# B.C. keeps $1.5b Submarine contract



## IN HOC SIGNO

This is good news for the submarine community I think. a three year delay would have been totally unacceptable.

Published: 2008-01-04
B.C. keeps $1.5b sub contract 

Irving shipyard plans to continue with lawsuit 

By MURRAY BREWSTER The Canadian Press 


OTTAWA — A British Columbia consortium has won a $1.5-billion maintenance contract for Canada’s four Victoria-class submarines in a controversial decision that defence sources say went all the way up to the prime minister’s desk.

Canadian Submarine Management Group was informally awarded Phase One of the 15-year contract by the Conservative government almost a year ago. But a signed, written agreement was put on hold last year after a lawsuit was filed by a group that includes Maritimes-based rival Irving Shipbuilding.

There were suggestions last fall the contract would be re-tendered, but the navy has told both Defence Minister Peter MacKay and the Privy Council Office that such a move would create an unacceptable delay in the submarine program, which is already years behind schedule.

"Going back out to tender and getting it totally put to bed means three years," said a senior defence source. "We can’t afford that."

The issue was shuttled up the chain of command early last fall to the point where Prime Minister Stephen Harper became involved — and ultimately gave the green light for negotiations to resume "and get this done," said a second defence source.

"There will be no re-tendering," a senior government official said on background.

A spokesman with the Defence Department’s material branch confirmed Thursday that negotiations with the B.C. consortium, headed by Victoria Shipyards, have resumed and a final contract would be awarded in a few months.

"Due to legal and other issues, negotiations were delayed for several months," said David Martin.

"Detailed contractual negotiations are underway with completion expected in a few months."

Almost 18 months ago, the Conservative government announced it would publicly tender the contract. It identified Canadian Submarine Management Group as the "most compliant" with the contract aims and began negotiating a final contract.

But Irving Shipbuilding and Fleetway Inc. — part of a rival consortium led by British defence giant BAE (Canada) Systems Inc. — challenged the decision by calling for a judicial review. The Irving-owned companies stood to gain $750 million in work.

The lawsuit alleges one of the companies that participated in the winning bid played a role in developing the statement of work and evaluation criteria for the contract.

Last summer, a Federal Court judge dismissed an attempt by the federal government to have the case thrown out of court.

A spokeswoman for Irving Shipbuilding said she wasn’t aware that negotiations with the B.C. consortium had resumed and confirmed the lawsuit is still on track.

"We continue to believe the contract was awarded unfairly, contrary to applicable law," said Mary Keith.

"There has been a preliminary exchange of information between legal counsels and the case is proceeding."

The contract has also been the subject of some intense, powerful backroom lobbying.

Longtime Tory heavyweight Fred Doucet was hired to plead Irving’s case to federal officials and politicians. Stephen Dover of Capital Hill Group Inc. registered as a lobbyist on the file for Weir Canada Inc., one of the partners in the B.C. group.

The four mothballed diesel-electric submarines were purchased by Canada from the Royal Navy in the late 1990s for almost $900 million. They were built in Britain by BAE Systems in the late 1980s and early 1990s but taken out of service when the British decided to go with an all-nuclear fleet.

Reactivating the submarines has proven to be a huge challenge for the navy, especially in the aftermath of a fatal fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi in October 2004.

HMCS Corner Brook is the only submarine now in service. HMCS Windsor and HMCS Victoria are undergoing repairs and upgrades.

The Chicoutimi is not scheduled to have its fire damage repaired until 2010 and is being used for spare parts.


----------



## GAP

You will find that the lawsuit will quietly fade away, just after some other obscure contract get awarded to the East Coast consortium for the equivalent $$....kinda like piglets fighting over one nipple, until they find a different one, then they are satisfied....


