Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,859
- Points
- 1,160
MCDV version of this?Man, wait until you guys find out what is happening with the MCDVs.
MCDV version of this?Man, wait until you guys find out what is happening with the MCDVs.
Less a greyhound, more a guppy.MCDV version of this?
While very heavily armed, these are not deep sea fighting vessels. They are designed to perform the task they are currently performing with little to no damage control capability if they take a hit from a drone. They can fall back under the cover of land based defences to reload, refuel and rest.You know for I was actually amazed by the actual amount of hardware they've managed to pack into her. She's what 950 tonnes?
Of course all tied up to dock during wartime doesn't strike me as particularly safe or smart.
It might be faster but not cheaper to outfit an MCDV (rather than build) with useful fighting weapons, which would only be bolt on gear (light guns, ManPad and Hellfire type missiles).The AOPS is so new they are still making them.
The Kingston class was at one point touted for mid-life refit to take it to 2045-55 but this was stopped with the suggestion a new vessel would enter service by 2020. IMHO we are always looking for new ships. One thing about weapon systems is that they can be moved to new ships as long as they are still effective for the role.
Honestly, I think that the CAF compromises itself out of viable system due to not having a sellable vision beyond peacetime. The problem is that we are, once again, already at war. We need to prepare now for its next stage. An armed MCDV is better than an unarmed one. It is much cheaper to refit an MCDV now than build a new ship. The Navy needs to convince the CDS, the MND and all of government that it has a viable plan. Wishing for new baubles a decade from now is not a viable plan.
Looks more like D.E.A.D. to me
Both funny AND accurate...Looks more like D.E.A.D. to me
Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (DEAD) is used to reference physical destruction of air defense targets, while SEAD applies to sorties which discourage enemy use of their air-defense radar assets out of fear of placing the assets in jeopardy.