Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 2 of 2  [ 17 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2
Author Message
LEUT_East
Post subject: Re: canadian multi role destroyerPosted: March 24th, 2014, 6:23 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 923
Joined: December 29th, 2011, 7:27 am
Location: Queensland, Australia
Charwhick wrote:
klagldsf wrote:
Charwhick wrote:
Why not pair up with America on another flight of Burkes?
That's a bit overkill, the Hobarts make more sense.
Nothing is overkill if it ends the whining about the Arrow. Anti-satellite missiles and theater ballistic missile defense capabilities would make even the most rabid Maple Leaf Forever nationalist feel good.
Remember folks, Canada and Australia do not have the bottomless pockets that the US has. I wouldn't be too surprised if the existing 3 Hobarts get downsized to just 2 units. I have heard grumblings within the RAN that 3 Hobarts are overkill anyway.

_________________
There is no "I" in TEAM but there is a ME

[ img ]
______________________
Current Worklist:
Redrawing my entire AU after a long absence from Shipbucket


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rodondo
Post subject: Re: canadian multi role destroyerPosted: March 24th, 2014, 7:12 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2493
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 5:10 am
Location: NE Tasmania
Personally I wish they exercise the four ship option instead of the two/ three ship option as two doesn't leave much in a margin of logistical capability

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)

There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
LEUT_East
Post subject: Re: canadian multi role destroyerPosted: March 24th, 2014, 7:23 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 923
Joined: December 29th, 2011, 7:27 am
Location: Queensland, Australia
Rodondo wrote:
Personally I wish they exercise the four ship option instead of the two/ three ship option as two doesn't leave much in a margin of logistical capability
The logic for having 3 Hobarts (like the old Brisbane Class) was to have two always operationally ready and the other either in maintenance period/refit/operational training.

_________________
There is no "I" in TEAM but there is a ME

[ img ]
______________________
Current Worklist:
Redrawing my entire AU after a long absence from Shipbucket


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Rodondo
Post subject: Re: canadian multi role destroyerPosted: March 24th, 2014, 7:32 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2493
Joined: May 15th, 2011, 5:10 am
Location: NE Tasmania
Ideally the Canadians should look abroad for their DDG but there will always be that homegrown sentiment

Yes, Three makes sense and its is our way of doing things but seeing the usual problem with these sort of things, four might ensure that two are always operationally ready

_________________
Work list(Current)
Miscellaneous|Victorian Colonial Navy|Murray Riverboats|Colony of Victoria AU|Project Sail-fixing SB's sail shortage
How to mentally pronounce my usernameRow-(as in a boat)Don-(as in the short form of Donald)Dough-(bread)
"Loitering on the High Seas" (Named after the good ship Rodondo)

There's no such thing as "nothing left to draw" If you can down 10 pints and draw, you're doing alright by my standards


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
heuhen
Post subject: Re: canadian multi role destroyerPosted: March 24th, 2014, 8:51 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9102
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Charwhick wrote:
klagldsf wrote:
Charwhick wrote:
Why not pair up with America on another flight of Burkes?
That's a bit overkill, the Hobarts make more sense.
Nothing is overkill if it ends the whining about the Arrow. Anti-satellite missiles and theater ballistic missile defense capabilities would make even the most rabid Maple Leaf Forever nationalist feel good.
to Big, to expensive, to old design. For Aussi... But Them I'm not expert.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Charwhick
Post subject: Re: canadian multi role destroyerPosted: March 24th, 2014, 2:49 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 104
Joined: March 22nd, 2014, 1:28 am
I was reffering to Cabada but I suppose you're right.

_________________
Worklist:
FFG Halifax Redraw


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
klagldsf
Post subject: Re: canadian multi role destroyerPosted: March 24th, 2014, 4:14 pm
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 2765
Joined: July 28th, 2010, 4:14 pm
LEUT_East wrote:
Remember folks, Canada and Australia do not have the bottomless pockets that the US has.
The U.S. doesn't even have the bottomless pockets the U.S. has. But it sure has a bottomless supply of whiners from all sides complaining why their special pet project (defense-related or otherwise) isn't getting any spending priority compared to someone else's special pet project.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 2 of 2  [ 17 posts ]  Return to “General Discussion” | Go to page « 1 2

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]