No more MBT’s for Canada
 

Well, it looks like our friends to the north are going to eliminate their heavy armored units. And then spend some of their petro bucks in the US for a few Strykers.

Is this the beginning of the end for the MBT?

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

maybe the government can replace the sea king helicopter's while there at it. i understand there kinda old. some new warships and transport's would be nice, so we can actually have a navy.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The Sea King helicopters do need replacing for sure, and we could use some new transport planes and a few new fighters. But you'll be suprised to know that most of Canada's warships are less than 10-15 years old and are state of the art frigates. Our submarines we purchased from the British Navy (aside from that leak, of course) and are quite nice diesel subs.

It's really the land/air forces that are suffering the most, but as I understand more money is heading their way and with some infrastructure changes should help out alot.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana"></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Nothing is going to happen until after febuary, after PM-soon-to-be Paul Martin looks over it.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif I really try and not sound like an arrogant american most of the time, but WTH does Canada need Diesel Subs for?

Not for sure why I got a good chuckle over that, but I did. I can see Infintry, some armor, and Air Force with some Navy support ships, but subs? hehe, guess I better stop laughing before I offend my northern brothers.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

Actually many nations today have Diesel sub fleets. They are more cost effective than nuclear ones can run almost as long underwater using modern snorkel systems and are excellent for close in shore defense. So it has most of the strengths of the Nuke sub but less cost and size. No wonder they are so popular with nations that don't have the deep pockets of the US.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">ok, so our navy is new. i wasn't to sure what we had, but i was sure it wasn't much. and it isn't. i'm not sure what you'd find on a frigate, but i'm pretty sure we should have a few destroyer's and a cruiser or two to.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">ok, so our navy is new. i wasn't to sure what we had, but i was sure it wasn't much. and it isn't. i'm not sure what you'd find on a frigate, but i'm pretty sure we should have a few destroyer's and a cruiser or two to. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">We do have destroyers. DND Site

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

For Narrew: Canadian subs are most usually used for patrolling Canadian waters, supporting Canadian surface combattants, and "bLasting" the "heck" out of American ships in War Games http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif

Edit: Pressed Quote instead of Edit. =|

[ October 30, 2003, 22:33: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

Diesel subs are built for costal defense, and tend to be limited on fuel stowage. But they can pack a big punch. They are much quieter then nukes when submerged, but also very slow, high speed drains the batteries too fast. The snorkels are not all that much good, airborne radar can find them in any sea state where they can be deployed. I would think that snorkels would be a good place to deploy stealth technology. The best way to deal with them is air power; active sonar negates the advantage of silent running. And once found, the lack of speed makes them sitting ducks.

The Soviets probably built the most state of the art stink boats, some were even boomers.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

ok, thanks. we still need another destroyer and a cruiser or two.

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">for the less military knowledgeable of us?

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

If you think about it, at the end of WWII Canada had over 300 naval vessels. Now, 58 years later, Canada only has about 32 navy ships.

I'm Canadian, and I think that's pretty sad. Granted, Canada has about one tenth the population of the US, and therefore can't support a huge navy. But still, a few larger ships couldn't hurt.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">for the less military knowledgeable of us? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Boomers: Subs carrying Nukes/Powered by Nuke Reactors

Stink Boats: I think it means subs powered by Diesel/carrying conventional weapons, but I'm not sure.

Edit: I grammar do no know

[ October 31, 2003, 00:58: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">But most of those were Corvettes; flimsy ships armed with a single gun, fodder for U-Boats.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

Faster,lighter armoured vehicles don't do much good when sitting in a city street trying to pacify the population. I'm excited about these new vehicles but they absolutely do not replace a tank. I hope some countries out there at least keep a token force of heavy armour.

Maybe we can sell the Canadians our destroyed M-1 and Bradley FV's. I hear the Canadians can do wonders with Duct Tape.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">i think you've watched to much red green.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

The problem is quite simple. Most nations, correctly or incorrectly, don't see a real need for large conventional forces.