----------



## MarkOttawa

Irving may not be giving up yet:
http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Business/1001743.html



> Irving Shipbuilding is not backing down in its fight to get work on the Victoria Class submarine in-service support contract and has called on the federal government to tender the project again.
> 
> Irving said in a news release Friday it wants Ottawa "to do the right thing" about the contract, "based on a fair and transparent process."
> 
> A Canadian Press report Friday said Canadian Submarine Management Group, a British Columbia consortium, had been informally awarded the first phase of a $1.5-billion maintenance contract for the four Victoria-class subs.
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding has won two recent court challenges to its right to contest the awarding of the contract and is continuing with its court action.
> 
> Irving said that re-tendering would be in the best interest of Canada, suggesting it would result in better value for tax dollars.
> 
> Having the vessels repaired on the West Coast only to be moved to the East Coast for duty would be a waste of money, the company said.
> 
> Irving also said its court submission shows the award "violates due process."..
> 
> Irving vice-president Kevin Hudson said in the release that the awarding of this contract is a "travesty."
> 
> "We are proceeding with our court action and believe our case is very strong."..



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

It is worth it because Irving is not doing a good job. Every ship we have gotten back from them in the past 5 years has been shoddily done. The Tanker was a mess when we got it back and they charged us over $45 million for the privilege of putting our own ship back together! These people should never get another refit contract....IMHO!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Yeah I shudder if they get the JSS contract


----------



## Good2Golf

Why doesn't the Government's "transparent process" also include reports on the shortcoming of the depot-level work that Irving did on the CPFs and AOR?  

What's good for the goose...


----------



## Navy_Blue

+1 Good2Go

I would love to see the media get ahold of some corrective maintenance documentation for ships who have completed refits.   Do a consumer report for everyone to see how much we really get screwed.  Arisings are big too!  Missing piece as simple as washers and bolts can turn into a long paper trail.  Paper trails = $$$ for the contractor.  If you spend big bucks to fix someting you should expect to store ship and sail away not tug it over to NF 45 and sit there for 3 more months fixings everything.


----------



## Haletown

Someone with the appropriate knowledge of the shoddy work should write a letter to the editor of the Chronicle Herald and contact the local TV News Rooms.

See if any news outlets has the guts to tell a bad Irving story.  The family is reputed to be very protective of their Brand.


----------



## geo

Ummm.... Didn't IRVING Shipbuilding dismantle it's shipyards in St John's after they screwed up and closed up the CPF program?

Methinks they had their chance, screwed it up and deserve NOTHING!


----------



## Nfld Sapper

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm.... Didn't IRVING Shipbuilding dismantle it's shipyards in St John's after they screwed up and closed up the CPF program?
> 
> Methinks they had their chance, screwed it up and deserve NOTHING!



St. John's I think not (could be wrong though) I know they had one in Saint John


----------



## geo

ummm.... the Newbie variety >


----------



## Neill McKay

geo said:
			
		

> Ummm.... Didn't IRVING Shipbuilding dismantle it's shipyards in St John's after they screwed up and closed up the CPF program?
> 
> Methinks they had their chance, screwed it up and deserve NOTHING!



The shipyard in Saint John finished the CFP programme then worked on merchant vessels.  Their last ships were a pair of container ships.


----------



## geo

From Irving shipbuilding's web site....
our main locations are:
Halifax Shipyard NS
Woodside / Dartmouth NS
East Isle Shipyard PEI
Pictou NS

Dunno, they don't seem to talk much about their New Brunswick shipyard much anymore.....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

geo said:
			
		

> From Irving shipbuilding's web site....
> our main locations are:
> Halifax Shipyard NS
> Woodside / Dartmouth NS
> East Isle Shipyard PEI
> Pictou NS
> 
> Dunno, they don't seem to talk much about their New Brunswick shipyard much anymore.....



Only because it has been dismantled and being converted to other uses.


----------



## geo

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Only because it has been dismantled and being converted to other uses.



Ummm.... which was my point.... 
IIRC, After the round the world dog & pony show failed to identify any interested parties for copies of our CPFs, Irving went on record to state that they were to shut er down & dispose of the resources.


