d may extend four to five times farther below the surface than above it.
You know how thick Medium First year ice is right?
And you think a submarine would be worried about an icekeel a few multiples of that very thin first year ice thickness? I can only assume you have never been in a submarine when it dived. I can only assume you don't know, that such, is nothing a submariner would need worry about (being able to have the submarine dive under) given we are talking of September and open water not distant.
Yes. Ice keel from medium first year ice? Stop there. Its a silly comment to think a submarine should be worried about diving under ice keels of medium first year ice. It only has to be considered if emergency surfacing needed. Its easy to go under.
I had thought you had Arctic experience. ... I am now beginning to doubt that.
You are also conflating three different propositions: sustained Arctic operations, sustained undersea presence and sustained operations beneath continuous ice.
I am conflating nothing. You are mixing up things.
Your use of 'conflating' term though, has me wondering. It suggests to me you are using an AI to compose your replies as AI's love to use that 'conflating' term. And that explains the massive exaggeration in your replies, as those are AI traits. It also explains your tangents and making up of things I never stated.
Now - back to the RFI. The RFI on the CPSP defined information wanted from submarine suppliers, on a potential submarine to meet RCN mandatory requirements.
That is not the same thing as what DND tells the Standing Committee on National Defence, nor what is listed in Minister transition documents, nor other documents.
Those are high level documents that encompass far more than an RFI. They provide recommendations and can establish government intent as much as practical. And they are very important in establishing the 'building blocks' on which more detailed requirements hang. Its on documents such as those that the more detailed requirements not only for a submarine procurement, but for its infrastructure, and operations, and other aspects hang.
Its becoming clear to me you do not understand that. I am asking myself, did you ever spend any time in DND requirements? In DND procurements? Did you ever go to any meetings of Standing Committees on National Defence? I beginning to think NOT, based on what I see as your confusion.
DND access to Canadian SAR data is not the principal obstacle. DND can task, receive and exploit RCM imagery through Polar Epsilon 2. But claiming that data access is categorically a “non issue” confuses institutional entitlement with operational delivery.
You can't read. Or you skim so fast you can't read.
The non-issue is the access to the data. That is what I typed, and you, possibly using your AI bot reply, was confused there and , using your words, let your AI bot 'conflate it to be something else.
So that you understand, for the 3rd time : DND helps fund RADARSAT that can provide superior ice maps to what has been seen in past years, and DND will have no issues accessing that data. Its a non-issue for DND to access that data. DATA ACCESS!! Clear?? It was not clear to you (or not clear to your AI bot) the first 2 times I typed this.
SAR would greatly improve ice mapping and route planning, but it would neither provide a complete picture of the under ice environment nor remove the need for onboard sonar, ice forecasting and conservative operational limits.
No one said such but YOU incorrectly and likely deliberately inappropriately inferred such in my statement. I was clear in my reply, the SAR data (that DND can access) improves greatly the ice mapping of the past.
I am beginning to think you want to invent false statements of someone else, to bolster a weak argument on your side.
Nor does mentioning a forward looking sonar settle the issue.
No one said forward looking sonar will settle the issue. Who said that will 'settle the issue'??? Again, a false statement by you. You clearly stopped at my mention of forward looking sonar, and read not one word further.
. If the selected submarine requires additional ice sonar, strengthened structures, modified procedures, specialized training or new rescue and sustainment arrangements, those capabilities must be engineered, tested and accepted.
Exactly.
As for submariner contacts, there is an important difference between our sources. Mine include people presently serving and directly involved in the decisions now being made. Yours appear to have retired roughly twenty years ago.
This is getting silly.
As I noted ... what matters is the top level requirements.
What matters is what was promised to the Canadian government.
Point such document requirements requiring sustained Arctic presence out to your supposed contacts. I suspect many have not read such, or perhaps they don't like what they read. But they are not the one's signing off on such documents.
You are correct that the RFI did not define the complete shore sustainment system. That reinforces my point, not yours.
No. You have that backward.
DND intends sustained Arctic operations and an under ice capability. Agreed.
Good. We agree on something.
That does not prove routine extended operations beneath continuous ice,
Please point out a post of mine that states "routine extended operations beneath continuous ice" ... I have noted 'sustained operation' in the Arctic and under ice capable. Making up statements I never stated, is a sign of a lost debate.
I am keen on debating this, as i believe it needs debate - but I see zero point in made up statements that you assigned to me. That is plan silly. And it indicates, you lost the debate.