So... the short answer, the Canadians don't need large expensive fleets or armored forces in todays world climate.

The long explanation is something like this:

First, simply... the US can out produce and out buy just about any other nation out there with technology at least as good if not better with a decent sized population to draw on.

Thus in the face of that you can either try unconventional methods to fight them aka terrorism etc... or you can be friends with them. The current approach of many nations. OR a position I totally disagree with but which some are increasingly supporting, you can ally with others to attempt to create a counter force capable of going toe to toe in a conventional and nuclear frame.
The counter force used to be USSR to the USA or Warsaw pact to NATO. That is no more. Some European nations have expressed a desire to unite Europe into a new such counter force. This is IMHO a recipe for disaster.

Now looking at things in that perspective it doesn't make sense for most modern nations, especially those on quite good terms with the USA, to posses extremely large and expensive military forces. It doesn't make sense for enemies to either unless they can at least equal the US force. That is what Saddam tried to do when in the 1990's he had the third largest military force in the world. Unfortunatly the US military force is equiavlent to something like the next 20 all combined into one, at least in the early 90's.

So quite simply... all you need for your military really is enough to ensure your protection against other nations like you or enough to aid your big ally aka the USA and thus ensure their aid in any potential conflict.

To put it in SE4 terms. If you have two MEE's then there isn't a MEE. All the little guys who want to survive either have to play the ballance game between the two or ally with one and hope for its protection if the other moves against it. This would be the Cold War.

If you have one MEE then the little guys ally with the big guy and hope he doesn't turn on them or form up into an alliance of all of them that hopefully can stand upto the big guy.

It is quite complicated but that is the sum of it. As I see it anyways. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif If you read this far then YAY! for you.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Are you proposing that we just hand over our armed forces to the US and turn over the responsibility of defense of Canada to the US?

That won't happen anytime soon.

[ October 31, 2003, 02:15: Message edited by: TerranC ]

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

After checking out the size of the Canadain Navy, I had to find out about the full size of the Australian Navy. I knew we had new Subs (that bloody needed repairing 1 year after we bought them) and some new Frigates. Seems pretty close to the Candian forces.

If Cyrien's thoughts are correct, our forces should be susficient to handle our seas, with our ally, the US forces ensuring no big nations threaten us.

Personally I think I'm pretty save too, since my boss has a photo of himself and George W. from his short trip down-under. Always good knowing I'm just 2-degrees of seperation away from the US President. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

Of course it won't. I didn't suggest that. As the part you quoted itself says. You maintain enough to fight off independently the other nations of like ability and capacity. Enough to aid the big ally. Enough to make sure the big guy doesn't think it is worth it to go after you.

And perhaps most important of all enough to maintain a national sense of pride in ones own armed forces.

I doubt most nations in the world would give up their own forces and trust in the single big ally to protect them. In fact that would probably be a good invitation to being slowly absorbed into the other.

As I said. All of that was just my analysis of the situation.

Edit: Spelling? Isn't that what wizards do?

[ October 31, 2003, 02:25: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

I have a friend who serves on one of the Frigates. He states that the ship can stop from full speed at twice its length. A real Rush.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No offense, but thats plain wrong. The Soviet subs compared to American subs pretty much sucked. Soviet subs were loud. The November class lacked sufficient radiation shielding. The Akulas I think can go really fast, but make a bucketload of noise. Their boomers were the same way until recently. Soviet electronics were horrid, American electronic systems were far ahead (giving better sonar abilities to the US).
Now, the Soviets did have a few good ones, but the Los Angelos class (and more recently, SeaWolf, even though only 3) and Ohio class blow the heck outta anything in the water today.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

By stink boats I think he meant not nuke powered subs but the diesel ones. US nuclear powered subs are superior to anything out there. However I don't think the US made any major investments in diesel subs and the Soviets did.

