New Submarines Considered

[jdobbin]

Yeesh.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071009/...ubs_replacement

The defence minister's office recently requested a briefing on how long it would take to introduce new submarines - a move that could set the stage for the replacement of the troubled Victoria-class boats, defence sources have told The Canadian Press.

At the same time, a key refit contract involving the compressed-air system aboard HMCS Victoria has been put on hold, an upgrade which left incomplete would mean the warship would not be able to fire torpedoes.

Both actions raise questions about the future of the four glitch-plagued submarines that were purchased from Britain in 1998 under the former Liberal government and have yet to reach full operational status.

In the briefing, which was reportedly delivered by senior officials last week to Peter MacKay's new deputy minister, the government was told it would take six years to bring new submarines completely up to snuff, starting from the moment of contract signing.

A second defence source said a more conservative estimate of the timeline would be up to eight years.

The last ones were a waste of money. I was never convinced they were the best use of a limited Navy budget. Hopefully, the Tories won't be led down the same garden path the Liberals were in purchasing more.

Edited October 9, 2007 by jdobbin

[old_bold&cold]

If Canada were to get new submarines they should be of the very large nucear types already being used by Russia and the USA. We would only need three really but in a pinch could get away with two. We need the ability to go under the artic icecap and make sure we can make our claim there solid. Each coast should also have one for patrols there. The ones that are taking so long and so much money, well they can be spares I guess. Maybe even be in the great lakes as well, as salt water seems to give them problems.

[bush_cheney2004]

If Canada were to get new submarines they should be of the very large nucear types already being used by Russia and the USA. We would only need three really but in a pinch could get away with two. We need the ability to go under the artic icecap and make sure we can make our claim there solid. Each coast should also have one for patrols there. The ones that are taking so long and so much money, well they can be spares I guess. Maybe even be in the great lakes as well, as salt water seems to give them problems.

Canada does not have the infrastucture or Navy budget to maintain the diesel electrics, let alone nuclear or AIP boats. And this is not for lack of studying the problem to death over many years, going back to at least PM Mulroney. Several American non vertical launch system (VLS) Los Angeles class boats with under-ice capability were available in the late 90's through today, but Canada can't afford that kind of commitment along with other funding obligations / needs. So those subs went the recycling program (SRP) near Bremerton, Washington, which is right next door to Canada and the Strait of Juan de Fuca.

Trust me on this one....nuke boats are outrageously expensive to support with crew training, maintenance, and facilities.

DBF!

[trex]

Yeesh.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071009/...ubs_replacement

The last ones were a waste of money. I was never convinced they were the best use of a limited Navy budget. Hopefully, the Tories won't be led down the same garden path the Liberals were in purchasing more.

what again?? seems like we just bought that stuff... can we get any of our money back from the brits??

ya thats the crap sub, it leaked, someone even died. i think its the same one?? they were considered crap even before we got the very first one.

if so, shame on them, theres no accountability for these people...

Edited October 10, 2007 by tbud

[jdobbin]

what again?? seems like we just bought that stuff... can we get any of our money back from the brits??

ya thats the crap sub, it leaked, someone even died. i think its the same one?? they were considered crap even before we got the very first one.

if so, shame on them, theres no accountability for these people...

I think that we should look at our alternatives of buying submarines. They're expensive and probably not the best use of our resources.

[ScottSA]

Trust me on this one....nuke boats are outrageously expensive to support with crew training, maintenance, and facilities.

DBF!

That is absolutely correct...the supply and tech tail is horrendous, and no way do we have the facilities to maintain it...unless of course we come hat in hand to Norfolk. However, if we fill them with cement and place them on the ice in the arctic with big "caution nuclear warhead" signs pasted all over them, no one will dare invade.

Edited October 10, 2007 by ScottSA

[M.Dancer]

Yeesh.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/071009/...ubs_replacement

The last ones were a waste of money. I was never convinced they were the best use of a limited Navy budget. Hopefully, the Tories won't be led down the same garden path the Liberals were in purchasing more.

What made the subs attractive was the barter aspect of the deal. In theory and on paper they are superb machines for what little hard currency actually changed hands....but it seems yoiu git for what your pay. Whether we need another set of subs is very debatable.

[jdobbin]

What made the subs attractive was the barter aspect of the deal. In theory and on paper they are superb machines for what little hard currency actually changed hands....but it seems yoiu git for what your pay. Whether we need another set of subs is very debatable.

I know how it was sold to Canada and the military and Defence department said it was a sweet deal. It is disappointing to say the least how this turned out.

I think we'd have been better to have invested in another 12 frigates instead.

