armed 24-7 and would be "on their way" inside of 15 minutes (much less than this, but this was the "QRA" standard). The RCAF committment represented about 20% of NATO's capability for fast all-weather attack aircraft in the nuclear role, within 4 ATAF (Allied Tactical Air Force).

1967 saw a major "reorganization"/contraction, concurrent with the closure of 1 Air Division HQ at Metz (France) and the closure of 1 Wing's French base at Marville ("2 Wing" [Grostenquin] had been closed in the early 60's). Nuclear attack capability was "drawn down" to a total of 4 Squadrons, 2 each at Baden and Zweibrucken... a total of 72 aircraft. 444 (Baden) and 434 (Zweibrucken) were disbanded at this time. 1 AD HQ was relocated to the former Armee de L'air (French) airbase at Lahr (in the FRG), and 1 Wing's 2 Strike/Recon Squadron's (439, 441) followed shorly thereafter.

With the advent of the "Trudeau Revolution", came the beginings of a firm political mandate to see Canada to get out of the nuclear role in NATO.

Another major "re-shuffling" of the "deck chairs on the Titanic" came in 1969, with the closure/disbandment of 3 Wing.
This saw the transfer of 430 (S/A, nuclear) Sqd to 1 Wing, 427 Sqd, (S/A, nuclear) to 4 Wing, and shortly thereafter, the merger of 1 Wing's 441 S/R and 439 S/R into 441 S/A. The USAF jumped through hoops to get the requisite "nuclear" infrastructure established at Lahr and IOC for the 1 Wing QRA was achieved in June of 1969.

Contraction continued fast and furious...By June of 1970, the USAF were back at Lahr, picking up their nukes, and moving all their people back to Ramstein. 430 Sqd was disbanded at Lahr and 2 months later 441 was transferred to Baden; at Baden, 422 and 427 Sqds were disbanded, leaving 421 and 441 Sqds as the only nuclear capable units in CFE. In August 1970, 1 "Air Division" became 1 Canadian Air Group and curiously, 441 Squadron was broken back apart into 441 and 439 Sqds., with 439 once again flying in the Strike/Reconnaisance role.

It was also at this time, that the political decision was taken whereby a good percentage of the CF-104 force was to be "disposed of". Denmark, Norway, and Turkey all took delivery of ex-RCAF machines as they were "retired" throughout the early-mid '70's.

When my family arrived in CFE in the spring of 1971, I remember my Dad pointing out the window of the 707 over in the direction of the south QRA; we'd landed at Baden, as the runway in Lahr was being resurfaced at the time. He said to me: "See over there, inside the fences? That's why we came to Germany."
I'll never forget the feeling of seeing that, up close. The armed guards and the dogs with their handlers; No one saw that view back then...except under "extenuating circumstances"...Like those that put us there, turning off at the end of the active runway.

Anyone truly interested in this period of Canada's military history should seek out this book: "Canadian nuclear weapons: The untold story of Canada's Cold War arsenal", John Clearwater, Dundurn Press Ltd. (1998).
The author relies primarily on (then) recently declassified documents, many of which are reproduced in their entirety in the book. I have it in my own library...it is the source used in the preparation of this (admittedly voluminous) post.

Cheers, Ron
Bindair Dundat is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Bindair Dundat For This Useful Post:
Old 10-30-2011, 03:36 PM   #53
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindair Dundat View Post
EPIC POST TO FOLLOW...

It's Sunday and I was bored...

What I believe the good "Captain" may have been referencing is the nuclear role of the Canadian CF-104 squadrons serving in 4 ATAF, NATO, during the height of the Cold War.

Canada had made the decision to "go nuclear" in the middle of Diefenbaker's mandate. Over the remainder of Diefenbaker's term (and well into Pearson's), we entered negotiations with the US, with respect to the following capabilities:

The "Bomarc" SAM system (integrated under SAGE/NORAD)

The CF-101/"Genie" combination (also under SAGE/NORAD)

The "Honest John" SSM (to be deployed @ Hemer/W. Germany, under 4CIBG)

The CF-104/B28 gravity bomb.