----------



## Navy_Blue

Update

Irving Loses Bid for the Subs

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Front/1065487.html

We all knew it was coming but its nice to know.  They wont be short on work anyways with all the other contracts that are flying around these days.


----------



## karl28

I have no problem on having the contracts in BC  but how do they plan to get the stricken Chicoutimi  there ?   It will be nice to finally have all four boats in the water if that is possible here is hoping .


----------



## Sub_Guy

Probably the same way it arrived in Halifax.

I personally think that the Chicoutimi will never sail again, I have this gut feeling that it will be used as an alongside training vessel for CFNOS.


----------



## geo

The most economical use of the Chicoutimi would be as an equivalent to the "stone frigates".... as a landlocked training ship.... which obviously means that we will spend TONS of meoney to haul her off to Lotusland in order to spend TONS MORE money in a futile effort to make her seaworthy once more.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

But is it a futile effort to make her seaworthy? Any serving submariner I know does not think its futile.


----------



## Sub_Guy

There is a document that you can access on the DIN, its the minutes from a meeting regarding the submarine program and outlines several recommendations.

I would love to see the Chicoutimi out at sea again, I would love to see 2 subs on each coast too.  I do not think it would be futile.


----------



## GAP

geo said:
			
		

> The most economical use of the Chicoutimi would be as an equivalent to the "stone frigates".... as a landlocked training ship....



It may make it economically feasible, but is realistic in a training sense? (I don't know...never BTDT)


----------



## aesop081

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I would love to see 2 subs on each coast too.



As i would i.  And i do not think it would be futile as well. I would welcome some Canadian subs to play with. I'm sick of EMATTs  ;D


----------



## Sub_Guy

If you had the Chicoutimi sitting alongside with working systems I guess in theory you could have Sputs crawling all over the place without disrupting the operational submarine.  This would take some of the strain off of the submarine fleet regarding training new submariners.

I will say though after crawling through 3 Victoria class submarines each in various stages of disarray, it does present a challenge when you are looking at an empty spot and say "this is where the ___________  is supposed to be".   Having a fully functional classroom would have been nice.  For the record I do think it would be a waste of a valuable asset to have tied up training the new guys.

I just wish they could bring the fleet online.  I do fear that they have lost some valuable experience over the past 10 years though, quite a few senior fellas have pulled the plug.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I too wish they would be online as well but better though then not having any subs in the navy as was the case when the O-Boats were all decommissioned.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The idea behind getting the Victorias was in maintaining submarine capability while we looked for the platforms we really wanted. Thats why the program was called "Submarine Capability Life Extension" (SCLE) rather than the previous "CAnadian Submarine Acquisition Project" (CASAP).

It's pretty clear that we're not getting new boats. They're certainly nowhere in the "Canada First" plan thats been announced. We also can't cost-effectively make the Victorias into the boats we do need. Just a new combat system and torpedoes would cost in the neighbourhood of $2 billion, and that still doesn't solve the range/endurance issues.

If we can't get new boats and the boats we do have can't do the job, do we ride the situation into the ground or do we get out now? 

$1.5 billion would go a long way towards other high-priority programs in the CF.


----------



## STONEY

drunknsubmrnr  maybe you should sober up and take a math course ,your 2 billion figure is complete fantasy. Your thinking that if we can't get new subs and it cost to much to upgrade means we also should get rid of the CF-18's, Aurora's, CPF'S and our 2nd hand leo's because they also cant't still do their jobs so are being upgraded at great cost. 

cheers


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

STONEY said:
			
		

> drunknsubmrnr  maybe you should sober up and take a math course ,your 2 billion figure is complete fantasy.



No, that's pretty close to what the Australians paid to replace the same combat system our boats now have, plus a torpedo upgrade from what they were using and we still use.



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> Your thinking that if we can't get new subs and it cost to much to upgrade means we also should get rid of the CF-18's, Aurora's, CPF'S and our 2nd hand leo's because they also cant't still do their jobs so are being upgraded at great cost.



