B.C. keeps $1.5b Submarine contract

[jimderfuhrer]

You should understand Canada have only $18,9 Billion dollar (2008) and for 2031 , $96 billion dollar but for right now canada don't have lot of money and we have 3 branch of Canadian forces : Army , Navy , Air forces. And we can't only favourings one branch when Canada need his 3 forces...Canadian navy/air forces in 2007/2008 were the priority because Russia/usa wanted our North..so Harper purchase 8x news Heavy Armed Arctic Patrol and 12x medium arctic patrol, for the north but cancelled the Joint Support Ship (The key for Canadian navy) because they have two choice : reduced the north pole protection , or purchase a great project. Peter Mckay claim the old Protecteur class ( the only remaining steam boat in the world )  will be still work for more 4 years in Canadian forces (2012) but his life ended in approximately 2009/2010 after that his life is over. It is only a idea of the Canadian army situation...spending on second hand submarines our newer AOR/Patrol Ship...for my part i prefer the new AOR/Artic Patrol than second hand submarines who finish his life in 2020 (Approximately). Don't forget the submarines is a 20years old not  8 years old.

And like i said before, canadian navy is a anti-submarines/patrol/escort and attack, so why waste on submarines if since more 60years canada don't really gave some importance for Submarines and anyway the submarines since 8years is only in maintenence i guess since we have submarines only 260 day of patrol was accomplished by HMCS victoria, the rest was only in N-S or B-C base not in patrol. The only patrol turned in nightmare, one guy lost his life because the submarines sank and had a huge fire (8x injured)
I mean ok yes we have submarines...but how much country still used the submarines? and anyway i don't bitching man it is my opinion and you should understand the submarines is a terrible waste, when in North canada approximately 6x foreign country send his nuclear submarines for spying canada and russia...and our navy can't destroy this submarines because we don't have enought boat for coast to coast to coast protection.

This is for why i said, why...the most important for Canadian navy isn't submarines but anti-submarines aircraft like the P-8 Poseidon (2012) because our old CP-140 Aurora have more 28years old services and his a varriant of a 50years old aircraft (P-3 orion). The primary objectif for Canadian forces is a surface combatants and anti-submarines for patrol and security of canadian territory. And anyway country who still used submarines is only for spying somewhere around the globes and ready to fired a long range nuclear weapon. And remember the SSk have more 20years old, not 8years old so his ended life is approximately in 2020-2025 and right now all our fleet is in maintenance for 2010-2012.

 

[aesop081]

You should understand Canada have only ............

Yeah thanks, i guess after 16 years in the CF, i am still too stupid to realize what we have for a budget.

And like i said before, canadian navy is

I'm well aware of what the roles of our Navy are. I can say the oposite for you with absolute certainty.

because the submarines sank

HMCS Chicoutimi did not sink. Again get your facts straight before posting.

but how much country still used the submarines?

There are currently over 400 submarines in service around the world and this number is growing.

because our old CP-140 Aurora have more 28years old services and his a varriant of a 50years old aircraft (P-3 orion).

Please tell me more about the CP-140. What is this plane for and how does it work ? I have never heard of it.

And anyway country who still used submarines is only for spying somewhere around the globes and ready to fired a long range nuclear weapon.

Again, you need to get your facts straight.



You know its better to be thought of as a fool than opening your mouth and removing all doubt. I leave you to guess whch case applies to you.

 

[CEEBEE501]

Wasn't there some sort of mystery dent on one of the submarines that was discovered when it was pulled in to a dry dock in Canada that had not been there when it left the UK?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

what ever they use nuclear or not what i mean for newer and better you can spend less money on it...you can be proud of Canadian submarines but for my part is a terrible waste of money

Why are they a terrible waste of money? If you knew anything about naval warfare you woul realize how much your statement is bogus. Look through the naval section and you will see why submarines are crucial.

...why not buying some newer and better submarines and anywayCanada can create his own submarines like our own ship

While I would like to see Canada develop its own submarine force we do not have the skill base nor the knowledge to do so. It would cost us more in the long run.

