hallo84I never intended to say that it never happened. My point was to mention that a footage can bias the truth.
The guy did die, that’s sure …….
Your point is flawed.
Do you mean that becasue the palestanians shot isreali boys, it is ok for isrealis to shoot palestanian youths??? And the footage did show the isreali shooting the boy. Do you doubt this fact?
Sorry if i don’t get you logic… just because someone else comit a crime does not legitimize your retaliation of the same crime. Someone should tell the Americans this.
I believe poth parties are at fault but the palestanians are lucky they didn’t make it on TV… My point being these actions should be frown up no matter who commits it. Yes all media is biased but there is to some extent truth. Shouldent we agree that it is always better to see something for you self than to let the government tell you what happened.
hallo84I don’t think so. (see my post earlier today).
The camera shows to you what the reporter wants to tell you. You don’t know anything about the context. You don’t know anything about the chain of the events which drove the people in a given situation.
I don’t pretend that the reporter is not honest , however this kind of footage often shows the events with a lot of distorsion.I don’t know if you remember a few years ago. The Israeli Soldiers shot to death a nine years old kid and the footage was showing the father crying and carrying the body of his son.
The whole world was scandalized by a such horrible crime!What the footage didn’t tell , that the Israeli boys were under palestinian fire a few minutes before. This “detail” was reported many weeks later.
A picture or a film because of the time limits (before and after) always distorse the story to tell….. on purpose or not.
It means you can’t imply anything else on the film but the bridge in san fransisco did colapse and the iraqi is murdered in cold blood there is no doubt about it. Although the Bridge collapsing has nothing to do with you did not imply the bridge did not go… like wize just because one iraqi is murdered doesn’t imply all the prisoners are shot.
The evidence caught on film is the reality, though it may be edited to enhance the effects but what is shown is what happened… you can not doubt the unarmed iraqi being shot in the head by an american soldier!!!
Mental note to all: you can’t shoot film on what did not happen, this is not a fiction novel where you can make stuff up, there really have to have things happen before camera for the reporter to capture…
hallo84fuel line rupture???
it’s a big blowup….
hallo84how disappointing, I thought Canada built their own subs. I’m mixed about the Kilo, I hear the Koreans were not too impressed with theirs.
so far Oyashio and Collins seem to be the better and newer operational long endurance SSK subs..
Never heard of the Walrus.. i’m also interested in what kind of Torpedos they are armed with.. after all a weapons systems is only as good as it’s weapon right? 😉
Nah building subs cost money which our navy don’t have! We value health plan and education more highly than military spending…That’s why our pilots are still flying faulty Sea King hellas, and no money to replace them.
Canada only build frigates if that’s what you wanted to know.
hallo84Hallo,
Which unit leaks below 160ft depth?.
a dent was on HMCS Victoria limiting dive depth i can’t find the article can someone post it up?
The four subs was supposidly 700 million cdn but price rose exceedingly to 900 mill cdn and was three years overdue… thats what i call a lemon.
problems? read this… it seem the Brits are too eagre to point fingers somewhere else and never admit to the possibility that its a sour deal to start with. The canadian Navy is on a tough budget that’s why we’ve become bargan hunters, but why get good equipement when you simply have the US of A…
Chicoutimi arrived with list of problems
New documents reveal rust, software woes
By MURRAY BREWSTER
Canadian Press Globe and Mail
Thursday, November 18, 2004 – Page A6
HALIFAX — When HMCS Chicoutimi was handed over to the Canadian navy in October, the submarine had trouble drawing in fresh air, could not dive to certain depths and suffered from computer bugs, newly released documents say.
Telex messages between the ill-fated warship and navy headquarters in Ottawa, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, reveal a litany of problems, including the following:
The used vessel could not “snort” — the navy’s term for drawing in fresh air while travelling at full power just below the ocean’s surface during an emergency.
The warship could not dive to its maximum depth because rust had rendered portions of its pressure hull vulnerable to collapse.
Software glitches prevented the sub’s autopilot from functioning.
The revelations raise questions about whether the submarine, which was the scene of a deadly fire Oct. 5, was ready for its maiden voyage to Canada.
From the moment Lieutenant Chris Saunders died on Oct. 6 of the delayed effects of a major electrical fire, the navy has steadfastly insisted the submarine was seaworthy, despite a refit the Canadian military has described as a nightmare.
A spokesman for Vice-Admiral Bruce MacLean, commander of Canada’s navy, repeated that assertion yesterday.
Major Tony White also stressed that the list of glitches had been whittled down to a handful by the time Canada formally accepted delivery of the boat on Oct. 2. “We don’t take these things lightly and we would never sacrifice safety for schedule,” he said in an interview.