No, I said that the old boats were only bought to keep the capability alive until we could get ones that actually met the performance specs. We aren't going to get boats that meet the performance specs so maybe we should re-allocate the boats funding to something more useful. Like replacing the CPF's, or Auroras, or the CF-188's.


----------



## a_majoor

The sad fact of the matter is only an SSN has the true capabilities that the Canadian Navy needs for a real "Canada First" policy; and that would be a political kiss of death to whoever advocated for SSNs, without even going into the sourcing issues or costs associated with purchasing and maintaining such boats....


----------



## aesop081

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The sad fact of the matter is only an SSN has the true capabilities that the Canadian Navy needs for a real "Canada First" policy;



No.

A decent AIP submarine would be the ideal compromise between capability and cost ( as well as more politicaly acceptable).


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> A decent AIP submarine would be the ideal compromise between capability and cost ( as well as more politicaly acceptable).



Why would AIP matter? 

In any case, SSK/SSI can't deploy fast enough to be operationally effective in a "Canada First" strategy. They have an SOA of ~5 knots vs an SOA of ~30 knots for an SSN. That means an SSK/SSI has to turn around as soon as its hit the NW Passage, while an SSN can stay there for about 6 weeks.


----------



## Springroll

I would think that an AIP would provide us with the ability to be able to stay submerged for a considerable amount of time longer then what we are currently capable of doing. Would that not be a benefit??

Yes, we won't get the speed that we would need if we went AIP, but for stealth, it would be perfect, would it not?


----------



## aesop081

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Why would AIP matter?



AIP matters because it provides the ability to operate submerged for long periods of time without having to stick up a pipe and snort. Now as far as your argument or deployment speed goes....well who says we have to deploy one from Halifax all the time. Why not have a sub on rotation deployed up north at regular intervals throughout the year. If the sub is already north ( i'm sure theres a port it can operate from) then what does it matter how far it can go from halifax ?

Having hunted AIP submarines, i'm willing to say that they offer greater capabilities that a straight SSK. We know that an SSN would be political suicide in this country and that the cost is beyond our reach. A forward deployed AIP is the best solution IMHO.


----------



## Sub_Guy

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Why would AIP matter?



If you are indeed a submariner, even a drunk one knows the importance of AIP.  I certainly hope the last post was not the first time you were given any information regarding AIP.

My one concern with operating an AIP submarine up north is that it should have the ability to come up through the ice, the last thing you would want to happen is a fire or something and not be able to get to the roof.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Springroll said:
			
		

> I would think that an AIP would provide us with the ability to be able to stay submerged for a considerable amount of time longer then what we are currently capable of doing. Would that not be a benefit??



Sorta. AIP is a trickle-charger for the battery. It allows the battery to be very slowly charged, or more usually allows operations without draining the battery too much, and without snorting.

AIP was brought out to prevent something called "hold-down" where a large number of aircraft and skimmers converge on the area of a suspected submarine and try to keep it from snorting in order to wear down the battery and cause it to surface. In practice, a snort mast is a small enough target that a prohibitively large number of aircraft need to be used to prevent a boat from catching enough of a snort that "hold-down" is achieved. Operationally, it's not required unless you're planning to take on multi-carrier task forces and even then the boat is restricted to speeds slow enough that they can't catch a carrier even if they tried. On top of that, the domestics still have to be done every few days unless people are going to stop eating etc, so having the ability to stay submerged for 5 days isn't all that helpful.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> AIP matters because it provides the ability to operate submerged for long periods of time without having to stick up a pipe and snort.



Snorting is rarely a problem with a good control room crew and an ESM system. 



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Now as far as your argument or deployment speed goes....well who says we have to deploy one from Halifax all the time. Why not have a sub on rotation deployed up north at regular intervals throughout the year. If the sub is already north ( i'm sure theres a port it can operate from) then what does it matter how far it can go from halifax ?



