• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canada’s clunker subs should be sold as scrap

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
460
Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

An interesting opinion.

http://www.abbynews.com/portals-code/list.cgi?paper=38&cat=48&id=835111&more=



When the Conservative Party assumed the helm of the nation a little more than one year ago, they were left to clean up the mess that was the outgoing Liberal Party’s military strategy.

Part of it was the loss of life stemming from the government’s mismanagement of the souring situation in Afghanistan.

Now comes news that the Canadian Armed Forces is pondering the early retirement of two of its outdated supply ships, one of which is venerable Esquimalt-based HMCS Protecteur.

No matter how those currently opposed to the minority government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper may wish to shape it, the financial challenges faced by the Armed Forces today is not something the Conservatives should suffer blame for. They are simply reaping the aftermath of more than a decade of Liberal disinterest in the state of the nation’s forces.

The Conservatives must tread carefully. They assumed responsibility for the deployment of Canadian forces in Afghanistan when they forced other parties into backing the status quo – a politically motivated action that pre-empted a change in how our forces are deployed in that theatre.

And likewise, Harper’s minority government has all but assumed responsibility for another in a long list of Liberal military failures: the Victoria-class submarines.

When the government announced that a local company would gain the right to service the four decrepit, recycled former British submarines, they kept the door open on a very costly farce that has cost Canadians far too much money.

The submarines’ troubles are well documented. Years after acquisition, not one is engaged in regular, reliable active patrol.

Esquimalt-based HMCS Victoria lies idle, with its scheduled start of active duty delayed many times, and now left for some tentative date at least two or three years in the future – at best. HMCS Chicoutimi won’t be available for active service until 2012, at which point the Victoria-class diesel-electric submarines will be almost 40 years old: the age of the Protecteur-class vessels targeted for mothballing.

The Canadian taxpayer has shoveled billions of dollars towards these ailing machines, without anything constructive in return.

Rather than mothball supply ships that are needed to fulfill Canada’s role in international affairs, the Conservatives should scrap the submarine program. They could save excessive repair costs. Further, for those with political points to gain, the much-overdue scrapping of the submarines would remind the nation that the failed project is just one of many costly Liberal lemons visited upon the over-taxed taxpayer. – The Esquimalt News
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
36
Points
530
At least they got those multi-gender facilities in there....because that was what was truly important.


Matthew.  ::)
 
C

CrazyCanuck

Guest
Stridsvagn_122 said:
True, but a paper navy can't malfunction and explode at random. Our submarines are known to do that.

They're better than nothing and we shouldn't just toss them with no plans to replace them, submarines have been an integral part of Canadian naval strategy and training for a large part of the last century. Plus a paper navy also can't patrol or do much of anything else.
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
460
Cdn Blackshirt said:
At least they got those multi-gender facilities in there....because that was what was truly important.


Matthew.   ::)

Not on the sub they don't
 
Reaction score
0
Points
60
Remember when we got those subs.....the word was that they didn't cost anything. What a deal! We were getting them as barter for UK use of Labrador bases and army ranges. Eventually the truth came out - we spent something like $800M for used crap. The navy said nothing for years about this lie, as they were desperate to get anything that was a submarine. Chretien threw them a rotten piece of meat, and the hungry admirals knew they had better take it or go hungry. This was, as we all know, the "decade of darkness."

The sad fact is that we are now saddled with subs that are crap, and it will cost hundreds of millions to make them seaworthy. You could probably buy a new sub for the cost of repairing the Chicoutimi. Money would be much better spent procuring new ships, which the navy has to acquire. Instead, these subs will bleed money from the navy for a generation or more. We're talking about a navy that is so short of cash right now that ships are tied up.....

We don't need subs. We'll never use them as part of a nuclear deterrent, or to launch cruise missiles against a distant enemy. These are legitimate uses for such a weapon (well from a military perspective anyway). We need fast attack ships, new AORs, new frigates, maybe the BHS???? State of the art ASW aircraft, underwater sensors, and modern ships will handle any submarine threats.



 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
460
Northernguardian said:
We don't need subs. We'll never use them as part of a nuclear deterrent, or to launch cruise missiles against a distant enemy. These are legitimate uses for such a weapon (well from a military perspective anyway). We need fast attack ships, new AORs, new frigates, maybe the BHS???? State of the art ASW aircraft, underwater sensors, and modern ships will handle any submarine threats.


The submarine will always win against the surface ship.  ALWAYS!

As to if we need them or not, that is an Ottawa decision, I do know the media has ran with this.  When the CHI caught fire we had 3 at sea, VIC was becoming operational and the Windsor was doing stuff out east.  They are seaworthy.  Do you have any idea how many OPDEFs the surface ships go to sea with?  A submariner stubs his toe and its front page news.

