# Canada’s clunker subs should be sold as scrap



## Sub_Guy (17 Feb 2007)

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Now comes news that the Canadian Armed Forces is pondering the early retirement of two of its outdated supply ships, one of which is venerable Esquimalt-based HMCS Protecteur.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


----------



## CrazyCanuck (17 Feb 2007)

No supply ships and No subs = paper navy


----------



## 28402 engineers (17 Feb 2007)

Boater said:
			
		

> No supply ships and No subs = paper navy



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


----------



## NavalGent (17 Feb 2007)

I guess I will be "almost forty" pretty soon too. That's depressing


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Feb 2007)

At least they got those multi-gender facilities in there....because that was what was truly important.


Matthew.   :


----------



## CrazyCanuck (17 Feb 2007)

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 (17 Feb 2007)

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


----------



## Northernguardian (17 Feb 2007)

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.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Feb 2007)

We could use them for pirate paintball games.


----------



## Sub_Guy (17 Feb 2007)

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 (17 Feb 2007)

> 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.


----------



## Mike Baker (17 Feb 2007)

Listen to Ex-D, that is the best answer.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Feb 2007)

Stridsvagn_122 said:
			
		

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



Stay in you lane...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Feb 2007)

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 (18 Feb 2007)

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 !!!


----------



## aesop081 (18 Feb 2007)

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 !!!



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


----------



## RHC_2_MP (18 Feb 2007)

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 (18 Feb 2007)

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.


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (18 Feb 2007)

I see the media still can't add or subtract. 

 There by no means "Old" middle age maybe.


----------



## a78jumper (18 Feb 2007)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Not on the sub they don't



Are women not eligible to serve on subs? I thought this became fact with the intro of these "boats" .


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Feb 2007)

There are female submariners...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (18 Feb 2007)

To the guy who said we don't need subs I would ask...why do the Chinese think that submarines are important??

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061113-121539-3317r.htm

China sub stalked U.S. fleet
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 13, 2006 

A Chinese submarine stalked a U.S. aircraft carrier battle group in the Pacific last month and surfaced within firing range of its torpedoes and missiles before being detected, The Washington Times has learned. 
    The surprise encounter highlights China's continuing efforts to prepare for a future conflict with the U.S., despite Pentagon efforts to try to boost relations with Beijing's communist-ruled military. 
    The submarine encounter with the USS Kitty Hawk and its accompanying warships also is an embarrassment to the commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, Adm. William J. Fallon, who is engaged in an ambitious military exchange program with China aimed at improving relations between the two nations' militaries. 
    Disclosure of the incident comes as Adm. Gary Roughead, commander of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet, is making his first visit to China. The four-star admiral was scheduled to meet senior Chinese military leaders during the weeklong visit, which began over the weekend. 
(click on the link if you want more)

According to our submariners the Victoria is extremely quiet and is capable of doing roughly the same thing i.e. surprising the enemy by remaining undetected until it is too late (for them).


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (18 Feb 2007)

It should also be the answer to those who wish to degrade the ASW capability of our surface fleet by placing all our eggs into the BHS option. We have to keep doing the ASW thingie (something Canada has done very well since the Battle of the Atlantic)  because potential enemies have subs.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Feb 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> It should also be the answer to those who wish to degrade the ASW capability of our surface fleet by placing all our eggs into the BHS option. We have to keep doing the ASW thingie (something Canada has done very well since the Battle of the Atlantic)  because potential enemies have subs.



Unfortunately IHS, that does not seem to matter to some people....well those that tend not to really consider what they are posting.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (18 Feb 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Unfortunately IHS, that does not seem to matter to some people....well those that tend not to really consider what they are posting.



It's just so one dimensional when the arguments to scrap subs and ASW are trotted out.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Feb 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> It's just so one dimensional when the arguments to scrap subs and ASW are trotted out.



Let me tell you something about Awefully Slow Warfare.......

no, wait. I keep hearing its dead  :


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (18 Feb 2007)

Okay, I need clarification. 

I was told the 'Canadianization' of the submarines included some fairly expensive retrofitting of facilities to accommodate ladies.

Was that incorrect?


Matthew.    ???


