Government Looking at Mothballing Victoria Class

[Guest Derek L]

I hear some folks on this planet will pay DEARLY for this stuff to run their autos.

Explain the cuts in the defence budget then, let alone where the tens of billions of dollars will come from to procure and operate a fleet of nuclear submarines.

[Guest Derek L]

You sound like the Canadian government, btw. Defend those ol' POS boats. (cracks party whip)

Certainly and from a perspective of actually working with such things……no need for YouTube and Wikipedia here….

[DogOnPorch]

Explain the cuts in the defence budget then, let alone where the tens of billions of dollars will come from to procure and operate a fleet of nuclear submarines.

Please...we have the 2nd largest oil reserves on Earth. That's not the oil's fault.

Certainly and from a perspective of actually working with such things……no need for YouTube and Wikipedia here….

Yes...you've already insinuated that you're smart and I'm dumb.

[Guest Derek L]

Please...we have the 2nd largest oil reserves on Earth. That's not the oil's fault.

So? Like I said, where does the money come from......something gets cut or we raise taxes? So what goes or who pays more so we can increase DND's budget by ~20-25% to afford a fleet of nuclear attack boats?

Square that circle first if you wish to continue in a constructive manner.

Yes...you've already insinuated that you're smart and I'm dumb.

I'd never say dumb......just ignorant on the topic like the majority of Canadians.

[DogOnPorch]

So? Like I said, where does the money come from......something gets cut or we raise taxes? So what goes or who pays more so we can increase DND's budget by ~20-25% to afford a fleet of nuclear attack boats?

Square that circle first if you wish to continue in a constructive manner.

I'd never say dumb......just ignorant on the topic like the majority of Canadians.

Plenty of broke nations have a better navy than we do. No...oddly, you're a fan-boy of these things in the opposite way you are for the F-35.

F-35 = Money is no object.

Ice Station Zebra = Awwwww...sorry. All we can afford are these tickets to the Bowfin display at Pearl.

[GostHacked]

I beg to differ, the four subs, warts and all, were a better alternative to not having submarines…….The issues can be attributed to lack of proper funding and finite (Naval) resources being required for the War on Terror……..

What good are subs if they are not operational?

[bleeding heart]

This point has already been covered, I believe.

[DogOnPorch]

This point has already been covered, I believe.

Yes...they apparently mimic the Russian Kilo (etc) class of air breathers. Thus we get to be targets for US ASW efforts. In a pinch, they could try to torpedo something but wouldn't be like...say...the Dolphin class that can lob cruise missiles as well as torps. Knowing us, we'll probably install a 3in deck gun...pardon...a 76mm deck gun.

[DogOnPorch]

Need I say it's like Canada buying old F-5 Tiger Sharks because they mimic the MiG-21 in wargames.

Edited January 10, 2014 by DogOnPorch

[bleeding heart]

DoP, unfortunately, my ignorance, which is quite large on the subject, only allows me to tip my hat at both you and Derek, and try to make of the debate what I can. I only confess this so you understand I've not taken sides in a discussion which I can follow only tenuously. But it's interesting.

[DogOnPorch]

DoP, unfortunately, my ignorance, which is quite large on the subject, only allows me to tip my hat at both you and Derek, and try to make of the debate what I can. I only confess this so you understand I've not taken sides in a discussion which I can follow only tenuously. But it's interesting.

In simpler words...we bought old subs so that the Americans would have a Soviet/Russian-like diesel sub to chase down with their various sub hunters in wargames. They could also send a Tamil tramp freighter to Davy Jones' Locker if needed.

The original mandate was a type of submarine that could patrol the Arctic...off limits to these Upholders.

[bush_cheney2004]

So Canada has approximately ~9 war shots per sub in the inventory and the World’s largest navy (That also use to have quite a few more subs) has ~14-15 war shots per sub in inventory…….And the problem is what?

Not a problem because the U.S. torpedo Mk 48 assets are managed with weapons onloads and offloads for squadron or group utilization by deploying/operational boats, not those in extended availability or overhaul. The torpedoes are also cycled through depot level maintenance on a regular basis. More recently, attack boats will sail with VLS Tomahawks, Mk 48s, some more tube launched Tomahawks, and some rack space reserved for other "special items" or excess crew berthing. Harpoons are rarely carried despite having a longer range than torpedoes. Mines are usually a special weapons load.