[M.Dancer]

I think we'd have been better to have invested in another 12 frigates instead.

Or six destroyers.......24 corvettes........3 cruisers.......

[Wilber]

None of which could be used in the arctic ice.

[bush_cheney2004]

None of which could be used in the arctic ice.

True....but Windsor only had 30,000 nautical miles on the odometer!

[M.Dancer]

None of which could be used in the arctic ice.

Best craft to navigate the arctic is an aircraft

[geoffrey]

Best craft to navigate the arctic is an aircraft

Your right.

Plus, I wouldn't trust my life to one of those subs under arctic ice.

[jdobbin]

Or six destroyers.......24 corvettes........3 cruisers.......

Given how old our destroyers are, I can't say that you are incorrect. I have no idea about cruisers. As for corvettes, isn't that kind of how big the Arctic patrol boats are?

Edited October 10, 2007 by jdobbin

[M.Dancer]

Given how old our destroyers are, I can't say that you are incorrect. I have no idea about cruisers. As for corvettes, isn't that kind of how big the Arctic patrol boats?

A corvette is an ambigous designation for a small boat. The costal patrol boats could be corvettes, if they had been designed for a 1940s era navy.

A better idea might be a US coast guard cutter.....something small and fast )or at least faster than a fast trawler) and has a punch both above and below the surface. Typically it would have little anti air ability.

[jdobbin]

A corvette is an ambigous designation for a small boat. The costal patrol boats could be corvettes, if they had been designed for a 1940s era navy.

A better idea might be a US coast guard cutter.....something small and fast )or at least faster than a fast trawler) and has a punch both above and below the surface. Typically it would have little anti air ability.

It seems our Navy has determined that anything smaller than a frigate should be used by the Reserve.

I think you hit the nail on the head of another neglected maritime service: the Coast Guard.

[M.Dancer]

It seems our Navy has determined that anything smaller than a frigate should be used by the Reserve.

I think you hit the nail on the head of another neglected maritime service: the Coast Guard.

We don't have one.....or at least one the gaurds our coasts from anything more than spanish fishermen.

[Wilber]

Best craft to navigate the arctic is an aircraft

True but if you can't put people on the surface any claim to sovereignty is questionable.

[M.Dancer]

True but if you can't put people on the surface any claim to sovereignty is questionable.

In which case their is a stronger case for aircraft. Very hard to put boots 300km inland with a boat.

[Wilber]

In which case their is a stronger case for aircraft. Very hard to put boots 300km inland with a boat.

There is certainly a case for aircraft, particularly patrol aircraft and a more northern base to operate from. Cold Lake, Bagotville and North Bay are a long way from the high Arctic. The US has air bases in Nome, Fairbanks, Anchorage and Thule. A lot of what is in dispute concerns the Northwest Passage and offshore resources. It the other guy can put ships and people in those places and we can't, that's a big problem. Too bad we couldn't go ahead with the Polar 8's back in the 90's. They would be very handy now.

[jdobbin]

True but if you can't put people on the surface any claim to sovereignty is questionable.

I agree about that. I think that requires ships on the water, boots on the ground. I think subs are a poor choice to assert Arctic sovereignty. I'd rather invest in sub detection and have the best ability to blow them out of the water from air and surface ship components.

[jdobbin]

Too bad we couldn't go ahead with the Polar 8's back in the 90's. They would be very handy now.

I had agreed with the Tory proposal for heavy icebreakers. I'm sorry they didn't go through with it.

[M.Dancer]

I agree about that. I think that requires ships on the water, boots on the ground. I think subs are a poor choice to assert Arctic sovereignty. I'd rather invest in sub detection and have the best ability to blow them out of the water from air and surface ship components.

The best platform for sub detection is another sub. It also happens to be the best platform for blowing them up too.

[jdobbin]

The best platform for sub detection is another sub. It also happens to be the best platform for blowing them up too.

Since the only way to reach some of these intruding subs is to have nuclear subs to go under Canada's ice, I don't think it is an option we can afford. Nor do I think we can build enough subs to hunt the British, American, Russian and others that might ply the waters under Arctic ice.

I don't disagree that one sub is better at detecting another sub but in the absence of that, I'd like to see us monitor the chokepoints and be well equipped to deal with them.

[ScottSA]

I don't disagree that one sub is better at detecting another sub but in the absence of that, I'd like to see us monitor the chokepoints and be well equipped to deal with them.

I'm not sure what a Canadian sub - even a superduper keen sub - is going to do if it detects another nation's sub. Torpedo it? Drop bricks on its head? What's the point of monitoring chokepoints? In order to send a diplomatic protest over an intrusion that the other country doesn't even recognize as such?