That's not terribly practical for a lot of reasons, most of which involve submariners and their families not wanting to go on 6 month patrols or live in the Arctic. It would also cost hundreds of millions if not billions to set up a submarine capable port in the Arctic, and would require a lot of highly skilled people and their families to live in the Arctic. Thats really not likely to happen. You could probably get around these issues a bit by having a depot ship, but thats still going to cost almost as much and has a far larger personnel problem.



			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Having hunted AIP submarines, i'm willing to say that they offer greater capabilities that a straight SSK. We know that an SSN would be political suicide in this country and that the cost is beyond our reach. A forward deployed AIP is the best solution IMHO.



They're more valuable in an exercise. In the real world, not so much.

At this point new SSK's are political suicide, let alone SSI or SSN.



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> If you are indeed a submariner, even a drunk one knows the importance of AIP.  I certainly hope the last post was not the first time you were given any information regarding AIP.



I'm qualified. If you have any doubts, I'll PM you my name and you can ask around the MOG. 

More importantly, I've actually sailed in unscripted operations. How many times has airborne radar actually stopped you from snorting when you wanted to?



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> My one concern with operating an AIP submarine up north is that it should have the ability to come up through the ice, the last thing you would want to happen is a fire or something and not be able to get to the roof.



Which is why the boats would never do more than peck the edges of the ice, only going far enough in to allow getting out on the battery. SSK's have been shown to be too small to effectively surface through the ice.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The CCG does crew changes at distant ports, I can't see crew changes being the issue. Resupply and repair i can see due to a Sub lack of carrying capacity. A CCG ship could provide fuel and supplies, it certainly is worth trying as part of an exercise.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

I'm sure that with enough of a priority, enough spare crew and supplies could be scrounged up from somewhere for an exercise. Repair would be a problem though.

In any case, it would be an exercise thing, not something you could realistically expect on an ongoing basis.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

True, but this type of exercise and proving that we have the ability gives others 2nd thought and allows our planners more options, rather than trying to cobble up a response out of thin air. Ship based subtenders was the norm for most of the history of submarines, I think the option is a worthwhile one to explore and as you will be using existing assets the cost will be in fuel and supplies. The lessons learned will be priceless.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Everybody's getting away from tenders for a reason. For one thing, they're very expensive. For another, they have crews of around 1500. That's about the same amount as the entire MARPAC seagoing establishment.

We can do something for an exercise. For planning purposes and as a strategic option, tenders are out. 

This was looked at extensively in the late 90's.


----------



## aesop081

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> This was looked at extensively in the late 90's.



Getting rid of tanks was looked at extensively in the late 90's as well..........


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Getting rid of tanks was looked at extensively in the late 90's as well..........



Some of the main barriers to continued tank operations went away after the Conservatives took power, which allowed for continued tank operations in Afghanistan.

None of the barriers to operating sub tenders have gone away, nor are they projected to go away under "Canada First". If the government wants to rethink its spending priorities under "Canada First" to allow for tenders, we might not only get them but be able to operate them. Or not. It's not like a change of government priorities is going to make a 6 month trip to the Arctic all that desirable to a Master hookie with 2 kids and a wife he doesn't get to see all that much anyway.


----------



## vonGarvin

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Some of the main barriers to continued tank operations went away after the Conservatives took power, which allowed for continued tank operations in Afghanistan.


.  
The continued tank operations had nothing to do with Canada's New Current Government.  Instead, it had everything to do with the realisation that mechanised warfare requires tanks, and that's what Canada was doing in Afghanistan.  Correction, that's PART of what Canada is doing in Afghanistan.


----------



## geo

Mortarman Rockpainter said:
			
		

> .
> The continued tank operations had nothing to do with Canada's New Current Government.  Instead, it had everything to do with the realisation that mechanised warfare requires tanks, and that's what Canada was doing in Afghanistan.  Correction, that's PART of what Canada is doing in Afghanistan.



Ayup.... the Big Cod was the one who signed the paperwork sending the Leo C2s to Wainwright 
and he was big enough to admit he might have been wrong when he signed off on sending em off to war


----------



## aesop081

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> None of the barriers to operating sub tenders have gone away, .



