Government Looking at Mothballing Victoria Class

[wyly]

Well---- yes. We are going to have to demonstrate that the Northern part of Canada is actually the northern part of Canada & we don't need all the countries of the world trespassing on those lands whether it be on the surface or under the ice. Nuclear subs are necessary to have the sustainability and the ability to patrol those waters. We are preparing to do so on the surface with our new Icebreakers and need the Nuke Subs to compliment them.

first we had posters suggesting the ruskies and chinese are going to steal our islands now you think they're going to steal our sea water and ice flows?...just what are the nuclear subs going to do when they meet a ruskie, american or chinese craft in those waters??? sink it? arrest them? that should make for an interesting news week...like most people you haven't given this a lot of thought have you... Edited November 6, 2011 by wyly

[Tilter]

first we had posters suggesting the ruskies and chinese are going to steal our islands now you think they're going to steal our sea water and ice flows?...just what are the nuclear subs going to do when they meet a ruskie, american or chinese craft in those waters??? sink it? arrest them? that should make for an interesting news week...like most people you haven't given this a lot of thought have you...

They will take whatever action to ensure Canadian borders.

now you think they're going to steal our sea water and ice flows?

Let's see---- The Islands in our Northern extremes (each & every one) are surrounded by--- guess what----??? WATER, the substance in which Submarines navigate. There are even ice floes up there, floating around in (guess what????) WATER--- which is all part of the country known as Canada

[Army Guy]

it's human nature not just the military, I want the best and latest tools and toys too with all the bells and whistles...but most of the time I restrain myself and buy only what I really need...and yes he agrees we don't need every new toy that comes along but we're not talking about not replacing old equipment but the right equipment...

Yes it is Human Nature to want the latest and greatest equipment that money can buy, and while most of us will finally conceed to your speaking piont and ask ourselfs do we really need that one tool with all the bells and whistles or can i get by with a cheaper one....and for most items in lfe we do finally purchase the cheaper verison...

But military equipment you have to start asking a few more questions, and rightfully so.... as this equipment is not only for taking lifes but saving them as well...equipment that will give our soldiers an edge on the battlefield means they are safer, (increases the average life span of a soldier)meaning the enemy is dieing off alot quicker than ours...which in the end is what war is all about is it not...And when your talking about Canada manpower it is an issue there are only so many persons that can be inducted , trained and forced to fight for our flag , as opposed to say Russia or China....which has people to throw away for any cause....So we don't need all the toys, but what ever we purchase needs to be better than say the worst case situation that murphy can throw at us...

buying nuclear subs is on every admirals wish list for xmas, could they use them sure, could we pay for them? probably, but do we honestly need them? no we don't we've done just fine without non working d/e subs since the last purchase, the money could be better spent elsewhere...buying f35's for sovereignty in the arctic? really? what an incredible waste of money, far better spent on CG ships or a military presence on the ground in the arctic if you want a show of sovereignty but if you ask the big guys DND that's a waste of money as well they don't ever expect a threat to our territory...

Lets remember we have always had sub's perhaps not enough of them but i don't think our navy has done without them, once again we have not kept our end of the bargin here in regards ensuring our forces have the equipment they need to do the job our Nation has asked of them....And i'm by no means a sub expert that i'll leave to BC since he was a submariner from way back....what i do know is when you trace our subs history back, the north has been a free fire zone with other nations coming and going as they please...all year round...not just when the polar ice pack is melting currently their is only 2 types of ves that can do that, Nuc powered ice breaker, only good most of the year which leaves some areas left unpatroled...or Nuc subs or Alt fuel subs ...So while they may be a nice to have they are required....if you don't think so then perhaps we should look at only patroling when it's nice out or during the summer months...As for affording it all, really ...Canadians are just getting the sticker shock now, at how much it costs when you starve your Military for 10 plus years...So really it comes down to this you want security then you pay for it...remember that although i volunteered the next brew up may not be so, and our sons and daughters will be putting on the uniforms and manning the equipment we thought was to expensive...

I not sure where you got this thing about F-35 for artic patrols , that is not thier entire function...and while some Ministers lack of imigination on uses for the F-35 may be all the media has got to report....Canada has signed on to god knows how many defensive agreements, with countries around the globe...all it would take is for some spark and Canada would be asked to throw in it's troops and equipment to defend or fight some nation in a far away place...Think about the US response to Russias agression last year...or what if China decides it's time to take back it's claimed terrirtory....and while it might be unlikely in your mind this would happen perhaps ask BC how many unreported Naval incidents happened during the last 20 years, how many lifes were lost, and what equipment was actually sunk or damaged... The threat is real...

