Canadian Military Issues

[Stoker]

I have not read enough about the hustory of these subs, but, as I understand it, these were not "old" subs. I think that I read that Britain built these diesel subs and nuclear subs as the modern fleet. They were the equal of the nuclear ones but designed for different operations.

They are the "cousins" of the British Trafalgar class nuke boats.

Have a look:

RN Trafalgar class nuke boat

Our Victoria/Upholder class boats

The subs may never have been operational - I don't know for sure. However, they would seem to be state of the art and we have a bargain. Britain decided that it could not operate two different fleets or it would be using them.

Exactly, the British planned on building dozens of the class during the cold war, but only had four built when the Soviet Union fell apart. In the ensuing defence cuts, the government told the Royal Navy to get rid of either the four Upholder boats, or two nuke boats.

I don't believe for a moment that the faults were known. I wonder also whether they are actually faults ot simply something that is the consequence of the lengthy mothballing that should have been found by the inspections.

Exactly........just think about buying a car that has been stored in the elements for 8-9 years......times ten for a sub.

[Newfie Canadian]

go read about the headaches the Australians are having with their Collins class

Just getting around to it Stoker.

They have had some serious problems with those subs.

Some serious funds down the tube.

http://www.minister.defence.gov.au/1999/collins.html

Our Victoria class subs will be worth it, monetarily, if the costs assocated wih refits and repairs will not be astronomical.

[Boondoggle]

Yeah well, that was a dumb idea. Unless we were going to pay for a decent sized military I would not want to spend a disproportionate amount of the money we do have on nuke subs. Give us some decent APCs first.

For seven years Canada has had multi-billion dollar surplus, and from what I've read, it'd cost about $3-5 billion for better subs. They could spread it out so that they use about a billion or so per year from the surplus to cover the cost of the subs.

As for APCs, they're already working on it: Mobile Gun System

Aren't all nuclear weapons banned from Canada?

Yes, under the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), which Canada is a signatory to. However, as said, the idea is to consider nuclear powered subs.

A well equiped military, like nuclear weapons, serves as a deterrent.

The US is by far the most powerful country, and although it spends about as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, it did not deter attacks. If people want to attack, there are a lot of ways of doing it that military force alone cannot stop. The first real step in solving the problem is understanding what causes such hostility, and a good part of the reason is western hypocrisy, which they're not likely to admit to. This is why Bush says things like "they hate us for our freedom."

Canadian shipbuilding, for the most part, is dead.

Not yet:

The Joint Support Ship will provide three distinct capabilities:

Underway Support to Naval Task Groups – Underway support is the term used to describe the transfer of liquids and solids between ships at sea. This underway support also includes the operation of helicopters and a second line maintenance capability for helicopters, as well as a task group medical and dental facility;

Sealift – To meet a range of possibilities in an uncertain future security environment, three Joint Support Ships together will be capable of transporting 7,500 lane metres of vehicles and stores. This will provide for the transport of an army battle group. The capability will also include a flexible self load and unload function; and

Afloat Support to Forces Deployed Ashore – This capability will provide a limited joint force headquarters at sea for command and control of forces deployed ashore.

The Government is committed to building these ships in Canada in accordance with the current shipbuilding policy.

Joint Support Ships

Other plans for the Canadian Armed Forces include:

- Pay increase, and income tax exemption on money earned while serving in peacekeeping/combat missions.

- An additional 5000 troops added to regular forces and 3000 to reserves.

- New helicopters, and upgrades for the F-18s.

[JWayne625]

We had up until about 4 years ago the most modern ship yard in Canada in Saint John, New Brunswick, owned by the Irving Empire, and it was also one of the most modern in North America. The Irving's have since bought up most of the shipbuilding facilities in Atlantic Canada, and mothballed Saint John Shipbuilding. Saint John Shipbuilding had a powerful union, maybe that is why the Irvings decided to close this facility and move the equipment to their other operations in Atlantic Canada, where they can dictate their own terms to the employees.