I never said we needed submarine tenders.

You master seaman who doesnt like to deploy on subs for six months is welcome to move to the surface ships and deploy with them...........for 6 months.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I never said we needed submarine tenders.
> 
> You master seaman who doesnt like to deploy on subs for six months is welcome to move to the surface ships and deploy with them...........for 6 months.



Or he/she can release if unwilling to sail.


----------



## a_majoor

Actually the reason I suggested that SSN capability was really needed for "Canada First" is split into two (or perhaps 2 1/2) parts. Arctic operations are the obvious reason, even a "small" SSN displaces @ 3000 Tons and can crash through all but the thickest pack ice, as well as operate underwater for as long as the crew is willing/able to stay submerged.

The second reason is the speed of these boats; if you need to deploy to Resolute Bay, or the Gulf of Oman, being able to sail out at 30 Kts and get there in a reasonable amount of time is a big bonus. Thinking way back to the Falkland Islands war, the British SSN's were patrolling the waters around the Falkland Islands long before the surface task force was in the area. Even the threat of an SSN being in the area is enough to focus the attentions of potential adversaries, wether the boat is actually there or not.

The 1/2 of the equation concerns support; SSNs don't need as much support as SSK's or AIP equipped boats (no need to refuel except once every few years...), and AIP's often need exotic "extras" like an oxidizer or Liquid Oxygen (LOX) to run submerged (depending on what system is chosen) which would imply even greater support needs once deployed to the arctic or far distant waters. With enough SSNs to rotate on boat on station for the duration of the operation, it is practical to sail back to port to deal with restocking, crew rotations etc. Being able to go 30 kts has other advantages besides stalking carrier task forces.

Alas, the public and politicians are not likely to be swayed by operational arguments, the only other way to achieve this sort of capability would be the development of compact and reliable nuclear _fusion_ generators, something that is probably a generation away.


----------



## Sub_Guy

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> More importantly, I've actually sailed in unscripted operations. How many times has airborne radar actually stopped you from snorting when you wanted to?



No airborne radar, just Whale Watching tours!

Nuke boats are the only effective way we can patrol our arctic, regardless what Joe Public says.  It would be political suicide, but wasn't part of the reason why we didn't get nuke boats back in the late 80's was because the Americans did not want us to have it? (could be way out in left lane there).


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Or he/she can release if unwilling to sail.



And many have, leaving the navy with too few people to do things like crew changes halfway through a deployment. This was one of the big killers for the "We'll have multiple crews for each submarine and run them 48 weeks a year" plan.

In order to make a tender work, the navy would need to pull most of the FMF workforce to the tender. That means most of the few tech shore postings around would be sea-going. Good luck with retention after that, and it takes at least years to train someone to the point where they'll be useful in a tender.

Going for a six-month trip once every few years is one thing...going every year is something quite different.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> No airborne radar, just Whale Watching tours!



I don't think we ever had that problem. At least not while I was in the control room.



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Nuke boats are the only effective way we can patrol our arctic, regardless what Joe Public says.  It would be political suicide, but wasn't part of the reason why we didn't get nuke boats back in the late 80's was because the Americans did not want us to have it? (could be way out in left lane there).



I agree with you on the requirement for nukes.

The USN didn't particularly want us to have Trafalgars, but Reagan changed their minds. They signed off on a UK technology transfer in the event we bought Trafalgars.


----------



## a_majoor

The only hope we might have of getting into the SSN game in the medium future would be to partner with the USN on the "Tango Bravo" program for a new generation, lightweight (@ 3500 ton displaced) SSN. OF course, you can only imagine the grinding gears getting that approved through the US Congress (much less Parliament, the MSM and public opinion!)

Maybe we can simply pile the paper studies on the continental shelf and exclude foreign submarines and shipping that way  >.