[wyly]

Lets remember we have always had sub's perhaps not enough of them but i don't think our navy has done without them, once again we have not kept our end of the bargin here in regards ensuring our forces have the equipment they need to do the job our Nation has asked of them....And i'm by no means a sub expert that i'll leave to BC since he was a submariner from way back....what i do know is when you trace our subs history back, the north has been a free fire zone with other nations coming and going as they please...all year round...not just when the polar ice pack is melting currently their is only 2 types of ves that can do that, Nuc powered ice breaker, only good most of the year which leaves some areas left unpatroled...or Nuc subs or Alt fuel subs ...So while they may be a nice to have they are required....if you don't think so then perhaps we should look at only patroling when it's nice out or during the summer months...As for affording it all, really ...Canadians are just getting the sticker shock now, at how much it costs when you starve your Military for 10 plus years...So really it comes down to this you want security then you pay for it...remember that although i volunteered the next brew up may not be so, and our sons and daughters will be putting on the uniforms and manning the equipment we thought was to expensive...

but the subs we haven't been effectively operational since we got them and we've not been invaded...

even if had n-subs we will do nothing with them, there will be no confrontations under the ice with nuclear super powers nor will we be torpedoing any surface ships in an ecologically sensitive zone like the arctic...then there is the silliness of of getting worked up over a submarine sailing through our waters,so what... really what are they going to do where's the harm or threat?... and other than russia I can't think of any country that recognizes our claim to the waters around the islands, so an attack on any is an extremely high risk action, one that we can not win with any of the worlds superpowers...so the subs are a waste of money for arctic sovereignty, they're a purely offensive weapon and an absolute waste of money and resources for arctic patrol...

and you and I both know that DND does not see any threat to our arctic...the only challenges have been of the legal variety to resources outside territorial limits which all nations involved are agreed to have arbitrated by the UN...NO country has made any claim on our resources or territory other the many who deny our absolute sovereignty over the waterways and that includes our "ally" the USA...

I not sure where you got this thing about F-35 for arctic patrols , that is not their entire function...and while some Ministers lack of imigination on uses for the F-35 may be all the media has got to report....

it's the most common justification here on MLW for the f35, it's what the government highlights any time a russian military craft makes a training flight in international airspace 200ks off our coast to sell the F35's to a gullible public...

Canada has signed on to god knows how many defensive agreements, with countries around the globe...all it would take is for some spark and Canada would be asked to throw in it's troops and equipment to defend or fight some nation in a far away place...Think about the US response to Russias agression last year...or what if China decides it's time to take back it's claimed terrirtory....and while it might be unlikely in your mind this would happen perhaps ask BC how many unreported Naval incidents happened during the last 20 years, how many lifes were lost, and what equipment was actually sunk or damaged... The threat is real...

for the conflicts we'll be involved in we don't need something as expensive as the f35, we will never be engaged in a conflict with a country with advanced technology, the libyas and iraqs of the world won't even send up a fighter to challenge our cf188s...we only get dragged into conflicts when the usa decides to beat up on some small backwater nation with ancient technology, conflicts with the big guys will never happen and if by some chance we did the f35's will do us no good, messing about with nuclear powers is a lose/lose situation...

[Smallc]

Hey, Derek, lt seems that LM is going to bid on FWSAR with the C-130j.

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111113/lockheed-martin-plans-search-plane-bid-111113/20111113/?hub=EdmontonHome

[Guest Derek L]

Hey, Derek, lt seems that LM is going to bid on FWSAR with the C-130j.

http://edmonton.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20111113/lockheed-martin-plans-search-plane-bid-111113/20111113/?hub=EdmontonHome

I suppose any increase in cost of going with a larger aircraft will be outweighed by the savings on switching to one fleet………If the article is correct though, there will be a tender process……look for DND to rewrite the requirements to that of a four engine turboprop with a max take off weight being between 75K & 80K kgs

[Tilter]

Is that your opinion or your brother in laws, As i'm curious as i find it hard to believe that your brother in law would say that, I find it hard to believe anyone in the forces conjuring up stories to keep the Canadian peace knicks scared and shakin in some corner of BC...Just a look at DND's current equipment, it's date of manufacture, and comparing it to what is out there today would or should be enough to convince anyone it is time for an update or new equipment....we don't need ruskies or little yellow guys to do that....