I can find no evidence of the RCN/MARCOM ever deploying US nukes under a "custodial agreement", depth charges or otherwise.

Canada's CF-104 Squadrons were eventually certified operational for the carriage/delivery of three different "gravity weapons", in a number of distinct configurations:

B 28EX ("variable yield", external carriage, non-retarded) IOC:June 1964

B 28RE ("variable yield", external carriage, equipped with a parachute for low-level "precision" delivery) IOC: "Spring" of 1964

B 43 Mod1("high yield" [1MT], deliverable either retarded or gravity) IOC: Oct 1968

B 57 ("low yield" [15-20KT], "tactical" weapon) IOC: April, 1966

The B 43 capability was short lived in Canadian service; only one Wing ("4 Wing", Baden-Soelingen, FRG) of two Squadrons (421, 422), ever carried the weapon. By late 1969-early 1970 (sources are unclear) the B 43 was withdrawn and supplanted by B 28/ B 57's at 4 Wing.

All of the B 28's "assigned" to Canada were in the lower yield ranges, either 70KT "variable" (set by means of an external "selector" dial; this done by the USAF "armorers" in the QRA) or 350KT "variable" (also set manually prior to flight). Security was provided by a four (later six) digit code, entered by USAF personel into a keypad on the weapon as the final "step", prior to the aircraft departing the QRA for the active runway. The weapon was still not "live" at this point however.

Responsibilty was now transferred to the Canadian pilot, as he was given a copy of the same code by the USAF groundcrewman, just prior to pulling the canopy closed.
Once safely airborne, the pilot would "enable" the bomb delivery system. This sent onboard power to the nuclear device; he would then select for either "air" or "ground" burst (done by enabling the respective safety switch in the cockpit). He would then have to enter the security code given (prior to departure) into the keypad device in his cockpit and only then would he be able to move the bomb selector switch from "off" to "enable". This would then send a signal from the keypad in the cockpit to the keypad in the device...if the codes matched, the bomb would then proceed to arm itself for either ground or airburst.

At the height of the Canadian committment to the nuclear strike role, the RCAF had six CF-104 Squadrons each standing a 4 ship (instantaneous)QRA, all based in the FRG. These were 427, 430 and 434 Sqds (based at 3 Wing, Zweibrucken) and 421, 422 and 444 Sqds at 4 Wing. These aircraft were manned and armed 24-7 and would be "on their way" inside of 15 minutes (much less than this, but this was the "QRA" standard). The RCAF committment represented about 20% of NATO's capability for fast all-weather attack aircraft in the nuclear role, within 4 ATAF (Allied Tactical Air Force).

1967 saw a major "reorganization"/contraction, concurrent with the closure of 1 Air Division HQ at Metz (France) and the closure of 1 Wing's French base at Marville ("2 Wing" [Grostenquin] had been closed in the early 60's). Nuclear attack capability was "drawn down" to a total of 4 Squadrons, 2 each at Baden and Zweibrucken... a total of 72 aircraft. 444 (Baden) and 434 (Zweibrucken) were disbanded at this time. 1 AD HQ was relocated to the former Armee de L'air (French) airbase at Lahr (in the FRG), and 1 Wing's 2 Strike/Recon Squadron's (439, 441) followed shorly thereafter.

With the advent of the "Trudeau Revolution", came the beginings of a firm political mandate to see Canada to get out of the nuclear role in NATO.

Another major "re-shuffling" of the "deck chairs on the Titanic" came in 1969, with the closure/disbandment of 3 Wing.
This saw the transfer of 430 (S/A, nuclear) Sqd to 1 Wing, 427 Sqd, (S/A, nuclear) to 4 Wing, and shortly thereafter, the merger of 1 Wing's 441 S/R and 439 S/R into 441 S/A. The USAF jumped through hoops to get the requisite "nuclear" infrastructure established at Lahr and IOC for the 1 Wing QRA was achieved in June of 1969.