----------



## Sub_Guy

4.1.2.1 Replenishment - The JS ship shall be able to replenish four surface combatants of a naval Task Group for 30 days of combat operations while the Task Group maintains a mean Speed of Advance of 15 knots in the most probable global sea conditions. Beyond 30 days, the JS ship will be relieved or detached temporarily to re-store. *It shall also have the capability to fuel and support the VICTORIA class submarines *and KINGSTON class MCDVs.

Hey hey!  With a JSS kicking around the North, we could have our killer boats up there stalking their prey (as long as that prey doesn't sail under the ice).


----------



## Rodahn

Methinks the topic has strayed from the origin.....


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The only hope we might have of getting into the SSN game in the medium future would be to partner with the USN on the "Tango Bravo" program for a new generation, lightweight (@ 3500 ton displaced) SSN. OF course, you can only imagine the grinding gears getting that approved through the US Congress (much less Parliament, the MSM and public opinion!)



Nuclear reactors? AMERICAN nuclear reactors?! <shudder> The horror...the horror



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Maybe we can simply pile the paper studies on the continental shelf and exclude foreign submarines and shipping that way  >.



Get the foreign vessels to file environmental impact statements, and they can build up the shelf themselves. 



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Hey hey!  With a JSS kicking around the North, we could have our killer boats up there stalking their prey (as long as that prey doesn't sail under the ice).



Look a little farther:

4.1.2.7 The ship shall be capable of refuelling the KINGSTON and VICTORIA classes at sea whilst *underway*.

They don't just want to refuel the boats at sea, they want to do it underway. My own personal opinion is that they're reaching just a bit on that, but that's just me.


----------



## Neill McKay

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> 4.1.2.7 The ship shall be capable of refuelling the KINGSTON and VICTORIA classes at sea whilst *underway*.
> 
> They don't just want to refuel the boats at sea, they want to do it underway. My own personal opinion is that they're reaching just a bit on that, but that's just me.



What's the difference?  (Do vessel ever RAS at anchor?)


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The only times I've ever heard of a submarine being refuelled have been either tied up alongside, at anchor or dead in the water. I've never even heard of a submarine being refuelled while underway.

The USN has resupplied boats by running RHIBS back and forth, but that was only a couple of tons of wet and dry goods.


----------



## Neill McKay

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> The only times I've ever heard of a submarine being refuelled have been either tied up alongside, at anchor or dead in the water. I've never even heard of a submarine being refuelled while underway.



I see what you mean now.  (Small confusion about the terminology: a vessel is underway if it's not alongside or at anchor [or aground], even if it's not moving.)


----------



## Old Sweat

If I can interject, during the Second World War the Germans used to refuel U Boats at sea from submarines fitted as tankers and, I think, from tankers disguised as neutral vessels. Neither is relevant in this case, but the capability exists if you dont mnd being photograped by space surveillance means or otherwise located by all sorts of things I can only imagine.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Not that I am much of an expert, but I have actually seen HMCS VICTORIA being fueled while alongside... and it was a somewhat of a slow and "delicate" operation, even with no waves.  I cannot imagine them doing it while moving in the middle of the Auggie...


----------



## GAP

Sub Fleet Creating Canadian Controversies
08-Jul-2008 17:02 EDT
Article Link

Canada’s aging fleet of Oberon class submarines had become simply too old to put in the water. In July 2000, their de facto retirement became official. The question was: what, if anything, would replace them? With long coastlines, and a significant portion of its iced-in northern seas used as running grounds for foreign submarines, Canada’s military believed that giving up its submarine capability was not a viable option for a country that wished to maintain its sovereignty. 

Unfortunately, the country’s purchase of second-hand diesel-electric Upholder Class submarines from Britain ran into controversy almost from its inception. Refit and refurbishment costs for the renamed Victoria Class skyrocketed well past the initial GBP C$ 750 million estimate, and reliability problems ensued. Then, on Oct 5/04, HMCS Chicoutimi was sailing from Falsane, Scotland when it was disabled by a fire caused by the entry of seawater. One sailor died, 2 others were injured, and the boat had to be rescued by British frigates. HMCS Corner Brook [SSK 878] is currently the only Canadian submarine in service. HMCS Victoria [SSK 876] and HMCS Windsor [SSK 877] are undergoing repairs and upgrades, and HMCS Chicoutimi [SSK 879] is in drydock being used for spare parts, as it is not scheduled to have its fire damage repaired until 2010 or 2012.