Im sure any average canadian joe can provide you a list of old Canadian equipment, Shit the MLVW is almost 30 years old all of which cost more to keep operational than twice as much new stuff...but your right the Average Canadian soldier does sit back and dream of new stuff, not because we have a yearning to spend yours and ours tax dollars, but because we have families as well that we would like to come home to...after all not many jobs in Canada have signed on for unlimited liability ...we would atleast think before Canadian tax payers sent us out they would give us a fighting chance....

And from the equipment that we have requested i'm pretty sure theres no nuclear powered tanks, or any phasors, in fact most of the list is very resonable....to most people...

Most civvies would react badly if told that the Military has already replaced the Lee Enfield or the C47. :lol:

[Eric James]

No manager, commander, team leader, etc. would ever say that they have all of the resources that they need to complete a job. And yet in the end the job gets done. The mantra of the Canadian Forces (in all of its forms) way back even before the First World War was 'Doing all of the work with half of the equiment.' That is still true today.

You are right when you say that the military, just like any other organization, would jump at the chance to have some new toys. But to say that the military cooks up stories and threats to push for these chances is false. The facts simply speak for themselves. In the Royal Canadian Navy we have two oil replenishment vessels (AORs) that were commissioned in 1969-70. Both vessels are tired and have reached the end of their lifetime. We have three destroyers that were built in the 60s and went through a major refit in the 90s that gave them extensive Command and Control capabilities. These ships are old and have reached the end of their lifespan. We have 12 Halifax class frigates which are the work-horse of the Navy. Currently all of these ships are going through a refit period called FELIX which means that they will be rotated in and out of service on a 6-month basis for the next 4 years. While this refit will extend the life of these ships they have been work so hard since they were commissioned in the 90s that some people wonder if FELIX will actually materialize into a modern warship. Next we have 12 Kingston class vessels (the ones I sail on). These vessels were a design nightmare and as a result have limited capabilities. And then there are the submarines. The fact is that we do need new vessels in the Royal Canadian Navy. It's a natural life cycle not brass creating smoke and mirrors to get what they want.

[wyly]

No manager, commander, team leader, etc. would ever say that they have all of the resources that they need to complete a job. And yet in the end the job gets done. The mantra of the Canadian Forces (in all of its forms) way back even before the First World War was 'Doing all of the work with half of the equiment.' That is still true today.

You are right when you say that the military, just like any other organization, would jump at the chance to have some new toys. But to say that the military cooks up stories and threats to push for these chances is false. The facts simply speak for themselves. In the Royal Canadian Navy we have two oil replenishment vessels (AORs) that were commissioned in 1969-70. Both vessels are tired and have reached the end of their lifetime. We have three destroyers that were built in the 60s and went through a major refit in the 90s that gave them extensive Command and Control capabilities. These ships are old and have reached the end of their lifespan. We have 12 Halifax class frigates which are the work-horse of the Navy. Currently all of these ships are going through a refit period called FELIX which means that they will be rotated in and out of service on a 6-month basis for the next 4 years. While this refit will extend the life of these ships they have been work so hard since they were commissioned in the 90s that some people wonder if FELIX will actually materialize into a modern warship. Next we have 12 Kingston class vessels (the ones I sail on). These vessels were a design nightmare and as a result have limited capabilities. And then there are the submarines. The fact is that we do need new vessels in the Royal Canadian Navy. It's a natural life cycle not brass creating smoke and mirrors to get what they want.

new equipment should be planned well in advance, a constant rotation based on estimated lifetime, don't wait for everything to become obsolete requiring massive a outlay of cash and years using old equipment while waiting for new equipment to arrive...and the right equipment for the job, do we need nuclear subs no, do we even need subs?..could we use a small carrier/amphibious assault ship? maybe...

but there still is a human nature element we all share, we all want the best and latest toys, especially when someone else is paying the bill...the "brass" regardless their maturity is not immune to basic human nature...

[Eric James]

new equipment should be planned well in advance, a constant rotation based on estimated lifetime, don't wait for everything to become obsolete requiring massive a outlay of cash and years using old equipment while waiting for new equipment to arrive...and the right equipment for the job, do we need nuclear subs no, do we even need subs?..could we use a small carrier/amphibious assault ship? maybe...

but there still is a human nature element we all share, we all want the best and latest toys, especially when someone else is paying the bill...the "brass" regardless their maturity is not immune to basic human nature...