We don't build our own ships because our federal government has for wahtever reason decided that they won't subsidize the shipbuilding industry, and without it the industry cannot compete on a world wide scale. Most other shipbuilding countries subsidize their shipbuilding industry, our feds say we can't because it violates certain agreements. It certainly hasn't stopped them from subsidizing the aerospace industry by giving loan guarantees to Bombardier. Sorry, I forgot that industry is in Quebec, so the same rules don't apply.

[Boondoggle]

We don't build our own ships....

Unless you're suggesting that we're going to have foreign companies build them in Canada, you're wrong.

The Government is committed to building these ships in Canada in accordance with the current shipbuilding policy.

That's from the Department of National Defence web site.

[JWayne625]

That's great news for the shipbuilding industry that the feds are going to build these ships in Canada. I just wondering if they will be built in Canada or Quebec? There is a difference, since the Quebec government even refers to themselves as a country, plenty of our tax money has already gone into that black hole, with plenty more to come with the committment to pump money into Bombardier.

The feds paid the Irving's $55 Million to close the most modern shipyard in Canada, and now they say they are going to have these ships built in Canada. Most shipyards in Canada are not equipped to build ship, only to do refits. If they are going to actually build them they are going to need major upgrades which your taxmoney already paid for with the expansion of Saint John Shipbuilding just before the Frigate Program. Do you want to pay again to expand another facility? I sure don't, especially since there is already a shipyard capable of building these ships, and plenty of experienced, unemployed shipbuilder's do do the job.

[Stoker]

Capt.'s decision put Chicoutimi at risk: report

Stoker Posted: Oct 7 2004, 05:33 AM

Does anybody have proof as of yet the the fault lies with the United Kingdom/Royal Navy/the Subs themselves?

Has the Human factor been ruled out?

Our Sub crew training has been rushed over the last few years........

Perhaps we should wait until an investigation has been concluded until we start pointing fingers.

Not too be a told you so, but.........

[Newfie Canadian]

The question now becomes would this have still happened if Chicoutimi had received the same wire insulation upgrades as other subs?

I still think that there were enough problems to place some blame at the feet of the British. For example, why were they repairing anything in the first place to necessitate having the hatches open?

[Argus]

Capt.'s decision put Chicoutimi at risk: report

Stoker Posted: Oct 7 2004, 05:33 AM

Does anybody have proof as of yet the the fault lies with the United Kingdom/Royal Navy/the Subs themselves?

Has the Human factor been ruled out?

Our Sub crew training has been rushed over the last few years........

Perhaps we should wait until an investigation has been concluded until we start pointing fingers.

Not too be a told you so, but.........

I heard this before, but one of the reasons (not mentioned here) is that the subs air system was not working properly, requiring the hatches to be open. Also, the wires were not properly insulated according to RN guidelines.

[Stoker]

The question now becomes would this have still happened if Chicoutimi had received the same wire insulation upgrades as other subs?

I still think that there were enough problems to place some blame at the feet of the British. For example, why were they repairing anything in the first place to necessitate having the hatches open?

If the sub was not ready to go to sea, is that the Brits fault or the Canadian Navy for letting it possably go too early?

I heard this before, but one of the reasons (not mentioned here) is that the subs air system was not working properly, requiring the hatches to be open. Also, the wires were not properly insulated according to RN guidelines.

Let me stress, when the sub left Scotland it was no longer christned HMS Upholder, but HMCS Chicoutimi........

[Newfie Canadian]

All I'm saying Stoker is that the Brits, as I understand it, said they brought the sub up to RN standards, which included the upgraded wire insulation.

If the sub was not ready to go to sea, is that the Brits fault or the Canadian Navy for letting it possably go too early?

That's the billion dollar question, isn't it?

[Stoker]

All I'm saying Stoker is that the Brits, as I understand it, said they brought the sub up to RN standards, which included the upgraded wire insulation.

Not being biligerent, but I have never heard that, do you have a source? I do know (I think it was your link early in this thread) that they notified the Canadian government about possable sub-standard wiring, thus putting the us on the hook..........now if we sent a sub (no pun)-standard submarine out to sea, then heads should role form DND, both civilan and military.

That's the billion dollar question, isn't it?

IMHO, it's our fault. We took over the sub, and certified it "fit for service", long before the "Canadianization" took place in Halifax.

