Government Looking at Mothballing Victoria Class

[olp1fan]

how much do you wanna bet the POS government we have will sabre rattle buying these weapons to protect the arctic

but use the weapons anywhere but the arctic?

[olp1fan]

That isn't an answer. Canada is an active participant in the world, and always has been.

i only support arming canada to protect canada not to hang off the coast of iran or somalia

im sure most canadians agree with that

[Smallc]

i only support arming canada to protect canada not to hang off the coast of iran or somalia

im sure most canadians agree with that

Well, that's not the reality of the world, so you're going to have to live with it.

[blueblood]

Mines

The claim is real...there is US territory in the Arctic. We bought it from the Russians (Seward's Icebox).

Pardon the pun, but Canada lacks the critical mass to build and operate nuclear submarines. Besides the huge political problem, it is a very expensive proposition in the face of other defense needs and priorities. Demonstrated support and operation of the diesel electrics has been challenging enough, let alone AIP or nuclear.

Mulroney tried to go down the nuclear path and got nowhere fast....dead in the water.

I know that, he USA has a legit claim, but as far as anything goes, you have to pay to play. I know it's a political nightmare in Canada, but we have to ask ourselves, how much is that claim in the arctic worth? It could be very expensive for us to let a treasure trove slip throu our fingers, and then as smallc puts it the other uses for a nuke sub. It's prepping for the unknown...

[olp1fan]

Well, that's not the reality of the world, so you're going to have to live with it.

nah this isnt even confirmed yet plus theres no money for nuke subs

we're not getting them

[Guest Derek L]

I think this "short history" for Canada's submarines says it all:

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/victoria/2/2-s_eng.asp?category=161&title=1041

Well it looks like cuts are coming for you guys…….I’m sure you guys have a few 688i’s that are creeping up on their ROH……might be a time to unload them…

[bush_cheney2004]

I know that, he USA has a legit claim, but as far as anything goes, you have to pay to play. I know it's a political nightmare in Canada, but we have to ask ourselves, how much is that claim in the arctic worth? It could be very expensive for us to let a treasure trove slip throu our fingers, and then as smallc puts it the other uses for a nuke sub. It's prepping for the unknown...

Canada has to get the basics in place on the surface before jumping to exotic nuclear powered platforms fighting raging battles with Russia under the ice. Define the mission before jumping for a sexy solution.

Edited October 28, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

nah this isnt even confirmed yet plus theres no money for nuke subs

we're not getting them

I wasn't talking about subs specifically, I'm talking about missions like Haiti, Libya, Afghanistan, and Somalia. They're going to continue.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

Well it looks like cuts are coming for you guys…….I’m sure you guys have a few 688i’s that are creeping up on their ROH……might be a time to unload them…

We are scrapping boats rather than refueling them...the cost of building programs and overhauls is just soaking up too much of the US Navy's budget. Plus we have to begin development of Ohio class SSBN replacements, the most survivable nuclear deterrent.

Even the cost of scrapping a nuclear powered vessel is staggering.

Edited October 28, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[olp1fan]

I wasn't talking about subs specifically, I'm talking about missions like Haiti, Libya, Afghanistan, and Somalia. They're going to continue.

libyan protesters become violent and attack police first.. army is called in and has to forcefully stop it

gadaffi is singled out so nato interferes

syrian protesters get attacked by military and are being killed by the thousands STILL

yet nato doesnt give a damn

nato is evil

[Guest Derek L]

We are scrapping boats rather than refueling them...the cost of building programs and overhauls is just soaking up too much of the US Navy's budget. Plus we have to begin development of Ohio class SSBN replacements, the most survivable nuclear deterrent.

Even the cost of scrapping a nuclear powered vessel is staggering.

Just saying, if the numbers are dropping, it might be advantageous to both of us……We pay the ~300 million to refill the kettle, lease them and send our crews through Groton, then after a decade (or so) replace them with SSN-774s on the backend of their production run…….It would help keep the unit price down for you, and we could pay for the SRP………It has to cost a fortune to turn them into glow-in-the-dark razors

[Smallc]

nato is evil

NATO was on a UN mission. The UNSC isn't going to do anything against Syria...at least not yet.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Smallc

[olp1fan]

NATO was on a UN mission. The UNSC isn't going to do anything against Syria...at least not yet.

