Government Looking at Mothballing Victoria Class

[Smallc]

just who is going to steal our ice flows??? come on tell me!

Do you have any clue what treasures the arctic holds?

Dictatorship-A government controlled by one person, or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests entirely on the person or group of people.

we have no control of this government they are free to do anything they please, there are no checks or balances...for the first time in my life I envy the american political system...

Good, move there. After all, it seems to be working rather well for them. Also, your perversion of the word dictatorship is another .

[Smallc]

how wonderful 4-5 nuclear subs at a billion per just to watch ships sail through the NWP and a photo-op for captain canada...pure economic genius...I'm betting a half dozen inuit in motor boats could do the same for a wee bit less...

This from a guy that thinks Iran stands a chance against the USN.

[blueblood]

that's beyond ludicrous...

So you don't think there are any oil reserves in the arctic?

I don't think those Inuit in their little boats can go where the continental shelf is...

And then there is dealing with a potential nutjob's navy...

[Guest Derek L]

THE CANADIAN NUCLEAR SUBMARINE PROGRAM

On 5 June 1987 27th of October, the Brian Mulroney Stephen Harper Progressive Conservative government of Canada unveiled to the House of Commons its White Paper on national defence. The document, Challenge and Commitment Canada First: A Defence Policy for Canada, was advertised as a plan to rejuvenate the Canadian military, which the Conservatives had long accused former Liberal governments of ignoring and allowing to decline. The White Paper was a comprehensive document, seeking new equipment for all three services for use in both Europe and Canada in an attempt to enhance Canada’s contribution to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), national defence, and Canadian sovereignty. The ‘crown jewel’ of the White Paper, however, was the concept of a three-ocean navy and the planned acquisition of 10 to 12 nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs). This submarine purchase, intended to be the largest acquisition program in the history of the Canadian military, represented a fundamental shift from the Canadian Atlantist alliance-oriented policy toward a program more inclined toward the protection of Canadian territory, and, particularly, the maintenance of national sovereignty.1

It’s getting close to 25 years and haven’t seen them yet…….

The real question, for a truly viable nuclear sub, which you’d need a minimum of six to be feasible, would be what was being cut (Hull numbers of the DDH/FFG program?) to afford it, and who is going to sell us their nuclear maritime technology? (The French? Only if you like glowing in the Dark….)

As I’ve mused about in another thread (I think? Or going senile) I’d be in favour of cutting the surface fleet in half (~8 hulls), purchasing a few additional AOPS/OPVs/Cutters for domestic operations, and acquiring a SNN fleet of ~ 8 boats………In terms of domestic security, and naval (Blue water) war fighting ability, a nuclear submarine is a game changer……See HMS Conqueror vs. ARA General Belgrano and the Armada de la República Argentina

Still, not holding my breath.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Derek L

[Smallc]

that's beyond ludicrous...

Why?

[Guest Derek L]

how wonderful 4-5 nuclear subs at a billion per just to watch ships sail through the NWP and a photo-op for captain canada...pure economic genius...I'm betting a half dozen inuit in motor boats could do the same for a wee bit less...

To clarify, is that your opinion or that of your brother in-law?

[eyeball]

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

Invading one costs trillions. The few countries who've been crazy enough to try it these last few decades are pretty much flat-assed broke and have nothing to show for it.

[bush_cheney2004]

If having a nuke sub or two up in the arctic keeps the Russians from popping oil derricks on our continental shelf without paying us royalties, then that's a solid return on investment.

Not going to happen....and really not going to happen vs. the Russian navy, which even in its rusting state has far more capability and experience than a nuclear dream submarine from Canada. There are far cheaper and more practical ways to solve such a conflict.