Canadian Governments has cancelled the JSS because the project cost $2.9 Billion

The Government cancelled the JSS because the program could not support 3 ships as it wanted. It was a monster project that got bigger and bigger. As many threads in here have stated, best get a dedicated AORs and dedicated amphibs.

and i hope they don't cancel another project like the Amphibious Class ($1 Billion dollar programe)

if you are referring to General Hilliers BHS (Big Honking Ship) then its safe to assume thats gone as well. If I recall correctly no amount was ever set aside for this program.

just because they want a b/s submarine who since 8years is only in maintenance. did you imagine 8years in maintenance, one sank himself in Scotland by a fire (2004)

get your facts straight, the Chitcoutimi never sank.

in 2006 they found lead, for 2010-2012 another maintenance and modernization for arctic patrol because the Sonar are not built for detect iceberg (because iceberg don't reflect any sound)  so another million of modernization for our Sonar on board...only 1x of 4 victoria still working...isn't a good submarines is a waste of money and waste of times. I'm not an expert but i know wasting on submarine when you can get a newer,better and faster for less prices.

Your trying to come across as an expert. Victoria would have been a great class had we bought it 5 years before we actually did.

German Submarines are very strong between U.K made, and anay a U.K second hand Victoria i guess cost

I will agree with you there, I would have went Type 212 or Type 214 before I would have looked at the Upholders.

you need to understand my point i'm a former of canadian forces and try to returned for end 2008 in regular forces (I was a reservist in Montreal) so when is about canadian forces that made me sick canadian waste on crap submarines and cancelled the Joint Support Ship for still used a 40years old boat, the only remaining steam boat in the world.

Well you know what some of us have elected to stay in because we are proud of what we do, no matter what equipment we use. Its a brother/sisterhood that spans generations and elements. The shiny stuff only goes so far because at the end of the day its you and your co-workers that know that you have done a great job.

And like i said before, canadian navy is a anti-submarines/patrol/escort and attack,

Ummmm hello....you still have no clue what you are referring to. The warfare area of the Canadian Navy are Anti Surface (ASuW), Anti-Air Warfare(AAW), ASW (Anti-submarine Warfare). To be an effective navy there Sparky, you need submarines. Especially if you want to hone your skills in ASW. The periods where the O-Boats were decommissioned and before we got the first Victorias our ASW skills plummeted. We sucked pure and simple. We are only now starting to getskills we lost back.

so why waste on submarines if since more 60years canada don't really gave some importance for Submarines

We have always given importance to submarines. While never a vig part of our navy, they have been a part nonetheless.

The only patrol turned in nightmare, one guy lost his life because the submarines sank and had a huge fire (8x injured)

Whats this revisionist history? Chitcoutimi was not on patrol, she was on her way back to Canada to begin Canadianization. :

 

[geo]

JDF...
you seem to put blame on Mr O'Connor for the purchase of the Upholder subs.....
- The Subs were bought under a Liberal gov't & with the backing of the Navy's brass.
In theory, the Upholders were a good buy for subs that had been built & immediately mothballed.  If we had taken up the UKs offer & the get go (when offered), they wouldn't have had the bugs you always get from something that has been in storage for too long.

 

[aesop081]

,you need to understand my point i'm a former of canadian forces and try to returned for end 2008 in regular forces (I was a reservist in Montreal)

I am raising the BS flag..........

 

[geo]

I am raising the BS flag..........

Certainly driving outside his lane.....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If I recall correctly, by the time we did buy the Upholders, the yard building the 214 class was nearing the end of a production cycle and we could have had them build some more and had the benefit of experienced yard and brand new subs. At the time the Upholders were offered it made sense and I can imagine even then it was a tough sell to the apathetic political masters of the time. In fact one could say that their handling of the army's budget was the Liberals first try of the "Green Shaft" (I know, back under my rock...)

 

[jimderfuhrer]

Art Eggleton not o'conor i'm sorry but all minister of defence before Peter Mckay was a foolish, this guy before to be the Minister of Defence between 1997-2002 during the Jean-Chrétien Government he was the minister of infrastructure,  he lease-to-purchase British made train in 1990's for replacing old Canadian CN fleet, but the problem European and Canadian laws isn't the same , British train are more smaller and less expensive than Canadian train ( There are not isolate..) the train cost less 700 Million dollar i guess , but for modernization and reparation and replaced the lead train cost more Billion dollar...he does the same mistake with the submarines in 1998 , lease-to-purchase British made without know if is a good investment, with out inspection and since we have the submarines they sank himself in Scotland or find some lead (Ultra toxic). One of the submarines can't dive over 100m because they have some floating on the submarines right now is in maintenance to 2009...in 2010-2012 another 2x submarines in maintenance, oh yes is a good investment 900 Million dollar for 4x submarines , but more Billion of modernization, reparation and maintenance that is more than newer and better submarines. 