UN is useless, has been for awhile

[bush_cheney2004]

Just saying, if the numbers are dropping, it might be advantageous to both of us……We pay the ~300 million to refill the kettle, lease them and send our crews through Groton, then after a decade (or so) replace them with SSN-774s on the backend of their production run…….It would help keep the unit price down for you, and we could pay for the SRP………It has to cost a fortune to turn them into glow-in-the-dark razors

That's not the main problem...Canada would have to buy support services with refits in the USA. Canada has very little infrastructure to support the nuclear submarine lifecycle...no sub tenders...no organic experience with operations or tactics...no comms network....etc., etc.

No glowing razors...the RC's are left intact and transported by barge for nuclear waste burial in Hanford, Washington. Each large can in the photo is a scrapped reactor compartment.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jYVl__lRp5s/Tfpf4Cyi6rI/AAAAAAAAA6E/KN5XrRqW_m0/s1600/HanfordSubRxCompPics.jpg

Edited October 28, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Guest Derek L]

UN is useless, has been for awhile

Ok......no to NATO and the UN.....got your point.....now what are you going to do to (if) replace them?

[Guest Derek L]

That's not the main problem...Canada would have to buy support services with refits in the USA. Canada has very little infrastructure to support the nuclear submarine lifecycle...no sub tenders...no organic experience with operations or tactics...no comms network....etc., etc.

No glowing razors...the RC's are left intact and transported by barge for nuclear waste burial in Hanford, Washington. Each large can in the photo is a scrapped reactor compartment.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jYVl__lRp5s/Tfpf4Cyi6rI/AAAAAAAAA6E/KN5XrRqW_m0/s1600/HanfordSubRxCompPics.jpg

I understand the complexity of them(more than a laymen, less than a pro), and rightfully so, we have next to nothing in terms of support infrastructure to maintain them, and the years of training required for our sailors to even operate the reactor safely would almost kill the entire deal…….In the end, these problems could be addressed with the right amount of money, but the political capital will likely never be there.

The only way I could ever see it being feasible is if we partnered with another nation that already builds and operates them…..I highly doubt it would ever be with you guys…….I don’t think (and rightfully so) you’d be willing to share the technology (like in the 80s), which, as I mentioned leaves us with the British and the French…….Going back to the political capital, the likelihood of us buying British is a non-starter in terms of optics…..

Now the French……could be another storey…….I’ve images of the ultimate political pandering……Trade deal set-up between Canada and France that see’s DCNS setting up a small facility in the (nearly) now defunct Mil-Davie yard in Quebec……..Us buying an inferior (French) sub, with US weapons/electronics/sensors, and paying more per unit then what your Ohio replacement will cost……

[olp1fan]

Ok......no to NATO and the UN.....got your point.....now what are you going to do to (if) replace them?

would not replace them

[cybercoma]

Canada has to get the basics in place on the surface before blah blah blah

That's for Canada to decide not for you.

[bush_cheney2004]

I understand the complexity of them(more than a laymen, less than a pro), and rightfully so, we have next to nothing in terms of support infrastructure to maintain them, and the years of training required for our sailors to even operate the reactor safely would almost kill the entire deal…….In the end, these problems could be addressed with the right amount of money, but the political capital will likely never be there.

Right...enough money could solve all of that, but Canada lacks the will (and defined missions) to make such an expensive commitment. Mission drives capabilities which drives weapons, sensors, range, and tactics, which in turn drives platform design and on and on. Nuclear boats in and of themselves do not provide anything special unless there is a concerted effort to leverage their stealth and range for a real purpose, all while gobbling up huge amounts of budget and other resources.

There are lots of intangibles that Canada cannot just buy from another country already operating nuclear submarines. History is littered with the cost of getting experience and making mistakes. India is learning that right now. Like aircraft crashes, hull losses rarely result in being able to just swim away in lifeboats.

Buy a nuclear icebreaker from Russia instead....much more practical.

[bush_cheney2004]

That's for Canada to decide not for you.

...if only it could/would....instead is hasn't/won't.

[cybercoma]

...if only it could/would....instead is hasn't/won't.

