12-20-2019, 03:47 PM
|
#1301
|
Norm!
|
Yup, its literally a brain drain.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to CaptainCrunch For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-21-2019, 11:05 PM
|
#1302
|
First Line Centre
|
Yes but there are advantages. It’s a short term pain for long term gain. Once they are industry they should stick around longer and because they come in skilled they bring a lot of assets to the table, particularly aircrew who cost a fortune to train.
|
|
|
12-22-2019, 10:13 AM
|
#1304
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Wherever you go there you are.
|
Bleh
__________________
Tacitus: Rara temporum felicitate, ubi sentire quae velis, et quae sentias dicere licet.
Last edited by Cliche; 12-22-2019 at 10:13 AM.
Reason: Double post.
|
|
|
12-23-2019, 01:51 PM
|
#1305
|
Norm!
|
Serious questions around the Frigate replacements concerning their main armaments and ability to defend themselves from air attacks.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fri...navy-1.5405054
Quote:
The Department of National Defence has faced some tough, pointed questions about whether it has chosen the right radar, main gun and close air defence systems for the navy's new frigates, which will soon hit the drawing board.
An unsolicited defence industry slide deck presentation, obtained by CBC News, questions each of those key components in the planned $60 billion modernization of the fleet.
It was circulated earlier this year and put in front of the senior federal officials in charge of the program.
|
Quote:
The briefing raises concerns about DND's choice of a main gun for the frigates — a 127 millimetre MK 45 described by the briefing as 30-year-old technology that will soon be obsolete and cannot fire precision-guided shells.
The briefing also singles out as inadequate the Sea Ceptor close air defence system, which is meant to shoot down incoming, ship-killing missiles.
Given the Canadian government's past missteps with military procurement — buying used equipment or opting for developmental systems that take years to get into service — a defence expert said the caution being expressed by the industry now is legitimate, but in some respects it's coming years too late.
|
So typical, with the boondoggle over the F-35's and this and his stolen honor, and lying about buying the F-18 Australia, he's just a major teeth grinder for me. Most incompetent idiot in MND history.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
12-23-2019, 01:59 PM
|
#1306
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Honkistani Underground
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
Serious questions around the Frigate replacements concerning their main armaments and ability to defend themselves from air attacks.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fri...navy-1.5405054
So typical, with the boondoggle over the F-35's and this and his stolen honor, and lying about buying the F-18 Australia, he's just a major teeth grinder for me. Most incompetent idiot in MND history.
|
The CBC article is awful. The CBC should have put a disclaimer at the top of its article:
"This article is based on a presentation provided by the non-compliant bidder.”
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-23-2019, 04:20 PM
|
#1307
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Honkistani Underground
|
Further to my previous post, we can approach procurement of these capital projects in a few ways:
Safe buy = proven design
Proven design = old
New design = unproven
Unproven = high risk
Some will say we shouldn't buy something that is old technology, even though we know it works. Others will say that we shouldn't buy new technology because it's unproven and, thus, high risk.
Should we take risks? Sure. But we can responsibly manage them. Since we get the first ship in 2036, the new stuff will be standard. Better off having the first 5 be 'Mark 1" or "Block 1" designs, give them the leftovers and cheap tech with the idea that when the Block 2s (next 5) come out that we'll already have built-in upgrades. This is a responsible risk-managed approach to leverage newer technology into the project.
With respect to the technology identified in the presentation the CBC obtained:
1. 127mm gun is obsolete? How? Literally every Western navy has moved in this direction. The 127mm does have guided munitions. See Raytheon Excalibur NS. The 127mm gun is a massive step-up for the RCN.
2. CAMM (Sea Ceptor). Why is it inadequate? It's probably the best close in air defence system right now.
3. SPY-7. Sure, it's not yet in service, but SPY is. So if I'm in procurement, I'd take that risk.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
|
|
12-23-2019, 10:32 PM
|
#1308
|
Powerplay Quarterback
|
Canada's next Frigate should at least get CAMM-ER otherwise it is kind of a down grade from what they currently have in therms of range
__________________
"Half the GM's in the league would trade their roster for our roster right now..." Kevin Lowe in 2013
|
|
|
01-14-2020, 02:38 PM
|
#1309
|
Norm!
|
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/air-...-fit-1.4767052
Quote:
OTTAWA -- The federal government is planning to invest hundreds of millions of dollars more to ensure Canada's aging CF-18s can still fight over the coming decade while the country waits for long-overdue replacement jets.
The extra money follows a warning from the federal auditor general in late 2018 that Canada's fighter jets were at risk of being outmatched by more advanced adversaries due to a lack of combat upgrades since 2008.
Royal Canadian Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Al Meinzinger estimates the added cost will be around $800 million, which is on top of the $3 billion the government has already set aside to extend the lives of the CF-18s and purchase 18 secondhand fighter jets from Australia.
|
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
01-14-2020, 02:42 PM
|
#1310
|
Franchise Player
|
Good lord.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-14-2020, 02:43 PM
|
#1311
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: SW Calgary
|
Sigh.
Seriously. Gripen. F-35. Just pick one. Why the hell do they make this so damn hard on themselves
|
|
|
01-14-2020, 10:08 PM
|
#1312
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: east van
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium
Further to my previous post, we can approach procurement of these capital projects in a few ways:
Safe buy = proven design
Proven design = old
New design = unproven
Unproven = high risk
Some will say we shouldn't buy something that is old technology, even though we know it works. Others will say that we shouldn't buy new technology because it's unproven and, thus, high risk.