Edited October 28, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

The real question, for a truly viable nuclear sub, which you’d need a minimum of six to be feasible, would be what was being cut (Hull numbers of the DDH/FFG program?) to afford it,

Nothing, if you make it a separate acquisition outside of the DND budget. I don't see them cutting the CSC for anything. If anything, I see them cutting the Victoria and increasing the CSC numbers by 1 - 2.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Smallc

[blueblood]

Not going to happen....and really not going to happen vs. the Russian navy, which even in its rusting state has far more capability and experience than a nuclear dream submarine from Canada. There are far cheaper and more practical ways to solve such a conflict.

That's only a part of it, there is always the unknown to deal with and being as best prepared to deal with it. How else do you propose to enforce claims to the arctic ocean which is froze most of the time...

The USA has a legit claim up there because you guys can enforce said claim.

[Guest Derek L]

Not going to happen....and really not going to happen vs. the Russian navy, which even in its rusting state has far more capability and experience than a nuclear dream submarine from Canada. There are far cheaper and more practical ways to solve such a conflict.

Agreed......."It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" - Admiral of the Fleet Andrew Cunningham

[Guest Derek L]

Nothing, if you make it a separate acquisition outside of the DND budget. I don't see them cutting the CSC for anything. If anything, I see them cutting the Victoria and increasing the CSC numbers by 1 - 2.

What makes you feel that?

[olp1fan]

I'm all for nuclear subs if we are going to use them in the Arctic and not for some other mission in the world

[Smallc]

What makes you feel that?

I don't know, it's just because I see submarines as something that the government won't be able to sell. Now, I'd definitely support a fleet of 6 nuclear subs and 10 - 12 CSCs, but that's just me.

Edited October 28, 2011 by Smallc

[Smallc]

I'm all for nuclear subs if we are going to use them in the Arctic and not for some other mission in the world

Why? Is there something wrong with using them for anti piracy, truing exercises, or as part of a NATO standing group?

[bush_cheney2004]

That's only a part of it, there is always the unknown to deal with and being as best prepared to deal with it. How else do you propose to enforce claims to the arctic ocean which is froze most of the time...

Mines

The USA has a legit claim up there because you guys can enforce said claim.

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.

[Guest Derek L]

I'm all for nuclear subs if we are going to use them in the Arctic and not for some other mission in the world

Well that’s just not realistic……The beauty about SSNs is that just by having them in of itself is a deterrence…….We could have a nuclear sub in the Artic…….or it could be in the Persian Gulf…..or the Straits of Taiwan etc…..

[Guest Derek L]

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.

Exactly and Mulroney and Ronnie were friends……..That leaves us with British (Their own troubled Astute program that the Americans had to save) and the French……..

[Smallc]

Exactly and Mulroney and Ronnie were friends……..That leaves us with British (Their own troubled Astute program that the Americans had to save) and the French……..

And so, that's why I see is dropping the subs, and if nothing else, building the larger number of AOPS right now. Perhaps we'll get on board with the Australians in the late 2020s or so.

[Guest Derek L]

And so, that's why I see is dropping the subs, and if nothing else, building the larger number of AOPS right now. Perhaps we'll get on board with the Australians in the late 2020s or so.

If we drop the subs themselves, we’ll lose a lot more than just the subs and the corporate knowledge in operating them………

[Smallc]

If we drop the subs themselves, we’ll lose a lot more than just the subs and the corporate knowledge in operating them………

Well, I agree, but this rumour that the government is scrapping the sub fleet had to come from somewhere.

[bush_cheney2004]

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

[olp1fan]

Well that’s just not realistic……The beauty about SSNs is that just by having them in of itself is a deterrence…….We could have a nuclear sub in the Artic…….or it could be in the Persian Gulf…..or the Straits of Taiwan etc…..

then no, f*** nato canada is not a war mongering nation

we should not be getting involved in stuff with iran

they are of no threat to canada

[olp1fan]

Why? Is there something wrong with using them for anti piracy, truing exercises, or as part of a NATO standing group?

why? we're not the americans thats why

we need to get out of nato

Edited October 28, 2011 by olp1fan

[Smallc]

why? we're not the americans thats why

we need to get out of nato

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