He said none of the outstanding mechanical troubles could have contributed to the fire, which crippled the submarine and left it adrift for days in the stormy North Atlantic northwest of Ireland.
All of the problems listed in the messages were discovered during sea trials last summer for the newly refurbished boat.
Navy engineers and the boat’s British builders tried to fix the problems with the submarine’s snorkel system. However, time constraints and a lack of equipment prevented modifications to the system, which allows the submarine to cruise just below the surface while replenishing its air supply.
Chicoutimi — formerly HMS Upholder of the Royal Navy — spent 10 years in mothballs. When it was reactivated, technicians failed to get its computerized autopilot to work properly. The glitch meant that a helmsman had to steer the vessel at all times because its guidance computer was “considered obsolete and not serviceable.”
Meanwhile, problems with corrosion on the hull have been extensively documented. Before formally signing off on the boat, Britain agreed to pay Canada a lump sum for continuing rust protection and servicing. Still, the rust limited the boat’s capability. In September, the navy restricted how deep Chicoutimi could dive because of concerns over corrosion.
The latest revelations about the problem-plagued sub come as a House of Commons committee is slated to arrive in Halifax today to investigate Canada’s $810-million, lease-to-own purchase of four Upholder-class submarines.
The HMCS Chicoutimi, Canada’s rebaptized British submarine
LONDON (AFP) Oct 05, 2004
The HMCS Chicoutimi, the Canadian submarine hit by fire while submerged deep in the North Atlantic Ocean Tuesday, is one of four conventionally-powered submarines built for the British Royal Navy in the 1980s, then sold in refitted form to Canada in 2000.
The Chicoutimi, an Upholder/Victoria-class submarine like its counterparts the Victoria, Windsor and Cornerbrook, is diesel-electric-propelled.
Britain sold the four off to Canada in a 1998 deal when London opted for a entirely nuclear-powered fleet, and have replaced Ottawa’s three Oberon-class submarines which were in service for more than 30 years.
The Canadian navy has hailed the stealth and silence of the 70-meter (230-foot), 2,150-tonne submarine, saying it is difficult to detect and useful for conducting surveillance and intelligence-gathering.
The Chicoutimi, built in 1983 by Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering, in Barrow-in-Furness, northwest England, can travel without refueling for up to 14,400 kilometers (8,950 miles), at a speed of eight knots (roughly 14.5 kilometers per hour).
With a standard crew of about 50, it is armed with Gould forward Mark 48 torpedos that are effective for hundreds of kilometers, according to Jane’s Fighting Ships reference book.
The four Victoria-class subs were purchased from Britain for 750 million Canadian dollars (595 million US dollars, 483 million euros, in current rates).
But criticism of the purchase began in 2002, when a dent was discovered in the first delivery, the HMCS Victoria.
Exhaust valves were also found to be faulty on all four ships, which led to a massive leak in 2002 on a training exercise of the HMCS Windsor.
The Chicoutimi was only formally handed over to the Canadian navy on Saturday, in a formal renaming ceremony at Britain’s Faslane submarine base in Scotland.
It was on its way to Halifax, in the eastern Canadian province of Nova Scotia, when the fire broke out Tuesday.
A major rescue operation by Britain’s Royal Navy and Air Force was under way, with helicopters and ships including a frigate dispatched to the submarine, located some 100 nautical miles (180 kilometers) northwest of Ireland.
You want more???
hallo84interesting reply mr Jones! I agree with you too..but i am shocked with the figure of that German sub!!
The Canadian Victoria subs look good, does it have AIP (sorry can’t help it, tis the buzz word ya know)
nah they are all in bad condition…
being a Canadain i should care but it seems we’ve bought lemons from the Brits. Now no wonder they are so damn cheap…
One was on fire just now killing one crew and injuring others… another leaks so it can’t dive more than 160 ft, the other two are very rusted and in need of repairs!
Reworked Ming should be good… it seems they can go some distances. To japan and back without detecetion. But I still favour the improved kilo… hope the russians put AIP in it soon.
hallo84Hmm, that V shape gets annoying people. I see that V-shape, but did it ever occur to you that it stops in a dot, things can turn around a dot without being completely visible…
Crobato, what use would I have to deny this sub has that bow? Does it matter to me? NO, did I ever say this bow is worse than another bow? NO. I just noticed that picture is odd and could probably be PSed. Nothing more, nothing less. That doesn’t mean I’m biassed. It wouldn’t make me scared, even if it had 20 torpedo tubes in that bow 😉
WOlf, you’re post makes sense, every sub is hard to find. But don’t forget that you’ll face the best ASW force in the world. And if you launch that attack, they can scramble some carriers in front of your door, I’m not sure you’d want that. And the worst thing is, THEY KNOW THAT TOO. They won’t be deterred by that. And for TW, I already said it would be a high cost for just that target. An SSK doesn’t have that long legs either. And it’s slow.