[Army Guy]

Like we’ve discussed numerous times in the past, this is merely a reaction to the geopolitical realties going forward and the orientation of militaries into the Pacific theatre and it’s growing importance in this century, coupled with economic truths….Though I’m sorry in some respects that my “prophecies” are coming true, from a clear wide angle perspective, hardly surprising…….

Simply put, and with full respect, Mechanized Forces will have little utility in containing (and if required, fighting) Red China.

It would be a much easier pill to swallow if that was the plan , that we were building the military up to face the new threat in the Pacific, but it does not look like that. I may not know much about the Airforce or the Navy but their programs are being cut as well, just look at the amount of new frigates we are getting, those numbers are already being slashed , and we have not even got a contract signed yet.

don't get me started on AOP's....I'm all for the Navy to have the spot light for the next 10 years....but it does not look good for any element.

I refuse to give any credence to economic truths in this country, that the defict needs to be addressed or we will face ruin as a country....i think and this is my personal opinion its pre election hipe...I do give the Cons the credit they deserve that they have done more for the Military than any other party in the last 20 years....not that ,it was hard to do...but they did take some action....that action is and this is my fear going to be reversed, if we start focusing on one element at a time....

As for containing the Chinese, your right if we can not contain them on the oceans, we are certainily going to be eating rice for the next 100 years. but we can not do that by just concentrating on Naval forces, we will always have a need for boots on the ground, be it light Infantry, or Amphib Inf, or Mech Inf.

[DogOnPorch]

Not a problem because the U.S. torpedo Mk 48 assets are managed with weapons onloads and offloads for squadron or group utilization by deploying/operational boats, not those in extended availability or overhaul. The torpedoes are also cycled through depot level maintenance on a regular basis. More recently, attack boats will sail with VLS Tomahawks, Mk 48s, some more tube launched Tomahawks, and some rack space reserved for other "special items" or excess crew berthing. Harpoons are rarely carried despite having a longer range than torpedoes. Mines are usually a special weapons load.

Well, those M-48s are remarkable weapons...especially the Mod 7s. I wouldn't want one to have my number on it. Even if the thing...Dog forgive...misses, it can come around and engage the target again...and again...until it gets yah. Best torp since the Long Lance.

Kuma class CL with 40 (count 'em) Type 93 Long Lance tubes.

Edited January 10, 2014 by DogOnPorch

[bush_cheney2004]

Well, those M-48s are remarkable weapons...especially the Mod 7s. I wouldn't want one to have my number on it. Even if the thing...Dog forgive...misses, it can come around and engage the target again...and again...until it gets yah. Best torp since the Long Lance.

But threats and missions have changed. The U.S. has never fired an warshot Mk48 in a real conflict, just fun and games. They are becoming defensive weapons in practice, with Tomahawks getting all the action.

[DogOnPorch]

But threats and missions have changed. The U.S. has never fired an warshot Mk48 in a real conflict, just fun and games. They are becoming defensive weapons in practice, with Tomahawks getting all the action.

Yes...unless we're doing the Admiral Doenitz Happy Times thang, they are indeed defensive. The modern torp is similar to the air to air missile in its role. Which brings us back to the Upholders...

Edited January 10, 2014 by DogOnPorch

[Guest Derek L]

Plenty of broke nations have a better navy than we do. No...oddly, you're a fan-boy of these things in the opposite way you are for the F-35.

Like who?

And yes, I'm a fan of the Upholders, have been since the 80s.

[Guest Derek L]

What good are subs if they are not operational?

Two are, one that was is in a extended maintenance period and the final one will be later this year.

[Guest Derek L]

Yes...they apparently mimic the Russian Kilo (etc) class of air breathers. Thus we get to be targets for US ASW efforts.

And Canadian efforts.........Again your ignorance shines…….Well the Victoria’s were undergoing their conversions and the old O-boats were retired, the Americans didn’t lease HMS Gotland for the hell of it.

In a pinch, they could try to torpedo something but wouldn't be like...say...the Dolphin class that can lob cruise missiles as well as torps. Knowing us, we'll probably install a 3in deck gun...pardon...a 76mm deck gun.