Can't say for certain though as modern diesel subs really aren't something I keep up on other than a little here and there.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

I think it is more like this:

Boomers = missile subs - formerly armed with nuclear-MIRV-tipped Poseidons in Cold War days, not sure what they carry now - maybe Tomahawks with a variety of warheads for different uses? (Missile subs are primarily directed at targets on land, whereas hunter-killer subs armed with a variety of torpedos prey on ships and other subs.)

Stink boats = any sub (due to long underwater patrols building up a smell in the air system). Although maybe it is used more for diesel subs than for nuke subs - at least, Thermodyne's usage implied that to me.

SpaceBadger


edit: oops, it was Thermodyne, not Cyrien

[ October 31, 2003, 04:41: Message edited by: SpaceBadger ]

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

I always liked the boomer class subs. You have to admire something that in its ultimate US, the Ohio class, and Soviet, the Typhoon, incarnations could with a full salvo from a single sub devestate the whole world. OHIO-class boats each have 24 missiles with each Trident II missile capable of carrying 8 W88 warheads of 475kt yield. First deployed in 1990. The W88 is considered to be the US's most advanced nuclear weapon. Remember the whole Chinese trying to steal nuke plans? That's the one.

It is the hunter-killer types (Los Angeles Class) that have (currently) been refitted to aid in covert operations and to launch tomahawk cruise missiles. The boomers (still) just hide in the waters and wait to launch their nukes. Although, there are plans to convert several boomers into dedicated tomahawk/special ops platforms but the rest would keep their Trident II missiles with MIRV warheads in case we have an urge to blow up the world a few times over... pick 192 of your least favorite cities and there you go... per sub.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_class_submarine

[ October 31, 2003, 05:14: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No offense, but thats plain wrong. The Soviet subs compared to American subs pretty much sucked. Soviet subs were loud. The November class lacked sufficient radiation shielding. The Akulas I think can go really fast, but make a bucketload of noise. Their boomers were the same way until recently. Soviet electronics were horrid, American electronic systems were far ahead (giving better sonar abilities to the US).
Now, the Soviets did have a few good ones, but the Los Angelos class (and more recently, SeaWolf, even though only 3) and Ohio class blow the heck outta anything in the water today. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Stink boats are diesels only. I work with an ex-soviet submariner; he told me that they called the diesels stink boats. Evidently the air would get very foul when they were under for extended periods of time. I guess it was from all that cabbage they eat http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif

AS to Nukes, the US Navy is the standard. No one else can afford to play the game these days. China is trying, but they are way behind.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">As part of our draw down of strategic forces, we were required to take 4 Ohio’s out of service. These are now being refitted to carry batteries of cruise missiles. Gotta love the idea, give it a quick reload and it’s a boomer again.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

Actually an electric/diesel sub running on batteries is quieter then a nuclear sub. The main noise producer at that point is cavitation from the blades. That varies depending on the blade design, but is better for all blades at slow speeds. One of the big spy scandels at one point was when they "accquired" some of our blade design tech.

The Soviets at their height had some very good subs. Some were quieter then our best subs, but we had much better detection tech so for the most part we were still able to keep track of them. They had a different doctrine though, prefering to keep their subs close to home. For that the diesel/electric sub's shorter range isn't as much of a weakness compared to nuclear powered.

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">If the different warheads share the same missile, what is the maximum range that each warhead can stray apart?

And I thought this thread was about MBTs?

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

Hrmm... I actually did abit of research on this awhile back (a year ago I think) and each Trident II missile has a range of 4000+ miles from the sub. Each warhead from the missile I think has a dispersal range of 500 or 800 miles. (not sure and too late to look it up, maybe in the morning)
So you can cover a nice bit of territory with a single sub.

Ahhh the wonderful power of off-topic. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif

[ November 01, 2003, 02:08: Message edited by: Cyrien ]

Re: No more MBT’s for Canada
 

<font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">D5 range has never been stated. Only that it was greater than 4000 miles.