In 2002 two submarines found problem about floating...they patch the submarines and never be used again...only one submarines was full operational the Chicoutimi but sank in 2004, another found lead in 2006...you have no idea what you're talking about the Canadian submarines is a real joke.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

you have no idea what you're talking about the Canadian submarines is a real joke.

Says the man who thinks Chitcoutimi sunk... :

 

[aesop081]

only one submarines was full operational the Chicoutimi but sank in 2004,

Please provide proof that HMCS Chicoutimi sank. If you can do that, i will beleive anything you have to say.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Please provide proof that HMCS Chicoutimi sank. If you can do that, i will beleive anything you have to say.

I would be amazed if he could as I see her everyday in the Dockyard....

but what do I know as Mr kaiser is clearly the expert in all things navy.

 

[geo]

Art Eggleton not o'conor i'm sorry but all minister of defence before Peter Mckay was a foolish,

From a personal perspective, I found that Bill Graham was a GOOD if not excellent Minister of National Defence.

 

[gwp]

...you have no idea what you're talking about the Canadian submarines is a real joke.

Not to the people who know what they are talking about

What the Canadian Navy and the Government says
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=892

What submariners say
http://www.saoc-central.com/letter.html

What Defence Analysts say
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/symposia/2000/mckinley.htm

What an eminent scholar has to say
http://www.navyleague.ca/eng/ma/papers/Future_Submarine_Capability.pdf

What the boats have been doing

HMCS Cornerbrook
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cornerbrook/home/index_e.asp

HMCS Windsor
http://www.navy.dnd.ca/windsor/home/index_e.asp

HMCS Victoria has been in a scheduled extended work period
HMCS Chicoutimi will be repaired as Victoria and Windsor go back into service

As of June 8, 2008 See paras titled Achievements and Fleet Status
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2713

By taking the time to read through this material you may get a better idea about the value and importance of the Canadian submarine service.

and by the way:
The Royal Australian Navy have had many of the same challenges getting the Collins Class boats operational.

According to defence analysts, the Upholder class submarines are considered to be among the finest diesel-electric submarines in the world in terms of stealth, endurance, and lethality. As well, in an era of tight fiscal constraints wherein Canada's domestic shipbuilding industry is unable to construct modern submarines, the federal government was limited to purchasing surplus submarines from the United Kingdom. By contrast, the construction or purchase of new submarines would have proven to be more costly. For example, Australia has constructed new submarines in partnership with Sweden (Collins class). The result has been less than smooth; the program has been plagued by construction flaws, design defects, and other unforeseen problems. In addition, the Australian submarine program is severely over budget ($5.5 billion Cdn), which has placed considerable pressure on other military expenditures, thereby resulting in a national political scandal. Therefore, in the light of the acquisition of the Upholder submarines, and the exchange for the privilege of the British air force to train in Western Canada, the federal government has negotiated the best possible procurement for Canadian taxpayers.
http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2004-3/issue8/op-so.html

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The Collins boats have had a very expensive teething period, but could actually fight if they needed to.

The Upholders would have issues with fighting, and there aren't any upgrades even planned to deal with that. They're good clockwork mice though.

 

[Navy_Blue]

As long as your Surfaces = your dives (sinking) your good to go.  ;D  So Yes Chicoutimi has sunk a few times in her life.  Regardless our "guest" feels the Canadian navy has not seen subs to be important for the last 60 years.  We have maintained (done our best to maintain) this capability since WWII.  Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean we didn't think Subs to be importart or that they weren't out patroling the seas very effectivly.  Infact because they have not been big news until we acquired the Vic's means the Submarine community was doing its job. 

Victoria was not the only Sub to complete time at sea.  He could benifit from a few of the other Sub related threads on here.

:warstory:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Let me see, take the number of times you dove and the number of times you surfaced and divide by 2, if you get a odd number don't open the hatch!!!

What is the latest on the torpedo issues?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Colin i think you are looking at at least 3 years for that question to be answered. I am also willing to go on a limb and say thats best case scenario....

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Looks like about another year at the least to get Victoria to the point she can fire torpedoes. Probably another 2-3 years after that for the rest of the boats.

However, the FC system and torpedoes are still basically what was installed for SOUP. The cutting edge of submarine technology...in 1979.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The cutting edge of submarine technology...in 1979.

From where I stand, that is pretty modern...compared to my 1973 vintage sonar and radar...