[caesar]

IMHO, it's our fault. We took over the sub, and certified it "fit for service", long before the "Canadianization" took place in Halifax

But of course; should we expect any different?? From YOU.

Stoker, just once I would like you to believe that our government may be in the right instead of always siding with foreign interests.

[Newfie Canadian]

In one of the links I posted, it says that the Brits knew about the problem, never told the RCN about it outright, and implied that the upgrade had taken place on some of the subs.

But it didn't upgrade the insulation on all four submarines and never explicitly told the Canadian navy about the problems

As a result, insulation on power-line connections near the engine room bulkhead was replaced. The British navy documented the repair and made the same change to another of the four subs which were later purchased by Canada.

However, neither the problem or the repairs made were explicitly explained to Canada before the subs were handed over.

I agree with you to a point Stoker. If I were going to buy a used car I'd get it checked out and make sure it was fit.

I don't know what the RCN did, but it do seem that they could have done a better assessment of the subs.

But to say it is a total 'buyer beware' situation with complex and expensive submarines is impossible.

The Brits had these subs built, they used them, they knew them. If they knew of the problem, they should have fixed it or at least notified the RCN about that problem.

[Stoker]

But of course; should we expect any different?? From YOU.

Stoker, just once I would like you to believe that our government may be in the right instead of always siding with foreign interests.

I beleive in calling a spade a spade caesar.......

One glaring fault in western culture these days (IMHO) is the lack of personnal accountablity........why should an ation be any different?

Well Newf, i guess we will have to agree to disagree on some points, but I suggest you read this:

Politics stalled sub deal, Collenette says

It all comes back to the Liberals.........would these problems have occured had the sub not been mothballed, but simply transferred from the Royal Navy to ours?

Though it not sub related, here's the next potentail disaster:

Used Australian Hornets for Canada.......

Favouring the F/A-18 E/F approach is understood to be a Canadian Government interest in picking-up Australia's currently HUG'ed F/A-18s to fill a capability gap recently identified by an official Auditor-General's report (see DIAR.com, 26 November 2004). With its own JSF requirement likely to be pushed out beyond 2020, the theory is that Canada would acquire/lease the bulk of Australia's F/A-18 fleet to supplement its own 'Hornet' fleet (currently undergoing a centre-barrel replacement program) to fulfil expanded national security requirements. Australia would then buy/lease up to 50 'E/F' Super Hornets for a minimum of ten years, with such aircraft then being passed onto the Canadians after 2015 to fill a similar capability gap as that country similarly decided at which point it would formally require fully combat capable JSF deliveries of its own. Re-structuring of Boeing's F/A-18 E/F production line in St Louis to the dicates of 'Lean' manufacturing is progressively providing a capability to provide new aircraft within 18 months of a formal acquisition contract being signed.

The other sad thing to note, is that the Australian Hornets are about the same age as ours.........

Why are we not leasing a interm aircraft?

[Newfie Canadian]

Well Stoker, I'm on the record here in this forum as saying that Chrétien's Liberals (with Martin being a major part of it) have all but dismantled our military, so we can agree there.

I read that article and it further proves Chrétien's disregard for the military, and his own onus in the matter.

It certainly shifts the primary responsibility to the government of Canada. But I still maintain that the RN should be responsible for certain upgrades and information sharing that apparently weren't done or passed on.

In regards to the Australian Hornet story, that's the first I have heard of it, and it truly saddens me.

A wealthy country like Canada should be able to procure it's own new equipment, not the second hand junk we appear to be willing to saddle our Armed Forces with.

It further proves the lack of government will to fund and equip the military.

[kimmy]

The Hornets are good planes, though, aren't they? What I have read seems to indicate that they are tremendously reliable and durable, plus quite versatile.

The F/A-18 demonstrated its capabilities and versatility during Operation Desert Storm, shooting down enemy fighters and subsequently bombing enemy targets with the same aircraft on the same mission, and breaking all records for tactical aircraft in availability, reliability, and maintainability. The aircraft's survivability was proven by Hornets taking direct hits from surface-to-air missiles, recovering successfully, being repaired quickly, and flying again the next day.

