I think it is fantastic. A private citizen doing what they feel is right.
Makes much more sense than charity at gun point via taxes.
Should the US continue to build Supercarriers?
-
I support this notion! Excellent idea!
-
I’d be up for selling the Canadians a recently retired Super Carrier along with the aircraft.� US Navy could train them up on operating it, etc.� Would be great to have a Canadian CSG.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Canadian_Navy
Per the above, the entire Canadian Navy would need to be scraped together to constitute a force worthy of a single US CSG. Not only that, but one Nimitz class carrier would comprise over half the manpower of the current active RCN. I bet the US would sell the Nimitz or Eisenhower to them when they retire her (no storing, deactivating or defueling costs!), but the Canadians would never buy it. Aircraft are a different story. Since the Air Wings are independent of the carrier, there wouldn’t exactly be any planes to sell. The Canadians can just slap some tailhooks on their existing Hornets. Steeper learning curve for their pilots trying to land on the boat though.
To continue this fantasy, I do have some reticence giving the Canadians one of our illustrious ships and seeing the USS George Washington or the USS Chester Nimitz being renamed the HMCS Mississauga or the HMCS Quebec … what a downgrade.
Home port would probably be Thunder Bay, ON. Patrols would consist of the Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario.
-
I’d be up for selling the Canadians a recently retired Super Carrier along with the aircraft.� US Navy could train them up on operating it, etc.� Would be great to have a Canadian CSG.
Per the above, the entire Canadian Navy would need to be scraped together to constitute a force worthy of a single US CSG.
I agree, that’s true, but you get a composite capability that is able to project real power and force. Â Onsies and twosies isn’t really that useful from a warfighting perspective.
-
Per the above, the entire Canadian Navy would need to be scraped together to constitute a force worthy of a single US CSG. Not only that, but one Nimitz class carrier would comprise over half the manpower of the current active RCN. I bet the US would sell the Nimitz or Eisenhower to them when they retire her (no storing, deactivating or defueling costs!), but the Canadians would never buy it. Aircraft are a different story. Since the Air Wings are independent of the carrier, there wouldn’t exactly be any planes to sell. The Canadians can just slap some tailhooks on their existing Hornets. Steeper learning curve for their pilots trying to land on the boat though.
To continue this fantasy, I do have some reticence giving the Canadians one of our illustrious ships and seeing the USS George Washington or the USS Chester Nimitz being renamed the HMCS Mississauga or the HMCS Quebec … what a downgrade.
Home port would probably be Thunder Bay, ON. Patrols would consist of the Lakes Superior, Huron, Erie and Ontario.
I suspect that a Nimitz-class carrier would be too tight a squeeze for the Saint-Lawrence Seaway, in terms either of canal width or of bridge height clearance. A big CVN jammed under the Jacques Cartier Bridge here in Montreal would make a nifty tourist attraction (I’d be among the first in line to buy tickets), but as a military asset it would be of rather limited value because Montreal is about 1,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean. And the Great Lakes are over 1,000 miles further inland, I think, which makes for an inconvenient deployment route to the high seas. Halifax would make more sense.
You’re quite right that personnel would be a problem. About 20 years ago, someone calculated that you could take the entire personnel complement of Canada’s Armed Forces at the time (I’m not sure if reservists were included in the figure) and seat them in Toronto’s Skydome stadium. The figures have perhaps improved since then, but Canada is still in a very different military manpower league from the US.
Navy-wise, Canada would probably be better off with some nuclear attack subs (to defend our territorial waters in the rapidly-melting Arctic) than with nuclear carriers. Our Navy has actually been saying that for quite a while, if I’m not mistaken. As a first step, we bought four “refurbished” diesel-electric boats from Great Britain about a dozen years ago. They turned out to be lemons – so if the USN ever came knocking on the government’s door to propose a terrific deal on a second-hand American CVN, it might take a lot of salesmanship to convince Ottawa that it wasn’t being offered a fixer-upper.
-
Ok, fair points Marc. How would they feel about some 688s fast attack subs, being replaced by the Virginia class boats?
-
Ok, fair points Marc. How would they feel about some 688s fast attack subs, being replaced by the Virginia class boats?Â
I’m sure our submariners would love to get their hands on a 688/Los Angeles-class SSN, like the one featured in The Hunt for Red October. A team of documentary filmmakers once accompanied the Canadian crew which brought over to Canada one of those diesel-electric boat we bought from Britain, and the film they made showed the off-duty crewmembers enjoying a nightly movie. Their favourites? Das Boot and The Hunt for Red October.
The problem, as with all military procurement, would be to find the money to pay for a couple of SSNs, which aren’t cheap boats. Especially if they come with a decent warranty, and not too many miles on the dashboard.