Contraction continued fast and furious...By June of 1970, the USAF were back at Lahr, picking up their nukes, and moving all their people back to Ramstein. 430 Sqd was disbanded at Lahr and 2 months later 441 was transferred to Baden; at Baden, 422 and 427 Sqds were disbanded, leaving 421 and 441 Sqds as the only nuclear capable units in CFE. In August 1970, 1 "Air Division" became 1 Canadian Air Group and curiously, 441 Squadron was broken back apart into 441 and 439 Sqds., with 439 once again flying in the Strike/Reconnaisance role.

It was also at this time, that the political decision was taken whereby a good percentage of the CF-104 force was to be "disposed of". Denmark, Norway, and Turkey all took delivery of ex-RCAF machines as they were "retired" throughout the early-mid '70's.

When my family arrived in CFE in the spring of 1971, I remember my Dad pointing out the window of the 707 over in the direction of the south QRA; we'd landed at Baden, as the runway in Lahr was being resurfaced at the time. He said to me: "See over there, inside the fences? That's why we came to Germany."
I'll never forget the feeling of seeing that, up close. The armed guards and the dogs with their handlers; No one saw that view back then...except under "extenuating circumstances"...Like those that put us there, turning off at the end of the active runway.

Anyone truly interested in this period of Canada's military history should seek out this book: "Canadian nuclear weapons: The untold story of Canada's Cold War arsenal", John Clearwater, Dundurn Press Ltd. (1998).
The author relies primarily on (then) recently declassified documents, many of which are reproduced in their entirety in the book. I have it in my own library...it is the source used in the preparation of this (admittedly voluminous) post.

Cheers, Ron
I would like to add the book Learning to love the bomb, written by Sean Maloney
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 10-30-2011, 03:45 PM   #54
Bindair Dundat
Crash and Bang Winger
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: St. Albert
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
I would like to add the book Learning to love the bomb, written by Sean Maloney
Haven't read that one yet...I'll hunt it down on the next trip to the library.

What year was it published? There's been a whole butt load of stuff declassified in the past dozen years, since the Clearwater one that I referenced was published...
Cheers, Ron

Last edited by Bindair Dundat; 10-30-2011 at 03:47 PM.
Bindair Dundat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 05:53 PM   #55
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Published in 2007, so its fairly new and in depth.

I'll hunt down the one that you recommended, the power of Kobo
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Old 10-30-2011, 08:06 PM   #56
sclitheroe
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
Published in 2007, so its fairly new and in depth.

I'll hunt down the one that you recommended, the power of Kobo
You think you'll find an ebook copy?
__________________
-Scott
sclitheroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2011, 09:26 PM   #57
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Don't know, but all I can do is search for it.
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 09:14 AM   #58
sclitheroe
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
Don't know, but all I can do is search for it.
Lemme know if you find it
__________________
-Scott
sclitheroe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 02:53 PM   #59
Barnes
Franchise Player
 
Barnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Violating Copyrights
Exp:
Default

Aside the two Navy support ships, what other ships are being built with all the recent contracts won by shipyards all across the country?
Barnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-31-2011, 03:13 PM   #60
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Beyond the 2 Navy Support ships.

They plan to build up to 15 Canadian Single Class Combatants to replace the Iroquis destroyers and the Halifax Frigates when they go end of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...face_Combatant

6 to 8 armed icebreakers to be commissioned by 2017



1 large ice breaker for the Coast Guard



A half dozen of various arctic based civillian class

they also tend to secretly build 6 Beaver class nuclear submarines, and four Damn class nuclear minature Aircraft carriers.
__________________
Good Night America . . . Wherever you are
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:19 PM.

Calgary Flames
2016-17




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016