They are good boats, regardless of what the media says.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
We don't need subs.
You do realize that naval warfare is 3 dimensional right? Above, on and below the surface. Lose one of those dimensions and you lose your effectiveness as a navy.
We'll never use them as part of a nuclear deterrent, or to launch cruise missiles against a distant enemy.These are legitimate uses for such a weapon (well from a military perspective anyway).
Oh yeah, what about surveillance missions, what about deploying of special ops teams, what about the fact that one of the best weapons to use against a sub is another sub?
We need fast attack ships, new AORs, new frigates, maybe the BHS? State of the art ASW aircraft, underwater sensors, and modern ships will handle any submarine threats.
I have heard of fast attack craft but what are fast attack ships? I must have been asleep when they mentioned that type of ship during my 3s. I do agree we do need all the what you listed but a submarine is an integral part of any battle group. It adds so much more to a naval capability.

 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
430
Dolphin_Hunter said:
The submarine will always win against the surface ship.  ALWAYS!

As to if we need them or not, that is an Ottawa decision, I do know the media has ran with this.  When the CHI caught fire we had 3 at sea, VIC was becoming operational and the Windsor was doing stuff out east.  They are seaworthy.  Do you have any idea how many OPDEFs the surface ships go to sea with?  A submariner stubs his toe and its front page news.

They are good boats, regardless of what the media says.

Well said!

Just went to the retirement of one your own last week...good guy. The navy is poorer for losing him
 

eerickso

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
60
How many submarines were needed to make the Argentineans leave dodge while the surface fleet took some big hits? Furthermore, how many people could have predicted this conflict? Lets get these things working !!! :salute:
 
A

aesop081

Guest
eerickso said:
How many submarines were needed to make the Argentineans leave dodge while the surface fleet took some big hits? Furthermore, how many people could have predicted this conflict? Lets get these things working !!! :salute:

Answer : Only one....HMS Conqueror.....
 

RHC_2_MP

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
110
Correct me if I'm wrong but,

our NATO allies will only share Intel gathered by subs to other nations with submarines.  So if we scrap our fleet, or what's left of it, we lose a huge amount of influence with out partners and a lot of friendly eyes helping to watch our waters.  Also there's the whole "i wonder if there's someone watching" aspect keeping foreigners from fishing where they shouldn't.
 

eliminator

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
230
Dolphin_Hunter said:
Esquimalt-based HMCS Victoria lies idle, with its scheduled start of active duty delayed many times, and now left for some tentative date at least two or three years in the future – at best. HMCS Chicoutimi won’t be available for active service until 2012, at which point the Victoria-class diesel-electric submarines will be almost 40 years old: the age of the Protecteur-class vessels targeted for mothballing.

40 years old? I dont think so.  Technically, the "oldest" sub by the year 2012 would be 28, the youngest, 20. The Victoria Class subs are great subs, but unfortunately they sat unused for too long. If we ever get them running to 100% and change to an air independent propulsion system, they'll be top notch.

HMCS Victoria (SSK 876)
Builders:  United Kingdom (Cammell Laird in Birkenhead)
Laid down: January 1986
Launched: 14 November 1989
Commissioned: 7 June 1991  Royal Navy as HMS Unseen (S41)
Decommissioned: July 1994  Royal Navy
Commissioned: December 2000  Canadian Forces Maritime Command
Operator:  Canadian Forces Maritime Command
Status: In active service


HMCS Windsor (SSK 877)
Builders:  United Kingdom (Cammell Laird in Birkenhead)
Laid down: February 1989
Launched: 16 April 1992
Commissioned: 25 June 1993  Royal Navy as HMS Unicorn (S43)
Decommissioned: October 1994  Royal Navy
Commissioned: June 2003  Canadian Forces Maritime Command
Operator:  Canadian Forces Maritime Command
Status: In active service




HMCS Corner Brook (SSK 878)
Builders:  United Kingdom (Cammell Laird in Birkenhead)
Laid down: February 1987
Launched: 22 February 1992
Commissioned: 8 May 1992  Royal Navy as HMS Ursula (S42)
Decommissioned: July 1994  Royal Navy
Commissioned: March 2003  Canadian Forces Maritime Command
Operator:  Canadian Forces Maritime Command
Status: In active service


HMCS Chicoutimi (SSK 879)
Builders:  United Kingdom (Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering Ltd in Barrow-in-Furness)
Laid down: November 1983
Launched: 2 December 1986
Commissioned: 2 June 1990  Royal Navy as HMS Upholder (S40)
Decommissioned: April 1993  Royal Navy
Commissioned: October 2004  Canadian Forces Maritime Command
Operator:  Canadian Forces Maritime Command
Status: Dry-docked due to fire damage.

 
Top