Inch said:
Lance, that was a fine rant, I agree completely and couldn't have put it better myself.
12Alfa, subs are intimidating presences. You don't know they're there, they can run silent so that unless you're actively pinging and giving away your position, you can't find them. If you want to know how intimidating, just as a WW2 RCN vet that did the North Atlantic crossings constantly waiting for the German U-boat to make it's "presence" known by launching a torp and sinking a ship. The irony of this whole Armour/Submarine thread is that the argument for keeping tanks is that the army doctrine hasn't had a major overhaul so tanks are still required and to my knowledge naval warfare hasn't had a major overhaul either so how could subs and cold-war training, or perceived threats from under the water become non-factors? As long as the bad guys can get Subs, we need an anti-sub capability to protect our fleet which includes helos and Submarines.
Cheers
By the way, last time I checked, US subs didn't protect Canadian Sovereignty or Cdn waters, think about that statement and then tell me again about this US anti-sub net that protects our warm pink bodies.
12Alfa, subs are intimidating presences.
To who? Just who is being intimidated? The Serbs when we were in the Balkins? To the Talabin, as we r in Afgan? To the Anti-UN forces in Hadia, Middle East?
We are not facing or haven't faced a threat from any nation in the last 20 years that have the capability to deploy subs against us, or a surface fleet. Any sub/ship would be detected long before reaching Canadain waters by the US, with their war on terrior nothing is getting near the N american land mass, land,sea, or in/under the water.
Yes they don't patrol "Canadian Sovereignty or Cdn waters", but they do watch waters on the way to our landmass.
To say we need subs to protect our country is a waste of money, to say we need them for training, i can swallow, somewhat.
The threat is just not there, unless you can provide some info where a nation has deployed them against us in the last 20 years.
We need ships to support the deployments we are currently doing, i would think.
It's like the army buying MRLS systems, why? we would never use them, or the airforce buying attach helo's, we have never needed them, and won't with the current operations, or need them in the future if the goverement has it's way, helll they find tanks offisive.
Money spent on roll-off roll-on ships would I think would have been a bit wiser.
But if you can deploy equipment and troops by subs, i may change my mind.
keeping tanks is that the army doctrine hasn't had a major overhaul so tanks are still required and to my knowledge naval warfare
Two different subjects, Doctrine and warfare.
We (I don't think) deploy our fleet in harms way without other nations, correct? Have we deployed the subs to escort said fleet? Or has the other nations deployed their subs?
Until I see how we and the other nations deploy subs in current UN or peace making duties I'm not sure we need them, when we need other platforms more. Can you give us some hard data to back up the buying of said subs and what role they play in the current deployments?
Please.