Subs for sale

[Pieman]

Don't understand why they would be in such poor condition you could not fix them up as a museum and have the public walk through it (in a dry dock i assume)...but it would be good to see a museum take one and at least have the hull on display or something instead of scrapping them all.


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/25/subs050525.html
HALIFAX - Four mothballed submarines, acquired from the British navy nearly 40 years ago, are being put up for sale, the defence department has announced.

"We are anxious to get rid of them," Pat MacDonald, the department's disposal co-ordinator, told the Halifax Chronicle Herald.

"We have been for some time."

The Oberon-class submarines are presently docked on the Dartmouth, N.S., waterfront. HMCS Onondaga, HMCS Ojibwa, HMCS Okanagan and the Olympus were purchased between 1965 and 1968. (The Olympus was not commissioned, but used instead as a training vessel.)

HMCS Onondaga was the last of the subs to be taken out of service in 2000.

MacDonald estimated they may be able to get $50,000 to $60,000 each as scrap metal.

He said it would take a lot of resources to make the vessels seaworthy. Very little maintenance has been done on the submarines since they were taken out of service.

The navy would have liked to use the subs as museums but they've deteriorated too much even for that.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Don't understand why they would be in such poor condition you could not fix them up as a museum and have the public walk through it (in a dry dock i assume)...but it would be good to see a museum take one and at least have the hull on display or something instead of scrapping them all.

Pretty simple because they have not been moved or maintained since berthed over in Dartmouth. Salt water has a nasty habit of eventually corroding stationary objects. Personally I would like to see a couple sunk as targets to provide training for our air crews and ships crews.

 

[aesop081]

Pretty simple because they have not been moved or maintained since berthed over in Dartmouth. Salt water has a nasty habit of eventually corroding stationary objects. Personally I would like to see a couple sunk as targets to provide training for our air crews and ships crews.

That would be cool............MAD MARK FULL SCALE !!

 

[Pieman]

Pretty simple because they have not been moved or maintained since berthed over in Dartmouth. Salt water has a nasty habit of eventually corroding stationary objects.

Too bad they were tied up for that long then.

Not a bad idea sinking them, get some practice and if you dump them in fairly shallow water it makes it a possible tourist attraction for divers. Good for the environment too I understand, as it makes a reef.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Too bad they were tied up for that long then.

Not a bad idea sinking them, get some practice and if you dump them in fairly shallow water it makes it a possible tourist attraction for divers. Good for the environment too I understand, as it makes a reef.

Well at the time we were in the process of getting the Upholders so there was not much need for them any longer.

The problem with your idea of sinking them in shallow enough water as an attraction for divers if they were used as targets is you expose those divers to the risks of unexploded munitions which could result in serious injury or loss of life.

 

[Pieman]

The problem with your idea of sinking them in shallow enough water as an attraction for divers if they were used as targets is you expose those divers to the risks of unexploded munitions which could result in serious injury or loss of life.

I see. I am pretty sure that would ruin my diving vacation!

Do you think sinking subs with a value of 50K-60K for target practice would be worth it? (Just thinking about people criticizing the CF for blowing the subs up instead of getting cash for them)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I see. I am pretty sure that would ruin my diving vacation!

Do you think sinking subs with a value of 50K-60K for target practice would be worth it? (Just thinking about people criticizing the CF for blowing the subs up instead of getting cash for them)

Well ask yourself this. Is is not better the airmen and sailors to put their skills to use like this then to train on notional submarines targets? See the effect our weapons have on them and improve on training where needed then to get money for scrap metal? What do you think is the better investment?

 

[Seaman_Navy]

I'll be and try to buy one!

 

[Seaman_Navy]

bet

 

[Pieman]

Well ask yourself this. Is is not better the airmen and sailors to put their skills to use like this then to train on notional submarines targets? See the effect our weapons have on them and improve on training where needed then to get money for scrap metal? What do you think is the better investment?

I figured you guys getting some practice with the real stuff is the better investment, for sure. Just trying to get a view point and justification from a real Navy guy.  :warstory: Thanks.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

No prob

 

[NavyShooter]

Part of the problem of using these subs as targets would be cleaning them up.

If they're going to be sunk, then they're going to be in the water forever....and the crap in them has to be cleaned out first.  All the oil, PCB's, and other associated crud.

The PCB's are probably already mostly gone, but some of the older ships had wiring that had PCB's in it (found it on the Assiniboine when I was scrounging...) anyhow, the cleanup in prep for an underwater disposal would cost a LOT of money.

Most likely, the government has considered it, but rejected it due (partly) to the cost of cleaning them up.

NS

 

[TCBF]

"Pretty simple because they have not been moved or maintained since berthed over in Dartmouth. Salt water has a nasty habit of eventually corroding stationary objects. "

Seems to me the Upholders were tied up a lot longer than our 'O' Boats were, and we bought THEM.

Tom

 

[Neill McKay]

The problem with your idea of sinking them in shallow enough water as an attraction for divers if they were used as targets is you expose those divers to the risks of unexploded munitions which could result in serious injury or loss of life.

But how would that be diffreent from a destroyer?  Several steamers have been "reefed", presumably after a thorough stipping-down and clearing-out of any potentially harmful bits.

 

[George Wallace]

But how would that be diffreent from a destroyer?   Several steamers have been "reefed", presumably after a thorough stipping-down and clearing-out of any potentially harmful bits.

In this case the Destroyers were not used as Targets - no unexploded ammo problems.

 

[Bin-Rat]

You can buy this one...
it was decommisioned in 1991 whiskyclass and the price,Well for $497,000 US it could be your's....

http://www.b-americanboats.com/whiskeysub.html

or this Minesweeper, but the fuel bill will kill ya, range 6000 miles @ 80 gph
http://www.b-americanboats.com/minesweeper.html

 

[Sig_Des]

You can buy this one...
it was decommisioned in 1991 whiskyclass and the price,Well for $497,000 US it could be your's....

http://www.b-americanboats.com/whiskeysub.html

or this Minesweeper, but the fuel bill will kill ya, range 6000 miles @ 80 gph
http://www.b-americanboats.com/minesweeper.htm

A little off-topic, but I love that you can get a Hind
http://www.b-americanboats.com/mi-24.html

 

[andpro]

I need to get me one of those