If they can fulfill the kind of missions we need, and have this reputation for reliability, and we already have the capability of maintaining these planes, then doesn't it make sense to acquire them cheaply when we have the chance?

In 1992 we acquired 5 "CC-150 Polaris" transports, which are actually A310 Airbus jets bought from Canadian Airlines for our armed forces (other airforces have also converted them to multi-purpose transports and tankers; we'll soon also be using them for airborne refueling.) We're currently flying the hell out of them in keeping up with our duties in Afghanistan. This to me is the sort of purchase that makes sense: it fits with capabilities we need to maintain (getting our people and gear around the globe); it fills an upcoming need (as the Hercules transports are old); and it appears to have been done in a way that made financial sense (taking advantage of Canadian Airlines' financial situation.)

I guess what I am asking is if purchasing the Hornets from Australia might also make sense in the same way. Airplanes are not submarines; there are hundreds or thousands of F-18s in use around the world, and it should be possible to form very accurate predictions about reliability and aging and service requirements based on statistical information.

-kimmy

[Stoker]

The Hornets are good planes, though, aren't they? What I have read seems to indicate that they are tremendously reliable and durable, plus quite versatile.

Sure, the new versions (E/F) are very much good aircraft, the problem though, we still operate the A/B versions, which are from the early 80s.

If they can fulfill the kind of missions we need, and have this reputation for reliability, and we already have the capability of maintaining these planes, then doesn't it make sense to acquire them cheaply when we have the chance?

And the majority of the Hornet missions in the first gulf war were carried out by American "C" versions. Also, the first gulf war was in 1991, the Hornets were not even ten years old yet. This is 2004, the planes are twenty years old, and won't be replaced for atleast until late next decade.

It would be like if the Americans had of used the P-51 Mustang of world war two vintage during the Vietnam war as a fighter.........

I guess what I am asking is if purchasing the Hornets from Australia might also make sense in the same way. Airplanes are not submarines; there are hundreds or thousands of F-18s in use around the world, and it should be possible to form very accurate predictions about reliability and aging and service requirements based on statistical information.

You bet there are thousands of Hornets around the world.....the problem though, a modern Super Hornet (E/F version) shares very little in common with a twenty year old A/B version that we still use, and the Austrailans are replacing.

Even if we commited to replacing the our Hornets today, it would still takes a decade to replace the entire fleet...look at the Sea King replacement for example, we will still be flying Sea Kings near the end of the decade, in which time they will be close to 50 years old.

[Newfie Canadian]

Sea King that hit Iroquois' deck won't fly again.

The military now confirms it spent $1 million repairing the 40-year-old helicopter. But after six months of repair work, the aircraft is still not fit to fly.

Here's a significant part of the problem.

Wasted money.

[Scotty]

Sea King that hit Iroquois' deck won't fly again.

The military now confirms it spent $1 million repairing the 40-year-old helicopter. But after six months of repair work, the aircraft is still not fit to fly.

Here's a significant part of the problem.

Wasted money.

There is a huge amount of money wasted by the Canadian military. Or more honestly, by the department. It is wasted not so much by those in uniform as the civilians and their political masters. The money we pump into DND would be enough for a reasonably good miltiary if it were wisely spent.

[Newfie Canadian]

I'm of the mind that the political leadership has deprived the military of funding necessary for equipment replacement, and instead has kept giving just enough money to repair or refit, when replacement is absolutely necessary.

The Sea Kings are a prime example of this.

[kimmy]

You bet there are thousands of Hornets around the world.....the problem though, a modern Super Hornet (E/F version) shares very little in common with a twenty year old A/B version that we still use, and the Austrailans are replacing.

Even if we commited to replacing the our Hornets today, it would still takes a decade to replace the entire fleet...look at the Sea King replacement for example, we will still be flying Sea Kings near the end of the decade, in which time they will be close to 50 years old.

So to sum up it sounds like this idea is another example of (as the Brits might say) "Penny wise, pound foolish."

That might well be the unofficial slogan of our armed forces, at least since 1993.