Yes, the Dolphins.......They’d be really useful if their AO in Canadian service was limited to the Great Lakes, Georgia Strait and the Gulf of St Lawrence.

[Guest Derek L]

Need I say it's like Canada buying old F-5 Tiger Sharks because they mimic the MiG-21 in wargames.

You can go ahead and say, but doesn't mean it's true........I dare you, find one actual Canadian Defence source or even participant from RIMPAC ‘12 nation that shares your ignorant views. Go ahead.

[Guest Derek L]

Not a problem because the U.S. torpedo Mk 48 assets are managed with weapons onloads and offloads for squadron or group utilization by deploying/operational boats, not those in extended availability or overhaul. The torpedoes are also cycled through depot level maintenance on a regular basis. More recently, attack boats will sail with VLS Tomahawks, Mk 48s, some more tube launched Tomahawks, and some rack space reserved for other "special items" or excess crew berthing. Harpoons are rarely carried despite having a longer range than torpedoes. Mines are usually a special weapons load.

I know, we do likewise, as does the RN, RAN, the Dutch etc....... Same with Harpoons, SM-2s, ESSM mk-46s etc......

And I’d imagine the decline in the sub launched Harpoon is much the same as the decline in the old anti-ship Tomahawks………ROEs on BVR etc…..

[Guest Derek L]

But threats and missions have changed. The U.S. has never fired an warshot Mk48 in a real conflict, just fun and games. They are becoming defensive weapons in practice, with Tomahawks getting all the action.

Exactly, the last modern Navy to do so was the RN in 82.……..Still doesn’t diminish the utility of both SSNs and SSKs.

[DogOnPorch]

And yes, I'm a fan of the Upholders, have been since the 80s.

Say no more.

Yes...Dolphins. I'm aware of their "Baltic sea limitations". Still...it has offensive capabilities.

Go ahead.

It's a fine comparison. You can NINCOMPAC around it with various argument from authority fallacies that you wish. Canada is likely to require a military that is capable of offensive and defensive actions in the future (let alone now); these submarines will be useful weather stations off the coast of any conflict. Perhaps the Canadian government could offer rides to rich civilians as per the Russian Soyuz...get some cash-flow happening.

[Guest Derek L]

It would be a much easier pill to swallow if that was the plan , that we were building the military up to face the new threat in the Pacific, but it does not look like that. I may not know much about the Airforce or the Navy but their programs are being cut as well, just look at the amount of new frigates we are getting, those numbers are already being slashed , and we have not even got a contract signed yet.

don't get me started on AOP's....I'm all for the Navy to have the spot light for the next 10 years....but it does not look good for any element.

Though it would not surprise me, I certainly have not heard anything official on that.

I refuse to give any credence to economic truths in this country, that the defict needs to be addressed or we will face ruin as a country....i think and this is my personal opinion its pre election hipe...I do give the Cons the credit they deserve that they have done more for the Military than any other party in the last 20 years....not that ,it was hard to do...but they did take some action....that action is and this is my fear going to be reversed, if we start focusing on one element at a time....

I hear you, but everybody in NATO is cutting back in this fiscal climate.........And as we talked about before, over 60% of DND's budget goes to manpower, so we can Certainly expect a haircut, for having a large force that doesn’t train and has obsolete equipment we’ve already done……..At the end of the day, defence doesn’t win elections in Canada.

As for containing the Chinese, your right if we can not contain them on the oceans, we are certainily going to be eating rice for the next 100 years. but we can not do that by just concentrating on Naval forces, we will always have a need for boots on the ground, be it light Infantry, or Amphib Inf, or Mech Inf.

We, as in the West most certainly can contain them to their Ocean, much like we did to Japan……..Oh, and did you read Chesty Puller’s book that I recommended to you yet?

[Guest Derek L]

Say no more.

Yes...Dolphins. I'm aware of their "Baltic sea limitations". Still...it has offensive capabilities.

Then why would you suggest them for Canada?

It's a fine comparison. You can NINCOMPAC around it with various argument from authority fallacies that you wish. Canada is likely to require a military that is capable of offensive and defensive actions in the future (let alone now); these submarines will be useful weather stations off the coast of any conflict. Perhaps the Canadian government could offer rides to rich civilians as per the Russian Soyuz...get some cash-flow happening.

Quick, post a YouTube video....