Thread: Naval Wish List

Originally Posted by Canmoore

In 1998 The Liberal Government purchased 4 diesel Upholder-class subs from Britain. The british decommissioned them in 1993, where they sat in a dry dock to rot. The british government put them up for sale at a dirt cheap price of $750 million. The Chretien government saw a deal of a lifetime, and a way to say "hey! we spend money on the military! and still find away to save money" but it was a total waste of money. The total money that these subs will cost us, including maintaining and fixing these subs, could have paid for the lions share of a fleet of modern nuke subs.

On October 5 2004 HMCS Chicoutimi, during her maiden voyage, sailing from Faslane Naval Base, Scotland to Nova Scotia a fire broke out onboard. The fire was caused by seawater ingress through open hatches in rough seas. It soaked electrical insulation which had not been sufficiently waterproofed. The sub lost power and was stranded in the rough waters of the atlantic. The crew had to be rescued by a RN ship.
Lt(N) Chris Saunders died subsequently from the effects of smoke inhalation.

The subs have since been dry-docked, and are in the process of being basically gutted, and re-built from the inside out. They wont be operation for many years.

and the Liberals and the Navy refuse to call these subs lemons, and still insist that it was a deal of a lifetime.

The four subs are..

HMCS Victoria formally HMS Unseen
HMCS Windsor formally HMS Unicorn
HMCS Corner Brook formarlly HMS Ursula
HMCS Chicoutimi formally HMS Upholder

Hmm maybe a lemon. But as well maybe a gift in lemons clothing. It may supply you with the knowledge and tech needs to build your own next time. Outside of that they are pretty much outdated but who knows what you guys can make of them. Its up to you. Hopefully it wont be a total waste.

Originally Posted by Dreadnought

Hmm maybe a lemon. But as well maybe a gift in lemons clothing. It may supply you with the knowledge and tech needs to build your own next time. Outside of that they are pretty much outdated but who knows what you guys can make of them. Its up to you. Hopefully it wont be a total waste.

Thats why we sold them - to help the Canadians out

Originally Posted by gunnut

But are those 7544 cells always at sea? How many of those ships are at port or in the dry dock for whatever the reason? If so, do they offload their weapons to fill another ship's tubes?

The possibility of a major war- however remote- is reason enough to have a large surplus of weapons.

At best, with Galrans updated figures, we're just able to max out all the tubes and have a small war reserve.

If we were to get into an all out shootin' match with the PLAAF and PLAN, we'd use up most of em easily. Very easily.

War with Korea would likewise cause a massive expenditure of TLAMs and Standards.

Or Iran.

Originally Posted by PubFather

Thats why we sold them - to help the Canadians out

lol gee thanks

Galrahn,
Im interested in where you got the info about SSGN's being loaded with 102 missiles. I suspected all along that they wouldnt get the full advertised load, but i have been looking for info on what a real operational loadout would be and couldn't find any. I will be the first to admit that basically my only research tool is Google, and even then since I live in CHina I frequently can't open sites that I would like to look at. Still, I would love to know where you got the info if you get the chance.

The new SSGNs will actually be deployed with special ops personel and equipment on board. That's what the other tubes are for. Those Tridant launchers are pretty spacious inside.

Originally Posted by gunnut

The new SSGNs will actually be deployed with special ops personel and equipment on board. That's what the other tubes are for. Those Tridant launchers are pretty spacious inside.

I think even with some 'seal tubes' they still pack 154 TLAMs.

The max compliment is 168...it's 7 missiles per cell, and the Ohios have 24 cells. So the 154 automatically allows for two launch tubes for SEAL stuff.

Everything i've read has said 154 TLAMs per. So that's the figure i'm sticking with.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

It might not bring much to the table for conventional warfighting but I think it would be a plus for raiding.

Land in the littoral, or some rivers for that matter; Rigid Raider boats, or maybe even LAV's, off the back ramp; shore raid and return. I think a functional drive on/off ramp could be made, although I'm really just guessing on that. But the boats would certainly be deployable.

Sometimes in heavy jungle areas rivers make the best airstrips.

I think some Mariines were evacuated off the beach at Iwo Jima by the old PBY "Flying Boat." Who knows? Might be good for medevac on the Euphrates also.

We use helos for that mission now. they can get into areas that seaplanes wouldn't dare go.

Originally Posted by HKDan

Galrahn,
Im interested in where you got the info about SSGN's being loaded with 102 missiles. I suspected all along that they wouldnt get the full advertised load, but i have been looking for info on what a real operational loadout would be and couldn't find any. I will be the first to admit that basically my only research tool is Google, and even then since I live in CHina I frequently can't open sites that I would like to look at. Still, I would love to know where you got the info if you get the chance.

That was a typo, the number is 112.