Something I don't really understand is why the replacement timetable is so long... like the F-18 article you quoted indicates that these plans are being made for 2015 and 2020... why is it that we have to plan now for planes we won't get for 10 years? Why will the Sea King replacement take so long? I'm not questioning that it is so, I'm just trying to understand why. Is it universal to big military contracts, or is it peculiar to the way Canada's military is doing business?

Like, why can't we go to (say) Saab and say "Here is $1 billion. Please send us 40 of your new Grippen planes, as quickly as you can roll them off the assembly line."

I assume that if the government wanted to buy 40 of just about anything else, they wouldn't be operating on an 11 year timeline. Why is it different in the case of our replacement helicopters and apparently also in keeping our fighter-plane fleet in the air?

Incidently, I found this while I was reading yesterday:

http://www.rcaf.com/1997_2010_present/airc...s/jsf/index.htm

Other international governments have expressed interest in Lockheed Martin's JSF program, including current participants Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Canada, Singapore, Turkey and Israel. Canadian participation has included limited partner status throughout the program and guarantees an option to purchase.

Perhaps Lockheed F-35s will be Canada's eventual replacement for the Hornets.

-kimmy

[Stoker]

Something I don't really understand is why the replacement timetable is so long... like the F-18 article you quoted indicates that these plans are being made for 2015 and 2020... why is it that we have to plan now for planes we won't get for 10 years? Why will the Sea King replacement take so long? I'm not questioning that it is so, I'm just trying to understand why. Is it universal to big military contracts, or is it peculiar to the way Canada's military is doing business?

Nope, it's universal. As I'm sure you know, once a contract is signed, the aircraft don't just appear

Also, the Americans and any senior partners will get the first crack at the deliveries of the new aircraft.

Like, why can't we go to (say) Saab and say "Here is $1 billion. Please send us 40 of your new Grippen planes, as quickly as you can roll them off the assembly line."

The length of time required to obtain them would still be long, perhaps not as long as an American aircraft due to the fact that Saab doesn't have the same amount of deliveries and a American maker.......but that begs the question, why don't they have the same amount of orders?

Perhaps Lockheed F-35s will be Canada's eventual replacement for the Hornets.

I'm sure it will, sadly it will probably be a decade late (2020 timeframe) and this does nothing for our current needs to replace our current Hornets.

[kimmy]

Nope, it's universal. As I'm sure you know, once a contract is signed, the aircraft don't just appear 

I know that building a jet fighter is a little more complicated than building a Civic but I can't imagine that it takes 11 years to roll one off the assembly line.

Also, the Americans and any senior partners will get the first crack at the deliveries of the new aircraft.

ah. This is likely to be a problem for us no matter which brand of plane we eventually buy, I guess.

The length of time required to obtain them would still be long, perhaps not as long as an American aircraft due to the fact that Saab doesn't have the same amount of deliveries and a American maker.......but that begs the question, why don't they have the same amount of orders?

I picked the Saab plane mostly at random, but partly because I read yesterday that one of the junior partners in the F-35 project has backed out over concerns about timelines and capabilities, and is purchasing Grippens instead as their multi-role plane.

Perhaps Lockheed F-35s will be Canada's eventual replacement for the Hornets.

I'm sure it will, sadly it will probably be a decade late (2020 timeframe) and this does nothing for our current needs to replace our current Hornets.

yow. I guess I'm just having a hard time getting used to the idea that these orders take so long to fill.

-kimmy

[Newfie Canadian]

I agree with kimmy that it seems like an awfully long time to replace some equipment after the order is signed.

Yes these are complex machines, but come on.

The Sikorsky website says the contract to replace the Sea Kings has been signed, with deliveries to begin in late 2008.

It takes 4 years to get a helicopter.

At least 4 more years of 40 hrs. of maintenance for 1 hour of flight time.

On the upside, Sikorsky contracts some work to Canadian companies.

Sikorsky Aircraft has reiterated its long-term commitment to Canada by joining with two leading Canadian companies to form The Maritime Helicopter Team. General Dynamics Canada, based in Ottawa, Ontario, is responsible for the H-92 systems integration and will furnish a 100 per cent Canadian-developed and -built Mission Data Management System.