It would be ok, if it carried some long-range (or shorter-range) Anti-ship missiles, in a VLS like the proposed Brahmos-Amur sub.
For TW it would indeed be good, although, if you’re making such advanced Cruisemissiles, with course alterations etc. you might as well be able to fire these things from land bases…
Little question for you guys. Does China already have a cruisemissile? If so, what ‘s the range/speed/specs of it?
Nah the States wouldent risk a Carrier for TW… it’s just too mush to pay for nothing…
if a carrier is indeed in the straights which it has in the past… well we’re not in the past anymore are we??? it’s just too much of a gamble…remember that there is close to 20k personel on board a carrier and thats 20K lives to account for!!!
hallo84PN is also buying 4 F-22P frigates from china, PHALANX could be for those.
well i would think that the Pak navy would have got the type730 CIWS for their frigate… It should integrate better with the ship???
hallo84the a/c in itself is a very old one and $100million plus is not worth it…. at the best h much life can u pull out of it with the gaurantee that no unfortunate incidents wont happen??
I’d say goin in for a new Boeing airframe with the equipment spec thats been given with P-3 would be the better one even though it might cost more. That wud provide u with a good airframe and wud only need to upgrade other equipments in the future.
As for the European part, hope they too go the Airbus way as that wud be the better one.
Sigh… finally someone agrees with me…!!!
i think The P-3C orien system as originally developed by japanese navy,
the plane itself is relatively old that’s why it’s obsolete… it doesn’t mean it doesn’t work but there are better alternatives.
hallo84..sigh why the P-3C they are so obsolete. Even the US is retiring most of their P-3Cs from service.
hallo84Yes it said Deep submerge rescue viecle on the lower caption…
The real one i think is the one on the left with the blue paint job that is consistent with rescue subs of PLAN, the one on the hoist is only a training model…
hallo84And who is stupid enough to think that the Orions will do something like that? THeir mission is just to get surveillance material, and it makes no sense whatsoever to jeopardise their mission or their lives by doing anything unruly. It is the fighters who have the choice to buzz the slow moving P-3. Of course, if one is only willing to take in govt propoganda, then the scenario of a P-3 buzzing a fighter jet :rolleyes: would be very conceivable…
remember Chinese J8 crash with EP-3 few years back??
The US is very persistant on it’s servaillence of other nations and this game of “catch me if you can” is always played…well it doesn’t alway end safely for both sides now does it?
hallo84Interesting I though indians wasted much more . There spending level is very low compared to China . Flogger’s numbers are welcome . In fact I think numbers are allways necessary for a good debate . 🙂
No india got less in numbers, china not only want quality but also in mass volumes and fast!
that’s why india finally got it’s MKI’s while china got 3 batch of MKKs way earlier!
China has massive R&D projects while india has considerably smaller developement plans. India are more willing to buy final products while china is more interested in the technology transfer which cost more.
Not to mention the difference in personel and their wage difference!
hallo84The RLV that the ISRO Chairman is talking about will be a technology demonstrator. Also, it won’t be a one-stage to orbit vehicle, but a two-stage to orbit vehicle (i.e. it will not take off like a plane – rather it will be launched by a rocket booster and land like a plane at a runway).
The ISRO RLV will be a small, unmanned craft that will help develop the capabilities for full-scale launchers later on (including a one-stage-to-orbit launcher much later on). The Space Capsule Recovery experiment scheduled for next year is a step in that direction. The capabilities that experiment will develop are
a. Deboost from orbit
b. Re-entry (including the heat shield required for the purpose)
c. Controlled deceleration
d. RecoveryThe fourth capability (recovery) is not directly applicable to the RLV since the capsule will be slowed by a parachute and will have a soft landing on sea. The RLV on the other hand will be required to glide to a runway. However, the first three capabilities will be applicable to the RLV.
SO in all likeness to Spacecraft Challenger but smaller??? 😎
Well such a program if it still exsist must cost a heck of a lot of money not to mention the R&D put into developing the astronaughts to fly it!
If the program can assume operational in 3-4 years would mean india already have the means, IE the rocket with enough boost to lift such a payload!
I think they are just too optimistic about it… after all it took everone else so much time just to put someone into space. 🙁
hallo84Are the Old cold war games back on again? lol
Sign In