Should we take risks? Sure. But we can responsibly manage them. Since we get the first ship in 2036, the new stuff will be standard. Better off having the first 5 be 'Mark 1" or "Block 1" designs, give them the leftovers and cheap tech with the idea that when the Block 2s (next 5) come out that we'll already have built-in upgrades. This is a responsible risk-managed approach to leverage newer technology into the project.
With respect to the technology identified in the presentation the CBC obtained:
1. 127mm gun is obsolete? How? Literally every Western navy has moved in this direction. The 127mm does have guided munitions. See Raytheon Excalibur NS. The 127mm gun is a massive step-up for the RCN.
2. CAMM (Sea Ceptor). Why is it inadequate? It's probably the best close in air defence system right now.
3. SPY-7. Sure, it's not yet in service, but SPY is. So if I'm in procurement, I'd take that risk.
|
Other than scaring off Somalian fishing boats what the hell does the 'main gun' get used for anyway?
|
|
|
01-15-2020, 07:25 AM
|
#1313
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Honkistani Underground
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
Other than scaring off Somalian fishing boats what the hell does the 'main gun' get used for anyway?
|
1. Shore bombardment supporting amphibious assaults;
2. Air defence; and
3. Engaging ships.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
|
|
|
01-15-2020, 07:05 PM
|
#1314
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: east van
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium
1. Shore bombardment supporting amphibious assaults;
2. Air defence; and
3. Engaging ships.
|
I get 1 and 3 as their traditional roles but it would seem unlikely that any Canadian Frigate would ever do either, engaging ships other than Somalian pirates would presumably be conducted by ship to ship missiles at ranges far beyond a 127mm gun.
I didn't know you could use them in an AA capacity
|
|
|
01-15-2020, 07:49 PM
|
#1315
|
Powerplay Quarterback
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: The Honkistani Underground
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
I get 1 and 3 as their traditional roles but it would seem unlikely that any Canadian Frigate would ever do either, engaging ships other than Somalian pirates would presumably be conducted by ship to ship missiles at ranges far beyond a 127mm gun.
I didn't know you could use them in an AA capacity
|
Canadian frigates are routinely attached to joint task forces and it is certainly possible they would be called upon to provide support in (1).
For (3):
gun ammo is considerably cheaper than missiles and a ship can carry considerably more bullets.
Missiles are susceptible to EW and decoys. It's easier for CIWS to target incoming missile threats. IE, CIWS would waste all of its ammo engaging a volley of bullets. CIWS could take out a few 127mm bullets, but the rest get through.
Bullets are more efficient taking on fast patrol boats in littoral areas. For example, the Persian Gulf. It isn't cost effective to use an anti-ship missile on a low value target like a gun boat.
Guns are more effective at close range because anti-ship missiles require a minimum distance of 5-10 km. The modern 127mm guns have ranges from 30-120 km which means you can engage at a standoff range without using a very limited supply of cruise missiles.
You need a gun for warning shots.
__________________
"If you do not know what you are doing, neither does your enemy."
- - Joe Tzu
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Baron von Kriterium For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-15-2020, 11:24 PM
|
#1316
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: east van
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium
Canadian frigates are routinely attached to joint task forces and it is certainly possible they would be called upon to provide support in (1).
For (3):
gun ammo is considerably cheaper than missiles and a ship can carry considerably more bullets.
Missiles are susceptible to EW and decoys. It's easier for CIWS to target incoming missile threats. IE, CIWS would waste all of its ammo engaging a volley of bullets. CIWS could take out a few 127mm bullets, but the rest get through.
Bullets are more efficient taking on fast patrol boats in littoral areas. For example, the Persian Gulf. It isn't cost effective to use an anti-ship missile on a low value target like a gun boat.
Guns are more effective at close range because anti-ship missiles require a minimum distance of 5-10 km. The modern 127mm guns have ranges from 30-120 km which means you can engage at a standoff range without using a very limited supply of cruise missiles.
You need a gun for warning shots.
|
good to know, I always assumed the main gun had tended to be more an archaic tradition these days
|
|
|
01-16-2020, 09:49 AM
|
#1317
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron von Kriterium
You need a gun for warning shots.
|
my mind went right to this:
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
|
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to undercoverbrother For This Useful Post:
|
|
01-24-2020, 10:37 AM
|
#1318
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
|
https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...tvia-operation
Local story, Calgary Highlanders heading to Latvia to provide Mortar capabilities, something which the Infantry oddly lost the arty for a while.
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993
Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sliver
Just ignore me...I'm in a mood today.
|
|
|
|
02-11-2020, 09:34 AM
|
#1319
|
Norm!
|
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/sub...navy-1.5458632
Quote:
All four of Canada's submarines were tied up last year for repairs and maintenance — news that has the opposition Conservatives questioning whether the Liberal government can keep the second-hand fleet afloat for another two decades.
In response to a written question before Parliament, the Department of National Defence said the boats "spent zero days at sea" in 2019, but three of the four would return to service at some point this year.
Over the year, HMCS Victoria, HMCS Windsor, HMCS Chicoutimi and HMCS Corner Brook were in various stages of repair and maintenance. They also went into drydock for long-term upgrades meant to ensure the submarines remain operational until the end of the next decade.
|
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
02-11-2020, 09:52 AM
|
#1320
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Not sure
|
Can we just use those things for target practice and move one?
I can't imagine anyone feels the money spent on those subs was money well spent. Have they been even remotely useful?
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:33 AM.
|
|