-
@CWO:
I suspect that a Nimitz-class carrier would be too tight a squeeze for the Saint-Lawrence Seaway, in terms either of canal width or of bridge height clearance.� A big CVN jammed under the Jacques Cartier Bridge here in Montreal would make a nifty tourist attraction (I’d be among the first in line to buy tickets), but as a military asset it would be of rather limited value because Montreal is about 1,000 miles from the Atlantic Ocean.� And the Great Lakes are over 1,000 miles further inland, I think, which makes for an inconvenient deployment route to the high seas.� Halifax would make more sense.
You’re quite right that personnel would be a problem.� About 20 years ago, someone calculated that you could take the entire personnel complement of Canada’s Armed Forces at the time (I’m not sure if reservists were included in the figure) and seat them in Toronto’s Skydome stadium.� The figures have perhaps improved since then, but Canada is still in a very different military manpower league from the US.�
Navy-wise, Canada would probably be better off with some nuclear attack subs (to defend our territorial waters in the rapidly-melting Arctic) than with nuclear carriers.� Our Navy has actually been saying that for quite a while, if I’m not mistaken.� As a first step, we bought four “refurbished” diesel-electric boats from Great Britain about a dozen years ago.� They turned out to be lemons – so if the USN ever came knocking on the government’s door to propose a terrific deal on a second-hand American CVN, it might take a lot of salesmanship to convince Ottawa that it wasn’t being offered a fixer-upper.
Oh, don’t get me wrong. This whole thing is a farce. It would never, ever even be contemplated, let alone assessed for feasibility. It does not fit Canada’s tactical footprint or correspond to any scope of influence. Their population, world status and industry level do not warrant such a purchase, even if they would get a lot of support from the United States.
-
Oh, don’t get me wrong. This whole thing is a farce.
Don’t worry – I took the proposal with same degree of seriousness as you made it. :-) I actually got a great laugh out of it.
-
@CWO:
Oh, don’t get me wrong. This whole thing is a farce.
Don’t worry – I took the proposal with same degree of seriousness as you made it. :-) I actually got a great laugh out of it.
That was my intent. Hard to judge its effects on the internet unfortunately.
-
What? You guys weren’t serious!
I want that Supa-carrier in my back yard damnit! We can call her “Artic Storm” leave her up north to fight Putin, and make er half out-o-ice!
-
I know how we can pay for it!!!
Next Olympics hosted in Canada, or in USA, we build the carrier instead of an “Olympic village”, way up in the artic, and play the games on the carrier/Alaska.
No one misses a few billion after the games, and we get a carrier to show for it!
-
What? You guys weren’t serious!
I want that Supa-carrier in my back yard damnit! We can call her “Artic Storm” leave her up north to fight Putin, and make er half out-o-ice!
Reminds me of the Project Habakkuk images I still see on the sides of UHaul trucks (part of a regional trivia program I guess) all time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Habakkuk
I loved reading about Lord Mountbatten’s demonstration of pykrete (wood pulp and ice), that was a badass moment.
I also had no idea Geoffrey Pyke was a real-life Q.
Also I’ve always advocated for having more sporting events on aircraft carriers, inspired by the early season college basketball tournaments. I’ve always wanted for the Jets to have a season where they play their home games on a super carrier, and treat all the fans in the NYC metropolitan area to games, from the tip of Long Island at Montauk to the Jersey Shore.
-
I know how we can pay for it!!!
Next Olympics hosted in Canada, or in USA, we build the carrier instead of an “Olympic village”, way up in the artic, and play the games on the carrier/Alaska.
No one misses a few billion after the games, and we get a carrier to show for it!
The latest and greatest Gerald R Ford carrier class is only 12 Billion, and the preceeding Nimitz class was only 4.5 Billion.
Vancouver Olympics cost $6.4 Billion…
Turns out I wasn’t too far off the mark! Sometime this century people!
-
@CWO:
Ok, fair points Marc. How would they feel about some 688s fast attack subs, being replaced by the Virginia class boats?�Â
I’m sure our submariners would love to get their hands on a 688/Los Angeles-class SSN, like the one featured in The Hunt for Red October. A team of documentary filmmakers once accompanied the Canadian crew which brought over to Canada one of those diesel-electric boat we bought from Britain, and the film they made showed the off-duty crewmembers enjoying a nightly movie. Their favourites? Das Boot and The Hunt for Red October.
The problem, as with all military procurement, would be to find the money to pay for a couple of SSNs, which aren’t cheap boats. Especially if they come with a decent warranty, and not too many miles on the dashboard.
We’d cut you a good deal. Not like we’re going to do anything with them, other than turn them into tourist attractions or scrap metal.
-
I know how we can pay for it!!!
Next Olympics hosted in Canada, or in USA, we build the carrier instead of an “Olympic village”, way up in the artic, and play the games on the carrier/Alaska.
