Canada’s shrinking navy still valued by allies, analysts say

[Monsoon]

And only 14 years to get that torpedo fired from the time we bought them.

A decade of which was spent with the funds set aside for the sub refit being used to support operations in Afghanistan. Do you regard that as a misallocation of resources? I didn't think so.

It's easier to make jokes about the sub "boondoggle" than it is to understand what subs do and why the program has taken the time it has. Bottom line: we were at war and that war didn't involve submarines, so hard decisions got made. Get yer yucks in, because it could be your favourite program next time around.

 

[PuckChaser]

A decade of which was spent with the funds set aside for the sub refit being used to support operations in Afghanistan. Do you regard that as a misallocation of resources? I didn't think so.

It's easier to make jokes about the sub "boondoggle" than it is to understand what subs do and why the program has taken the time it has. Bottom line: we were at war and that war didn't involve submarines, so hard decisions got made. Get yer yucks in, because it could be your favourite program next time around.

Subs should have been working when we got them. If we bought Leopard 2 tanks or Chinooks that weren't serviceable for 14 years people would be equally up in arms. We got screwed on those subs, and its not the Navy's fault. They were pushed into a hole to either buy those, and go without. I think we need subs, but proper ones, not lemons from a country that didn't want them.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

For the "our subs can't leave drydock" crowd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfgecbxU5cs&feature=player_embedded#!

That was awesome!

 

[Monsoon]

Subs should have been working when we got them. If we bought Leopard 2 tanks or Chinooks that weren't serviceable for 14 years people would be equally up in arms. We got screwed on those subs, and its not the Navy's fault. They were pushed into a hole to either buy those, and go without. I think we need subs, but proper ones, not lemons from a country that didn't want them.

You can forget about the 14 year number - the planned refit time was five years and now you know why it took 14. It had nothing to do with the condition of the subs, which were as good as any ship that's been out of commission for a few years.

I agree that in an ideal world we'd have built new subs to replace our old ones, but if in late 1998 Chretien had given the Navy the green light to plan on that, we'd still only be getting them in the water today (if the programme had even survived Af'stan budget reallocations). The Navy leadership of the day reckoned it was worse to "gap" the capability and suffer skill fade than it was to have subs with decade-old hulls and refitted combat systems. As it transpired, life happened and that capability gap occurred anyway (hello, dramatic west coast grounding).

And now that 14 year gap is in the past, we'll have three of four very good subs operational by early next year, which is better than we ever had in the 1990s. It's time to stop griping about the past and start thinking about how we're going to replace them in 20 years.

 

[PuckChaser]

Sorry, I forgot how the army stole all of the CF's money for Afghanistan.  :

And now that 14 year gap is in the past, we'll have three of four very good subs operational by early next year, which is better than we ever had in the 1990s. It's time to stop griping about the past and start thinking about how we're going to replace them in 20 years.

And you should know that planning for that replacement in 20 years won't start for 19 more years, which is the same broken procurement system that got us sub-standard (no pun intended) submarines that were not operational when purchased. Hopefully then we'll have a government that will put the money where its needed to buy the right ships at the right time.

 

[Monsoon]

Sorry, I forgot how the army stole all of the CF's money for Afghanistan.  :

One last contribution to this thread derailment before I check out, because that last comment has led me to suspect I'm up against a deliberate troll. Some rhetorical questions: Did I claim the decision to defund the sub program to support Afghanistan was a bad one? Would you have decided to do differently?

 

[Journeyman]

One last contribution to this thread derailment before I check out, because that last comment has led me to suspect I'm up against a deliberate troll.

Someone disagreeing with you does not necessarily make them a troll. Maybe you're right -- it's time to take a break.

 

[wesleyd]

One last contribution to this thread derailment before I check out, because that last comment has led me to suspect I'm up against a deliberate troll. Some rhetorical questions: Did I claim the decision to defund the sub program to support Afghanistan was a bad one? Would you have decided to do differently?

Not sure how the sub program was deferred or defunded, everytime we had work that had to be done by dockyard workers on an operational ship that was ramping up for a Gulf tour we had lower priority to submarine work. Believe me I have nothing against subs, I served proudly on Ojibwa for ten years. I saw the Upholders before we bought them and the submariners in charge of taking care of them were telling us then how much trouble they were. On the other hand I got a chance to sail on Triumph, this was supposed to be Canada's nuclear sub. What an imporvement over the O boats. I shorly applied to go general service right after the announcement was made that Canada was to purchase the used Upholder submarines, glad I did too because I more than likely would have been on Chicoutimi.
No matter how I look at it I can't see the value for money spent compared to capability. Just my opinion though.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Just to go back to the awesome vid, and add some levity, the first 45 secs or so of the video show everyone why ASW helo and patrol plane pilots just love it when submariners dare to use their periscope.

 

[RDBZ]

I agree with what you're saying, but to put it into perspective:  We aren't facing cuts like what is happening to the Brits and the Aussies.  The ADF is cutting $5 billion in one shot despite Australia having a boom cycle because of mining and natural resources, while the Brits are chopping regiments, airplanes, everything it can to stay "in the black". 

Some ADF folks are seeing the signs and starting to look our way...

Most of the ADF budget "cuts" were really just the rescheduling of expenditure due to schedule slippage in major programs like the F-35.  The only real "cut" was axing of the army's long running SPG project in favour of more M777s.  Also the RAAF's 8 remaining 35 year old C-130Hs were retired ealier than orginally planned - not a big issue considering they have picked up 2 additional C-17s as ad-hoc purchases over the last few years and have also taken delivery of the KC-30s.  At a broader level the RAAF has aleady started lobbying for an increase in its fighter strength, with 12 EF-18Gs to be retained in addition to the planned 100 strong F-35 buy.