The issue was that after the big build for the Kingston class and the Halifax class as well as several vessels for the Coast Guard the shipbuilding industry in Canada was left to die slowly and quietly. Building new ships would not be as simple as turning around and saying to a contractor 'okay we want this and this and this...' it would have to be a process that would include heavy investment from the government to jump start these industries. That is exactly what is happening with the tendering process for the building of these new warships and coastal ships.

And you are right we should not wait for everything to be obsolete. The attitude with regard to military procurement was that the Navy got some big ticket items in the 90s therefore the 2000s would be more Army focuses especially with the war in Afghanistan raging on. Unfortunately the military operates on such a sparse budget when it comes to procurement and equipement maintaince that priority policy not set on a basis of what needs work but what we could get away with letting slip from work for some time to use resources on other things.

It is important to note that in Canada our procurement process is much more complicated than that of the US. The various departments in the US concerninig their Armed Forces generate their own procurement processes and present these plans to Congress. This is where we get this idea of a General creating enemies to get a shiny new toy from the boys on the Hill. In Canada procurement of government assets (including military assets) is largely conducted by the Minister of Public Works in consultation with the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance. It's a slower process and there are more hands in the pie but it keeps the players away from the buyers.

[bush_cheney2004]

...It is important to note that in Canada our procurement process is much more complicated than that of the US. The various departments in the US concerninig their Armed Forces generate their own procurement processes and present these plans to Congress. This is where we get this idea of a General creating enemies to get a shiny new toy from the boys on the Hill.

The oft made comparisons between Canada and the United States is never more inappropriate than when discussing military capability and procurements. The United States has mission roles and requirements that are driven by present and future threats on a scale that Canada does not/can not engage. US flag officers do not create enemies to get new toys, but rather oversee design, development, and deployment of platforms and weapons systems that maintain superior capabilities as directed by government.

That being said, it is a strategic blunder for Canada not to maintain core domestic capabilities for things like shipbuilding.

[Eric James]

The oft made comparisons between Canada and the United States is never more inappropriate than when discussing military capability and procurements. The United States has mission roles and requirements that are driven by present and future threats on a scale that Canada does not/can not engage. US flag officers do not create enemies to get new toys, but rather oversee design, development, and deployment of platforms and weapons systems that maintain superior capabilities as directed by government.

That being said, it is a strategic blunder for Canada not to maintain core domestic capabilities for things like shipbuilding.

All one has to do is watch The Pentagon Wars and then do a little research on what really happened with the Bradley Fighting Vehicle to understand how backward US military procurement can be.

I agree 110% with your last statement though. The ball was dropped considerably.

[bush_cheney2004]

All one has to do is watch The Pentagon Wars and then do a little research on what really happened with the Bradley Fighting Vehicle to understand how backward US military procurement can be.

The United States cancels more procurement programs than Canada dare to even start. The R&D aspect alone is huge business for public and private ventures, including universities. The Crusader program was very far along when cancelled. It is an entirely different mindset than the one in Canada which pinches pennies and reacts after the fact.

Example: The US government wanted the capability to deliver ordnance (bombs) to anywhere in the world within 60 minutes of receiving actionable intelligence. First thought was ICBMs/SLBMs with conventional warheads, but that's too provocative. So this week we have a successful test of the hypersonic glider, after many failures and wasted money...this is something that Canada does not/cannot do. Cue...Avro Arrow.

I agree 110% with your last statement though. The ball was dropped considerably.

I am an old school sea power kinda guy....if Canada has three oceans surrounding it, it just might wanna be able to build ships.

Edited November 19, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Eric James]

The United States cancels more procurement programs than Canada dare to even start. The R&D aspect alone is huge business for public and private ventures, including universities. The Crusader program was very far along when cancelled. It is an entirely different mindset than the one in Canada which pinches pennies and reacts after the fact.

I am an old school sea power kinda guy....if Canada has three oceans surrounding it, it just might wanna be able to build ships.

One of the largest problems with procurement in Canada is that the decision making process only includes input for requirements from the people on the ground in the first few stages of development. Once a design has been approved and given the go ahead to move forward changes are often made late down the road that have significant consequences on the original design composed from suggestions by people on the ground by beaurcrats in Ottawa. A classic example of this is the Kingston class which was designed to fullfill a NATO committment to have mine sweeping capabilities on both coasts. Along the design process it was realized that these vessels could be used to fill a seperate manning mandate for the Reserves which would widen its operations. Today the Kingston class vessels are designated mechanical minesweepers with no minesweeping gear in sight and with little to no mine sweeping experience among the crews. The are know as Maritime Coast Defence Vessels (MCDVs) manned primarly by class C reservists who serve 2-3 year long contracts. The vessels conduct route survey, BOIV operations as well as RCMP escorts and can act as a aid to civil power.