No one misses a few billion after the games, and we get a carrier to show for it!
The latest and greatest Gerald R Ford carrier class is only 12 Billion, and the preceeding Nimitz class was only 4.5 Billion.
Vancouver Olympics cost $6.4 Billion…
Turns out I wasn’t too far off the mark! Sometime this century people!
Agree. Faster, please… Even if it is just 8 688s… do you how useful those would be in the Northern Pacific? Or Atlantic? Just 8 more boats… damn…
-
This discussion reminded me of an email that someone sent me a while back. Some of you may have seen this before. I thought it was pretty funny so I will share. It may be construed as political, but at this point it is more historical comedy.
The New Nimitz-class Aircraft Carrier USS Ronald Reagan CVN-76
_Seeing it next to the Arizona Memorial really puts its size into perspective.
Also notice the respect that the crew gives the Arizona Memorial when passing it.
When the Bridge pipes “Man the Rail”, there is a lot of rail to man on this monster: shoulder to shoulder, around 4.5 acres. Her displacement is about 100,000 tons with full complement.
Capability
� Top speed exceeds 30 knots, powered by two nuclear reactors that can operate for more than 20 years without refueling
� Expected to operate in the fleet for about 50 years
� Carries over 80 combat aircraft
� Three arresting cables can stop a 28-ton aircraft going 150 miles per hour in less than 400 feet
Size
� Towers 20 stories above the waterline
� 1092 feet long; nearly as long as the Empire State Building is tall
� Flight deck covers 4.5 acres
� 4 bronze propellers, each 21 feet across, weighing 66,200 pounds
� 2 rudders, each 29 by 22 feet and weighing 50 tons
� 4 high speed aircraft elevators, each over 4,000 square feet
Dates
� Dec 8, 1994 Contract awarded to Newport News Shipbuilding
� Feb 12, 1998 Keel laid
� Oct 1, 2000 Pre-commissioning Unit established
� March 4, 2001 Christened by Mrs. Nancy Reagan
� May 5, 2003 First underway
� July 12, 2003 Commissioned
� July 23, 2004 Arrived at home port in San Diego, CA
Capacity
� Home to about 6,000 Navy personnel
� Carries enough food and supplies to operate for 90 days
� 18,150 meals served daily
� Distillation plants provide 400,000 gallons of fresh water from sea water daily, enough for 2000 homes
� Nearly 30,000 light fixtures and 1,325 miles of cable and wiring 1,400 telephones
� 14,000 pillowcases and 28,000 sheets
� Costs the Navy approximately $250,000 per day for pier side operation
� Costs the Navy approximately $2.5 million per day for underway operations (sailor’s salaries included)._US Navy welcomes the USS Bill Clinton
Sunday July 2nd '06 Vancouver, BC, Headed for Seattle, WA.
The US Navy welcomed the latest member of its fleet today.
The USS William Jefferson Clinton (CVS1) (pictured above) set sail today from its home port of Vancouver, BC.
_The ship is the first of its kind in the Navy, and is a standing legacy to President Bill Clinton “for his foresight in military budget cuts”, and his conduct while president. The ship is constructed nearly entirely from recycled aluminum and is completely solar powered with a top speed of 5 knots. It boasts an arsenal comprised of one (unarmed) F14 Tomcat or one (unarmed) F18 Hornet aircraft which although they cannot be launched or captured on the 100 foot flight deck, form a very menacing presence.
As a standing order, there are no firearms allowed on board. The 20 person crew is completely diversified, including members of all races, creeds, genders, and sexual orientation. This crew, like the crew aboard the USS Jimmy Carter, is specially trained to avoid conflicts and appease any and all enemies of the United States at all costs.
An onboard Type One DNC Universal Translator can send out messages of apology in any language to anyone who may find America offensive. The number of apologies are limitless and though some may sound hollow and disingenuous, the Navy advises all apologies will sound very sincere.
The ship’s purpose is not defined so much as a unit of national defense, but instead in times of conflict the USS Clinton has orders to seek refuge in Canada. One of he ship’s primary roles includes routine photo ops. It is largely rumored that the ship will also be the set for the upcoming season of MTV’s “The Real World.”_
The ship was renamed and commissioned USS William J. Clinton when someone realized the USS Blowfish was already taken.
-
Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where the family has to be evacuated out of Australia, and the Navy sends the USS Walter Mondale. The Simpsons blink at the Navy officer, clearly not recognizing the name of the ship. “It’s a laundry ship,” the officer says, dejectedly.
-
It may be construed as political, but at this point it is more historical comedy.
“Political satire” would be a good characterization. The US Navy only rarely names ships after living persons; Reagan was an exception, but Clinton wasn’t.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._military_vessels_named_after_living_Americans
Suggested Topics