Q&A with Winter and the HASC, think it was March 30, 2006 or around that date. I'd have to look it up, but it might be on CSPANs website, you can see the video.

It matches the Tomahawk purchase as reported by DID as well, you should be able to find it on their site. 112 is public knowledge, was announced at the launch of both the Ohio and Florida.

Apparently, SOF is taking up the other locations with their toys, of which I have seen virtually nothing in the open source, except I know they can store several individual underwater vehicles, and they have recently tested a vertically launched ASROC that can be bundled into a 7 pack and they also tested some sort of bundled system based on the AIM-9X for shooting at helicopters, but I don't have any hard data on that system yet.

It took 3 days to load Ohio to go to sea, and details are really difficult to come buy, but it was outfitted with 112 Tomahawks and the other systems listed above.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

Everything i've read has said 154 TLAMs per. So that's the figure i'm sticking with.

Which basically means you didn't see either of the first two get launched.

Its 112, at least that is how many tomahawks per sub they bought. Only 16 are being used for tomahawks on the first 2, no word yet on the other 2. They can carry up to 154, but now that the Navy is going with modular systems, and SOF is ahead of the game a bit on this, SOF is doing a ton of testing with their new toys.

Galrahn,
Thanks for the directions. Now that I know where to look I will check it out. 112 is still a pretty heavy load, and I wonder what sort of goodies they are hiding in those other tubes. I really like the idea of a sub launched AIM-9X, I wonder how long it will be before something like that is in service. I remember reading somewhere on the boards that when it was tested it wasn't actually launched from a sub, but from some sort of a platform. That indicates pretty early stages of testing to me.

Originally Posted by Gun Grape

We use helos for that mission now. they can get into areas that seaplanes wouldn't dare go.

Gun Grape,

You're right that helicopters are more flexible, but airplanes cover more distance, cover it faster, and carry more.

On this thread we discussed strategic v. tactical mobility when using Airborne v. Air Assault forces.

U.S. Army deployability

When I mentioned that seaplanes might prove usefull for inserting and withdrawing raiding forces I meant primarily for rapid deployment over long distances, although they may also have tactical uses.

Helicopters are the answer to some things but not everything, there are things that airplanes will always do better. It seems to me that an amphibious force should welcome the capability to cover long distances overwater faster than what can be done by ship or helicopter.

Originally Posted by Rifleman

Gun Grape,

You're right that helicopters are more flexible, but airplanes cover more distance, cover it faster, and carry more.

Thats why the Marine Corps is buying the Osprey

Seaplanes - will be seen quicker on radar.

Seaplanes - have to worry about tides and sea states to make landings. Helos don't

Operation Eastern Exit showed that Helos are capable of conducting long range operations.

For the mission that you want them for , raids,. helos more than fit the bill.

In your above listed advantages, only cargo capacity hasn't been overtaken by the helo.

On this thread we discussed strategic v. tactical mobility when using Airborne v. Air Assault forces.

U.S. Army deployability

And you used Army planes. Once the MV-22 has replaced all the Ch-46s (2014), all MC helos will be self deployable. CH-53E/X and MV-22.

When I mentioned that seaplanes might prove usefull for inserting and withdrawing raiding forces I meant primarily for rapid deployment over long distances, although they may also have tactical uses.

But you limit that capability to the coastline. In addition, since it would have to beach itself to debark vehicles such as LAVs, you have limited yourself to less than 10% of the beaches in the world.

A helo on the other hand can not only drop CRRCs offshore, they can drop vehicles onshore. In fact they can push inland and deliver their passengers inland.

They are not limited to waterways

Helicopters are the answer to some things but not everything, there are things that airplanes will always do better. It seems to me that an amphibious force should welcome the capability to cover long distances overwater faster than what can be done by ship or helicopter.

Your right there are things airplanes can do better. Airplanes NOT seaplanes.
Notice that seaplanes left military service once helos became dependable.

Originally Posted by M21Sniper

The possibility of a major war- however remote- is reason enough to have a large surplus of weapons.

At best, with Galrans updated figures, we're just able to max out all the tubes and have a small war reserve.

If we were to get into an all out shootin' match with the PLAAF and PLAN, we'd use up most of em easily. Very easily.

War with Korea would likewise cause a massive expenditure of TLAMs and Standards.

Or Iran.

Idsagree here M-21. As Gun Nut said, all the ships won't be in the area. If we had a hugh surplus, more of our money would go to rebuild and refurbish those weapons as they reached their shelf life. That would mean even less money for research.

In addition with JSOW and other air launched standoff missiles, those hawks will be supplimented vice the 'Hawk or nothing" option in ODS.

And we wouldnt use up those SM-2s against PLAAN. Keep the CBGs out of range and let the airplanes attrit the enemy.