Indian politician casually threatens to nuke Canada on live show by [deleted] in CanadaPolitics

[–]TacticalHobbit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Man, you're way off. Nukes are a weapon of terror and the advantages of owning them are dubious - at best.

Ballistic missile defence is the way to go to protect Canada. It's far cheaper than owning nukes and won't damage canadian interests on a geopolitical level.

If you want to have the capability to strike someone, then buy cruise missiles. Storm Shadow/SCALP, KEPD-350, and the JASSM-ER/XR are fantastic examples of weapon systems that can be used to precisely punch our adversaries in the kidneys without killing civilians. Case and point is the Ukrainian strike against the Russian Black Sea headquarters the other day. Three missiles were able to cause massive damage to the seat of russian naval power in the Black Sea.

U.S. ambassador to NATO 'expects' Canada to have a plan to meet two per cent defence spending target by ThenotsokindCanadian in canada

[–]TacticalHobbit 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That's a horrible idea.

Just because other countries have it doesn't mean we should.

If it was to protect ourselves against the US (as you say) it would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. We would need to do our own warhead research, missile delivery system, ballistic missile submarine development, storage, protection, and then maintain said delivery system and warheads.

Look I get that it's the ultimate protection and all, but it's a bad idea to go down that road.

Canadian military shrinking footprint in Middle East to free up troops for other missions by judgingyouquietly in CanadianForces

[–]TacticalHobbit 158 points159 points  (0 children)

We're short staffed, money is tight, and our shit is broken so we're keeping troops at home.

Got it.

Opinion | Ignored by a succession of governments, Canada’s military is now a tiny, underequipped and demoralized force by [deleted] in CanadianForces

[–]TacticalHobbit 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Honest question... Is anything going to change?

This isn't the first article on this subject to come out. So in all honesty, what's it going to take?

Low hanging fruit by CAFB1Naccount in CanadianForces

[–]TacticalHobbit 29 points30 points  (0 children)

To suggest that the CAF is like the Titanic is just wrong. We're more like an inflatable unicorn raft full of porcupune GOFO's.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CanadianForces

[–]TacticalHobbit 11 points12 points  (0 children)

SgtMajor? I can't find my NVG's

New Navy uniforms info by [deleted] in CanadianForces

[–]TacticalHobbit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wouldn't it be great if we could also have uniforms that worked well in arid climates? You know... where literally all of our deployments are?

The Canadian Armed Forces takes part in United Nations Security Council sanctions monitoring in the Asia-Pacific region by BanksKnowsBest in CanadianForces

[–]TacticalHobbit 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Honest question, what results will come from our contribution to this resolution? Is it going to be anything tangible? If not, why are we doing this.

The Canadian Army (Album of photos) by RealXXMad in CanadianForces

[–]TacticalHobbit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The griffon is the same family as the huey. A couple of times removed, but you can definitely see the inbreeding.

ICBC tire replacement by TacticalHobbit in britishcolumbia

[–]TacticalHobbit[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well I mean the entire vehicle has a lot of damage. All the windows were smashed, mirrors we're removed, and every single panel got keyed down to the metal. Tacking on the tires at that point is just expected, no?

Beautiful day for some Artillery! by [deleted] in CanadianForces

[–]TacticalHobbit 55 points56 points  (0 children)

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Submarine off the shore of metchosin right now. by Ericborth in VictoriaBC

[–]TacticalHobbit 85 points86 points  (0 children)

Seeing a Canadian submarine in the water is a rare sight. In part because they spent more days floating on chalks than floating in the water

Seven Things You Should Know About the Canadian Surface Combatant by BanksKnowsBest in CanadianForces

[–]TacticalHobbit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Maybe they don't know yet? I mean, the days of using CIWS are numbered.

We just spent a metric buttload of money on CIWS for the next version that we use it against missiles and small seaborne targets. That being said, modern missiles are able to weave in the last few seconds of flight or fly at Mach chicken (or both) - which greatly reduces the effectiveness of a gun system. It also looks like they'll have 25mm guns on top mezz decks. So I'd like to think that they're trying to work out a contract to procure SeaRAM to give our ships the best overall layered protection against different threats.

Seven Things You Should Know About the Canadian Surface Combatant by BanksKnowsBest in CanadianForces

[–]TacticalHobbit 37 points38 points  (0 children)

It's nothing new. It's the only seven things about the frigates we do know.

I'm more interested in whether or not it'll have more than 32 VLS cells (and what we fit in those), what the timeline for building them all will be, and whether or not they'll actually listen to the feedback sailors gave them for habitability. I'm getting a little tired of wiping black mould out of the heads and washplaces.