Canada has the second largest seaboard in the entire world. The Navy should be the primary element of the Armed Forces IMO. Including procurement and building capability. Not to mention that there is no reason why Canada can not have a world class shipbuilding industry for both public and private investment.

[bush_cheney2004]

... Once a design has been approved and given the go ahead to move forward changes are often made late down the road that have significant consequences on the original design composed from suggestions by people on the ground by beaurcrats in Ottawa...

Agree 100%...we even saw this with the ill fated Gun Registry, wherein changing requirements ballooned a simple IT project into a multi-billion dollar boondoggle. CF-188 procurement took a similar path in a merry-go-round of changing requirements and resulting Franken-strike fighter.

I do have to salute PM Harper for taking a stand and halting the decline as best he can. The last straw was perhaps an embarrassing DART team sitting at home too long and fighter squadrons not deployed to a war too far (Afghanistan).

[jbg]

:lol: :lol: the irony of calling yourself UofGPolitico and not having any political historical knowledge...

I think his post rather well sums up some problems the U.S. system has.

[Guest Derek L]

Another update:

http://atlantic.ctvn...-test-1.1057821

However, it seems the East Coast is now only months away from having an operational submarine.

HMCS Windsor has been in refit since 2007 but Defence Minister Peter MacKay tells CTV News it completed a key dive, called a camber dive, on Nov. 7 and is now being readied for sea trials.

And HMCS Victoria from a few months back at RIMPAC:

Edited December 2, 2012 by Derek L

[The_Squid]

The refit of Canada’s secondhand submarines is years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget.

Read more: http://atlantic.ctvnews.ca/hmcs-windsor-passes-critical-dive-test-1.1057821#ixzz2Dv4UU2BJ

What a bunch of bungling idiots, from the decision by the previous government to their naval advisors to the current mishandling.

[Guest Derek L]

What a bunch of bungling idiots, from the decision by the previous government to their naval advisors to the current mishandling.

There was nothing inherently wrong with the subs when we took them over, the problems began when we recycled systems from our old subs and installed them into the Victoria class to save money.............As to being “behind schedule”, this is due in part to funds and personal allocated to their upgrades having to be redirected to the naval contribution of the War on Terror………….Over the last several years as the navy has drawn down their operational tempo, the Victoria class began to progress in it’s development.

As to over budgeted, well that alone can be attributed to a decision made by the previous Liberal Government when they decided in the 90s to incorporate our older systems into them as opposed to keeping the previous British systems, which in the end, though more money to set-up initially, would have been cheaper in the long run………….At the end of the day, the same British systems have been operating near flawlessly in the Victoria/Upholder’s nuclear cousins, the Trafalgar class since the early 80s.

Edited December 2, 2012 by Derek L

[PIK]

well it wasn't really a boondoggle we got swindled by the brits...had they been working it was a bargin...

Actually they could have been a good buy. But chretien let them sit in sea water for 3 years before he pulled the trigger. Don't blame the sub or the brits, it is all chretiens faults. Just like the sea king that had to land in a parking lot a couple of weeks ago. Thanks jean. Edited December 3, 2012 by PIK

[Guest Derek L]

And another update:

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/straighttalk/archives/2013/04/20130414-115655.html

Of the three boats mentioned in the article that will be operational this year, HMCS Chicoutimi will be one of them.

[ReeferMadness]

Defending a country costs billions. That's a simple reality.

Would it help if we understood what we were defending it from?

[ReeferMadness]

Another update:

http://atlantic.ctvn...-test-1.1057821

And HMCS Victoria from a few months back at RIMPAC:

This is awesome. I've been terrified that our coasts were not safe from derelict rusting hulks adrift on the oceans but now I can sleep nights knowing our navy can deal with them.

[Guest Derek L]

Would it help if we understood what we were defending it from?

How good is your crystal ball?

[Guest Derek L]

This is awesome. I've been terrified that our coasts were not safe from derelict rusting hulks adrift on the oceans but now I can sleep nights knowing our navy can deal with them.

Certainly, we can deal with them…….and not so derelict hulks if we so choose……Simply put, the Victoria class submarines add a spectre of (coastal) sea dominance and a level of deterrence that only about as many navies as you have fingers could effectively deal with.