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (18 Feb 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Okay, I need clarification.
> 
> I was told the 'Canadianization' of the submarines included some fairly expensive retrofitting of facilities to accommodate ladies.
> 
> ...



Nothing hard about having both genders use the heads......


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (19 Feb 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Nothing hard about having both genders use the heads......



Oh you mean those bidets that we had installed???  ;D


----------



## Navy_Blue (19 Feb 2007)

On a side note the people I've talked too at FMF and the control shop are saying they are spending much less time on the Subs.  We've had two operational (functional) and sailing now for some time.  Maybe the media should take some time to point that out.  A navy no matter what will be a cash hog.  If your not willing to field a complete team than grab you bat and balls and go home.


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Feb 2007)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Okay, I need clarification.
> 
> I was told the 'Canadianization' of the submarines included some fairly expensive retrofitting of facilities to accommodate ladies.
> 
> ...



We all share the same facilities on the sub.  Up in the WSC where the sputs/trainees ride, the racks are 3 across, and yes the female rode up there too!  There was nothing in Canadization geared towards accommodating ladies, they don't really get any special treatment, if you want privacy stay on the surface!! 

Canadianization from my simpleton point of view included installing Canadian Comms Equipment (rebuild of radio), Ditching the kipper electrical outlets, and installing a milk machine!  OH and the installation of one sweet ass XBOX network!


----------



## geo (19 Feb 2007)

UK uses a different torpedo system.... and subs had to be retrofitted if my memory is correct,


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Feb 2007)

Thats right and we also didn't acquire the sub harpoon, so any kit relating to firing that bad boy had to be removed


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (19 Feb 2007)

Thank you Dolphin for the clarification


----------



## SeaDog (20 Feb 2007)

It should also be pointed out that the figures to have the boats refitted and maintained do not take into account that when operational our submarines are the most cost effective unit the navy can deploy.  Just ask any of the bean counters how much it costs in fuel alone to keep a frigate at sea (especially when conducting ops that require the GTs being flashed up) as opposed to a diesel boat chugging along on battery power.  I realize that there are many roles that surface ships fill that subs aren't capable of...but there are a great many that the sub can do as well, and for more bang for the buck.  As for the comments that the boats are "decrepit", by both the author of this article and some forum members - perhaps they could forward their opinion to the commanding officers of some of the international units and task groups that we successfully engaged this past year.  They may beg to differ.  Cheers  :skull:


----------



## geo (20 Feb 2007)

+1 seadog


----------



## 3rd Herd (20 Feb 2007)

In agreeing with Geo on your post Seadog, well done. Also was there not mention on this site and in the press of the capabilities of these submarines in shallow water combined operations  in a low intensity conflict. A facet some of the posters have overlooked. Additionally, have some not of our own commented on this ability when trying to find them and there uniqueness in their ability to be the 'silent service'.


----------



## SeaDog (20 Feb 2007)

An excellent point, 3rd Herd.  In fact these submarines are a force multiplier on many levels, but are especially unique when operating in littoral waters with joint support.  In an age where everyone with a leaf on their shoulder seems to be screaming out for the necessity of joint operations, the concept of a well maintained and servicable submarine fleet seems even more of a "must have".  It's no secret (watch some recent CBC docs or even open the odd copy of Maple Leaf) that we have been developing close ties with such organizations as the Pathfinders to bring this unique capability to the table.  That being said, are we operating a cutting edge submarine fleet?  No we are not, I have seen that first hand.  But neither do we have cutting edge tanks or aircraft...but you don't see anyone screaming to simply scrap the armour corps or our fighter wings with no solid replacement plan in sight.  In my humble opinion, to scrap the Vic class at this point would mean not only losing a valued asset...but would probably result in the loss of the knowledge and skill-sets needed to take submarines to sea.  And that, my friends, is a problem no cheque book or shiny new boat can solve two years down the road.  Remember, ladies and gentlemen, its not just about equipment.  It's about having experienced and capable people who are able to operate said pieces of kit.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Feb 2007)

+1 Seadog and 3rd Herd, nice to see others share what I have been trying to say about the utility of submarines since the topic came up.


