Google Analytics is a powerful tool that tracks and analyzes website traffic for informed marketing decisions.
Service URL: policies.google.com (opens in a new window)
_gac_
Contains information related to marketing campaigns of the user. These are shared with Google AdWords / Google Ads when the Google Ads and Google Analytics accounts are linked together.
90 days
__utma
ID used to identify users and sessions
2 years after last activity
__utmt
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests
10 minutes
__utmb
Used to distinguish new sessions and visits. This cookie is set when the GA.js javascript library is loaded and there is no existing __utmb cookie. The cookie is updated every time data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
30 minutes after last activity
__utmc
Used only with old Urchin versions of Google Analytics and not with GA.js. Was used to distinguish between new sessions and visits at the end of a session.
End of session (browser)
__utmz
Contains information about the traffic source or campaign that directed user to the website. The cookie is set when the GA.js javascript is loaded and updated when data is sent to the Google Anaytics server
6 months after last activity
__utmv
Contains custom information set by the web developer via the _setCustomVar method in Google Analytics. This cookie is updated every time new data is sent to the Google Analytics server.
2 years after last activity
__utmx
Used to determine whether a user is included in an A / B or Multivariate test.
18 months
_ga
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gali
Used by Google Analytics to determine which links on a page are being clicked
30 seconds
_ga_
ID used to identify users
2 years
_gid
ID used to identify users for 24 hours after last activity
24 hours
_gat
Used to monitor number of Google Analytics server requests when using Google Tag Manager
1 minute
3 thoughts on “RCN PUSHES TO REPLACE BELEAGUERED VICTORIA CLASS FLEET…..FINALLY!”
I believe we have 5 options here in Canada. Nuclear subs-Astute/Virginia class (That will never happen!); The French AIP Barracuda Block 1A class (A good possibility); The Japanese LIB AIP Soryu 29SS class (Another great option); Perhaps even the German Type 216 long range AIP sub (another good option) or scrap the submarine service entirely (The Canadian people would never stand for that!). Let’s just let the process find its way for the RCN, and leave the politics out of it (for now)!
Sorry, but there’s no prospect of a timely replacement for the Victorias. Not when the government is on the hook for the cost-spiralling CSC program and so many others. Running a submarine replacement with a delivery before 2040 is a pipe dream. And no, the Canadian people would quite happily let the RCN’s sub arm lapse, it being a capability that is neither appreciated nor well understood. We’ve done it before and were saved only because there was a quartet of used boats on the market and the Americans prodded the Chretien government into action. Good luck with that happening again!
The only hope – and it is a forlorn one a that – is to persuade a future government to throw a lifeline to one of the yards to build a replacement. But I wouldn’t count on a domestic build being done cost-effectively. Too many unique, complex and perishable skills. Nor would just 4 boats constitute a serious capability for that matter. We need at least six, but how are we ever going to crew them along with all the other vessels that have been promised?
The government should have looked at the RCN holistically in its defence policy, decided on what basket of naval capabilities it required for the next quarter-century, and developed an appropriate re-capitalization plan. But that would have required something we are intellectually incapable of: planning beyond the next election cycle.
Cannot disagree with most of what you have said Barnacle Bill. Pipe dreams or not, the RCN has taken the first baby steps to nudge the government into a decision down the road. An RCN submarine capability has always been misunderstood by mostly politicians but not by the Canadian people. Don’t sell them short. They are much wiser than most of us. You are correct when it comes to building subs in Canada, but it has been done before (Think CSC Frigates). I would agree that 4 new boats no matter what design is chosen, just won’t cut the mustard anymore. The DND Strong, Secure, Engaged policy is missing a future Submarine capability and is therefore flawed and should be corrected.