- Reaction score
- 21,841
- Points
- 1,360
So A/SLts are just as good at nav as 2Lts?
Our North - SSE Policy Update Megathread
- Thread starter MilEME09
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 21,841
- Points
- 1,360
I think the correct term is inadvertent Luddite.
- Reaction score
- 21,708
- Points
- 1,260
I also ignored the lock at Point Fortune that has a 36’ width max. So unless the Frigate is a transformer that can hop over it, it isn’t getting its 53’10” beam through that lock.
I set the depth for the trip, but didn’t set vessel width, until I went back and was rechecking safety depth areas, and measured the lock width that it dawned on me I had missed a step.
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,535
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 21,841
- Points
- 1,360
That sounds like Pathfinder blue phase malarkey… lol
- Reaction score
- 21,708
- Points
- 1,260
In my defense, the largest water going vessel I’ve had to plan for was a 22’ beam, so width wasn’t really a concern. So that was more of an “oh shit” I probably should have thought of that moment.
I will also note that digging out a 31 year old PR mission planning kit, I didn’t see a width requirement there either - I guess the assumption was that actual Navy folks would be dealing with those issues from the delivery vessel, as it’s also missing (not covered) from my MR/Lockout book from the beach.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,619
- Points
- 960
Didn't the Government issue a contract to a shipyard in Ontario for one of the old AORs for a refit. Only to find the canal it was supposed to go through to get there wasn't wide enough to let the tanker pass through ?
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 8,211
- Points
- 1,160
So by my calculations she's not much different than an MCDV. Bit longer but less tonnage. A lot faster though. A lot smaller than an AOPS - but faster again. Gives me an idea of the possible.
@Kirkhill - here's how you can put some air defence systems near several of our major urban centres. Or park more anti-ship missiles near the Baltics. You're welcome.
So... the Riley Claire aka LUSV USN Nomad
Riley Claire, Mason G SPECIFICATIONS
Builder: Swiftships Designer: Swiftships Owner: Rodi Marine Inc. Mission: Carry passengers and cargo to and from offshore structures in the Gulf of Mexico. Length: 175' Beam: 25' Depth (molded): 13'
www.workboat.com
Oooorrrr....
How many missiles do you want? What type? And how fast can you build them?
The ASROC may come in handy if somebody sneaks a UUV up the Ottawa....
FJAG
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 13,667
- Points
- 1,160
Assuming she can take the high seas and they add in a close air defence system, that would do it for me. I see these things primarily as working within a task force to provide extra fire power at low cost. The bigger ships, like the CSC, provide command and control; the small ones extra offensive and defensive punch. In addition the small ships can provide individual support on minor missions.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,757
- Points
- 1,160
You have to also think fuel range, food and stores aboard and plan on refueling not happening.Assuming she can take the high seas and they add in a close air defence system, that would do it for me. I see these things primarily as working within a task force to provide extra fire power at low cost. The bigger ships, like the CSC, provide command and control; the small ones extra offensive and defensive punch. In addition the small ships can provide individual support on minor missions.
- Reaction score
- 18,405
- Points
- 1,280
Did I just watch several minutes of a train crossing?
- Reaction score
- 8,211
- Points
- 1,160
No people. No food. No Bunks.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,888
- Points
- 1,160
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,164
- Points
- 990
Maybe beating a dead horse here, but from the outside it seems like the M10 or something like it as a domestic training tank and deployable OOTW/COIN DFS vehicle can very much be part of a solution that greatly improves upon the status quo without radical reformation- and has the added bonus of returning to operational precedent.I don't think much of the idea of the M10 as a "training tank." What you pretend to use as another thing in training will, most probably, end up being used that way in combat as well - and the M10 is not a tank. It does make conversion simpler for armoured crewman moving from an M10 unit to an M1 unit, but that's as far as I'd want to go.
As to Canada, IMHO we're not large enough for an M10 type of vehicle because more than anything else, we need tanks first. My greatest fear would be we buy an MPF for our "medium-weight" army and forget about tanks. While I have a lot of time for the Swedish CV line of vehicles I want a tank and IFV we can manufacture and sustain in Canada.
Realistic outcomes of "exploring options to upgrade or replace our fleet of main battle tanks":
- The multi-decade shrink cycle continues, the 74 remaining Leo's are reduced to ~60, either replaced or upgraded to some semblance of a common variant
- The cycle is paused, all 74 remaining Leo's are upgraded
- All 74 + 8 replacements for those donated to Ukraine
So... a fleet of 74-82 MBT's.
Through the SSE era that fleet provided for 1 deployable squadron with the tanks spread between schools, tech reference, and training equipment. 3:1 ratio between vehicles dedicated to capability generation and vehicles potentially tasked to capability employment.
Two generations previous, the 114 Leo C1's, 59 (2 squadrons manned, one flyover) tasked to NATO in Germany, slightly better than a 1:1 ratio.
Primary differences:
- Cold War defence policy called for a NATO tank regiment, whereas SSE only called for a squadron
- That era's RCAC had 265 Cougar "training tanks", and 114 MBT's
- The 114 were to a single standard of "combat grade" tanks, whereas only half of the SSE tanks were, with the other half lower quality "training tanks"
- The CA MBT fleet from the SSE era was functionally only 40 tanks, not 82
- Said 40 tank fleet had a designed employment ratio of 1:1, just like the C1's of the Cold War
- We went from 265 "training tanks" to 42
For the 6 squadrons (two per Regiment- the 3rd in LRSS) of tank crews that are kept current in armour TTP's, sub unit, and unit tactics in their full time assigned 30-40 tonne, 105-120mm armed, 3 man turret, tracked or 8x8 training tank/ DFS vehicle / Armoured Cavalry Vehicle. Is that best served by a Booker? A Centauro II? A bespoke vehicle born of a partnership between Rheinmettal and GDLS-C to marry a LAV 700 hull to a clone of the 2AX CAN turret? Adjust the slider between cost, delivery time, COIN/OOTW capability, logistical burden, and account for the commonality with whatever MBT is chosen.
Summary:
C1 era- 114 tank fleet, (59 tasked to NATO), training/OOTW fleet of 265 Cougars
SSE era - 40 tank fleet, (20 available for tasking), training fleet of 42 obsolescent Leo's
Cold War 2.0 Era - ??? Proposing 74-82 tank fleet, (40 tasked to NATO), training/OOTW fleet of ~140 suitable DFS vehicles
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 16,910
- Points
- 1,010
M10 is not a tank.
IKnowNothing
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,164
- Points
- 990
Neither was the Cougar. Yet it played a big role in keeping the broader RCAC mounted and proficient, supporting keeping the MBT's available and tasked to mission, provided a non-MBT armoured deployment option- without being an obsolescent hangar queen and money pit.
daftandbarmy
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 31,888
- Points
- 1,160
We used AVGPs as tanks, as I recall, for training.
On that basis why not bring them back?
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,535
- Points
- 1,160
Because hlthere are tracked vehicles that are more tank-like available.We used AVGPs as tanks, as I recall, for training.
On that basis why not bring them back?
There's also the CV90105T and CV90120T.
Similar threads