It's none of your business either way. You go worry about America and leave worrying about Canada to Canadians.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's none of your business either way. You go worry about America and leave worrying about Canada to Canadians.

No way hombre...payback is a bitch!

[cybercoma]

No way hombre...payback is a bitch!

It's not payback at all. You're just a lousy hypocrite.

[bush_cheney2004]

It's not payback at all. You're just a lousy hypocrite.

If you can't beat 'em...join 'em. Feel the burn baby!

[Wild Bill]

Right...enough money could solve all of that, but Canada lacks the will (and defined missions) to make such an expensive commitment. Mission drives capabilities which drives weapons, sensors, range, and tactics, which in turn drives platform design and on and on. Nuclear boats in and of themselves do not provide anything special unless there is a concerted effort to leverage their stealth and range for a real purpose, all while gobbling up huge amounts of budget and other resources.

There are lots of intangibles that Canada cannot just buy from another country already operating nuclear submarines. History is littered with the cost of getting experience and making mistakes. India is learning that right now. Like aircraft crashes, hull losses rarely result in being able to just swim away in lifeboats.

Buy a nuclear icebreaker from Russia instead....much more practical.

BC, at first glance you would appear to hold an accurate view of Canada's capabilities but while it may seem like simple blind patriotism to you, I think you're wrong!

You see, historically Canada is NEVER prepared militarily, with a long-standing infrastructure of equipment and experience! We always cut our military down to something useless in a real fight and when the balloon goes up we start scrambling.

However, I think few countries are in our class in how quickly we gear up. Things like the British Commonwealth Air Training Program and how fast we called up men for the Army and got them trained and equipped were amazing for their time.

We also designed and flew the Arrow in a remarkably short time. We were the first to literally fly a new plane design from the drawing board straight into the sky! We can argue about whether the Arrow was as great a plane as some believe or not but the fact is, 20 years earlier we were not a military aircraft building and designing nation at all.

We're the Hobbits of the world, BC! We are set in our ways and emminently peaceful. We are perhaps TOO slow to anger! Once things cross the line however, we are formidable fighters.

I would not be so foolish as to make the claim that our style is still a good one for modern times. After all, today's conflicts are "come as you are" wars. When things start you can fight with whatever you have at that point. By the time you start to call up men and build factories things are long over! You either won with what you had or you lost! It was over in a few weeks or even days, while my country hasn't even begun to debate if it is a federal or a provincial matter!

Still, our tradition of being able to wake up and adapt quickly is a real one. If we purchase some nuclear submarines I have no doubt we will end up manning them quite capably. If we build them ourselves they will work well!

It was never the Canadian forces who had to re-do maintenance manuals into comic book form to suit the literacy levels of their men, BC! Frankly, I believe that our typical member of our armed forces is just more literate and educated than yours! This is not meant as an insult. We work with what we have. I'm just positing an explanation. We're dumbing down our youth as fast as we can to match you!

So at last we are trying to catch up for a couple of decades of neglect to our military. That takes money! I can't help but feel that Harper is going a bit beyond that. The reasons why aren't clear. I would agree that we were once the 3rd biggest and most capable navy in the world, after WWII. We threw it all away, keeping only the memory alive for politicians to use for peace-keeping missions and photo-ops, even when those like Chretien seemed oblivious to having cut so deep that we no longer had the capability to fulfill as many missions as he wanted to send them on!

Why now? Why is a Canadian federal government being so aggressive about redeveloping our capability? Perhaps Harper has been told that America just can't afford to carry the western defence load all by itself anymore, since NATO has been going the way of the League of Nations. Or maybe he's been made aware of some intelligence warning that something is building, like a threat from China, Iran or whoever and we are trying to be ready for it. If that's the case, it would be perhaps the first time in our history we were proactive about being ready for a military threat!

Murky waters but something seems happening below the surface. I don't see it but perhaps others on this board may do so. Yourself, Derek L and Smallc have impressed me greatly with your knowledge of such matters. Maybe you folks can ferret out the real picture.

My real point to you is that you should not be so quick to judge what we are capable of in a crunch. Like Hobbits, we would surprise you! We've proven ourselves many times before and we are not so far gone that we couldn't do it again, if we had to!