----------



## 3rd Herd (20 Feb 2007)

Interesting quote:

"There is, perhaps, a danger in seeing the Victoria-class in terms of the analogy of the dog which finally catches it own tail: “Now that I have it, what do I do with it?” "Those who are inclined to think along those lines simply do not understand the emerging role of the submarine in both contemporary and future naval strategic thinking."

Source:

Haydon, Peter T. 'CANADA’S FUTURE SUBMARINE CAPABILITY'
Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Foreign Policy Studies
Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS
http://www.navyleague.ca/eng/ma/papers/Future_Submarine_Capability.pdf


----------



## trigger324 (20 Feb 2007)

eliminator said:
			
		

> ...change to an air independent propulsion system, they'll be top notch.



are we doing that?


----------



## frist one (20 Feb 2007)

Did the we change the torpedo tubes .From 19inch to 21inch.So we could use are mk 48 torpedo's


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (20 Feb 2007)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> We all share the same facilities on the sub.  Up in the WSC where the sputs/trainees ride, the racks are 3 across, and yes the female rode up there too!  There was nothing in Canadization geared towards accommodating ladies, they don't really get any special treatment, if you want privacy stay on the surface!!
> 
> Canadianization from my simpleton point of view included installing Canadian Comms Equipment (rebuild of radio), Ditching the kipper electrical outlets, and installing a milk machine!  OH and the installation of one sweet *** XBOX network!



Excellent!


Matthew.   ;D


----------



## Dale Denton (20 Feb 2007)

What happens when the Victoria class subs have to be retired? I understand the need to have a sub fleet in the future as well, so what your considerations for a replacement? What about some of the ships the the Royal Navy has put on hold, or maybe something German (like their new U-boat). I know im not in my lane, being a "civy" and all, but what its still a valid question isn't it?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Feb 2007)

Well when they get retired 15-25 years in the future ideally we will replace them with whatever is on the market at that time


----------



## geo (20 Feb 2007)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> What happens when the Victoria class subs have to be retired? I understand the need to have a sub fleet in the future as well, so what your considerations for a replacement? What about some of the ships the the Royal Navy has put on hold, or maybe something German (like their new U-boat). I know im not in my lane, being a "civy" and all, but what its still a valid question isn't it?


It will be an issue of what we want them to do in that particular time frame... will we want them for work in the great white north? will we want em to be Nuclear? will we be looking for cruise missile launchers?, etc, etc, etc.... ad nauseum


----------



## aesop081 (20 Feb 2007)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> What happens when the Victoria class subs have to be retired? I understand the need to have a sub fleet in the future as well, so what your considerations for a replacement? What about some of the ships the the Royal Navy has put on hold, or maybe something German (like their new U-boat). I know im not in my lane, being a "civy" and all, but what its still a valid question isn't it?



Nothing on the market now will be "cutting edge" when its time to replace the Victoria class.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (20 Feb 2007)

frist one said:
			
		

> Did the we change the torpedo tubes .From 19inch to 21inch.So we could use are mk 48 torpedo's



Brit subs use 533mm same as we do, what would have been changed is the ability to fire sub harpoon


----------



## frist one (20 Feb 2007)

EX-DARGOON. My mistake.It was the OBERON. That use the MK 37.19 inch until they were up dated to 21 inch to use the MK48


----------



## Sub_Guy (20 Feb 2007)

There is a long term plan in place for these submarines.  There is also a website on the DIN that has a nice little time line with a date that the Victoria's are expected to be retired.  Have a search through the din, I won't be back at work for a while so I will not be able to provide a link to anyone.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (26 Feb 2007)

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> What happens when the Victoria class subs have to be retired? I understand the need to have a sub fleet in the future as well, so what your considerations for a replacement? What about some of the ships the the Royal Navy has put on hold, or maybe something German (like their new U-boat). I know im not in my lane, being a "civy" and all, but what its still a valid question isn't it?



Well judging by their current build programs we could buy the U-218 or U-220 class  

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (27 Feb 2007)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well judging by their current build programs we could buy the U-218 or U-220 class
> 
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/



nice boat...please sir may have some?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Feb 2007)

Interesting I was comparing the specs, I always thought the Upholder had greater range than the 212, but they seem at first glance to be comparable at 8,000nm and both around 56 days at sea. Althought the 212 can be built with AIP which is an advantage.


----------

