Shipbucket

BB1987 wrote:More then ten, i would say twenty (1993-2013). and anyway Forrestall is (was, already?) nearly 60 years old.
If Canada would ever consider such possibility i think the only "viable" choice would be the former USS Kennedy (CV-67), as she is some 13 years younger.

None of the CVs the US has retired were in good shape when they left service, and just because the hulls have been floating doesn't mean they were good for anything but scrap.

I for one am at least glad the steel will be returned to the U.S. economy rather than sent uselessly to the bottom of the ocean.

Plus explain to me how Canada can use a supercarrier when even the Chinese and Russians can by stretch of the definition barely field one each.

klagldsf wrote:Plus explain to me how Canada can use a supercarrier when even the Chinese and Russians can by stretch of the definition barely field one each.

The only thing separating the Canadian Navy and the Russian or Chinese Navies is experience. The RCN used a fixed wing aircraft carrier in the past and so it had some (albeit very little) experience of carriers' operations

klagldsf wrote:I for one am at least glad the steel will be returned to the U.S. economy rather than sent uselessly to the bottom of the ocean.

Plus explain to me how Canada can use a supercarrier when even the Chinese and Russians can by stretch of the definition barely field one each.

Clearly, you have no knowledge of the requirements of the Canadian forces. I will point out that Canada has more coastline than the US and China (combined), and a carrier (of any sort) would be the right thing for Canada to operate.

I personally will shortly be drawing FORRESTAL as well as KENNEDY in order to properly show them in Canadian colors. Good call BB1978 on CV-67 KENNEDY, by the way, I had not thought of that ship as a potential candidate for a Canadian force upgrade proposal.

S/F Tagger sends

Novice wrote:

klagldsf wrote:Plus explain to me how Canada can use a supercarrier when even the Chinese and Russians can by stretch of the definition barely field one each.

The only thing separating the Canadian Navy and the Russian or Chinese Navies is experience. The RCN used a fixed wing aircraft carrier in the past and so it had some (albeit very little) experience of carriers' operations

I am glad to see that this forum isn't entirely full of maniacs.

The Canadian forces have the experience to operate a carrier, but sadly not the political will or the budget. Take a look at the ARROW program as an example of government waste and lack of prudence affecting a good, solid program. Shameful.

S/F Tagger sends

wow wow wow..... you are saying you are going to draw some USN carriers? please do them in USN livery as well, because they are now severely lacking in the archive. the people who want to and can draw USN carriers are currently all pretty busy, so it is not going fast. I would check the forums though, as IIRC at least the forrestal was on someones worklist (and possibly the kitty hawks too, but I haven't heard about it in a long time so my memory is not clear on it and it might be that the progress is stopped, and you might be able to take over an work in progress drawing)

in case you will be doing this, I hereby offer you my assistance for parts, details and maybe even some work on the tricky parts, so these drawings will come out great, as the USN carriers should be represented.

I can clean up reference drawings for other member, but they need to scale it down for me, because I am not going to do that.

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... 13#p104313

I offer this post as an example of the level of clarity and detail i hope to achieve with FORRESTAL and CV-67. Stay tuned.

S/F Tagger sends

Tagger 1-1 wrote: Clearly, you have no knowledge of the requirements of the Canadian forces. I will point out that Canada has more coastline than the US and China (combined), and a carrier (of any sort) would be the right thing for Canada to operate.

Fuck whatever a "budget" or "mission requirement" means my nation deserves supercarriers because coastline and tacticool

- every post complaining about why their country needs supercarriers, summed down to its true points

Novice wrote:

klagldsf wrote:Plus explain to me how Canada can use a supercarrier when even the Chinese and Russians can by stretch of the definition barely field one each.

The only thing separating the Canadian Navy and the Russian or Chinese Navies is experience. The RCN used a fixed wing aircraft carrier in the past and so it had some (albeit very little) experience of carriers' operations

There are two very fundamental differences between the type of fixed-wing carriers Canada used to operate, and the type of carriers the USN operates now (i.e., "supercarriers," which is why I used that word, very specifically). And those differences boil down to "cost" and "manpower." According to Wikipedia and some quick math, a single Nimitz is worth a whole damn quarter of Canada's. Entire. Military. Budget. And that's before you factor in manpower. Enterprise costs around half a billion dollars just to decommission.

A supercarrier is not under the mission requirements of the Canadian Navy. Supercarriers are not used to patrol coastline. Supercarriers are used to conduct offensive strikes against enemy assets. This is their primary mission.

As much as they look cool, super carriers are a total waste of money. The uk is building a couple that won't be ready till 2020 and will probably cost about £10bn... All paid for by an ever increasing national debt.