In early 2008, controversy flared again as the submarines’ C$ 1.5 billion Victoria Class In-Service Support Contract (VCISSC) became an issue. The government had finally pushed through a decision in January – but implementation ran into another lawsuit filed by the losing bidder, as well as strong pressure from a member of the Prime Minister’s own party. Who also happens to be the Canadian Parliament’s recognized authority on its submarines. Now there are revelations that Canada will have just 1 operational submarine until 2009, even as the Canadian Government issues its report re: health effects of the HMCS Chicoutimi fire, and overrides the protests to award the formal maintenance contact…

The Submarine Support Contract Controversy 
Updates and Related News 
Additional Readings & Sources 
The Submarine Support Contract Controversy

The VCISSC contract is seen as an important final stage in getting the Victoria Class into active service at last. It was put out for tender in September 2006, and 3 consortia bid. In January 2007, Canadian Submarine Management Group (CSMG) of British Columbia was deemed “most compliant” due to its points rating, and picked as the preferred bidder. A lawsuit by Irving Shipbuilding caused the government to break off negotiations, however, stalling the deal. 

In November 2007, it was reported the government might cancel the deal, which represents about 150 of jobs in Victoria over 15 years. That drew outrage from local BC politicians. In January 2008, however, a decision was taken to re-start those negotiations with CSMG to get the deal done. DND spokesman David Martin has told the Canadian Press news agency that those negotiations are underway, and a final contract is expected in a few months. 
More on link


----------



## Colin Parkinson

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> And many have, leaving the navy with too few people to do things like crew changes halfway through a deployment. This was one of the big killers for the "We'll have multiple crews for each submarine and run them 48 weeks a year" plan.
> 
> In order to make a tender work, the navy would need to pull most of the FMF workforce to the tender. That means most of the few tech shore postings around would be sea-going. Good luck with retention after that, and it takes at least years to train someone to the point where they'll be useful in a tender.
> 
> Going for a six-month trip once every few years is one thing...going every year is something quite different.



I was not suggesting we go to a full time tender. It was to point out that this was the standard for most of their history so the concept is well proven, even if not totally practical in today's world. However with our sparse resources and long coastlines it may make more sense for us. Only the navy would need 1500 people for a tender, at least half of thoses people would be on mandatory diversity and harassment training at any one time. By the way average crew on a CCG ship is 45, with most on the day watch.

As for nukes, I seem to remember that one of the big issues is refueling and the Brits get their boats refueled in the US?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I wonder if a larger variant of the offshore resupply vessels might be a feasible support vessel for submarine operations?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Colin P said:
			
		

> However with our sparse resources and long coastlines it may make more sense for us.



Those sparse resources mean that we can't afford a tender no matter how long the coastlines are.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Only the navy would need 1500 people for a tender, at least half of thoses people would be on mandatory diversity and harassment training at any one time. By the way average crew on a CCG ship is 45, with most on the day watch.



The CCG doesn't operate tenders.

Most of the crew on a tender are related to the tender role. ie clerks, fitters, techs etc. They have nothing to do with actual vessel operations.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> As for nukes, I seem to remember that one of the big issues is refueling and the Brits get their boats refueled in the US?



Most new boats have "life of the boat" cores that don't need refuelling. In any case, the RN boats are refuelled in the UK. They get nuclear missiles in the US.



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I wonder if a larger variant of the offshore resupply vessels might be a feasible support vessel for submarine operations?



For support they'd probably work. I can't see them able to provide repair though.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Actually 90% of the CCG work is tending navaids and resupply, we refuel light stations with landing craft and even from the main ship if conditons are right. Resupply is by workboat or helicopter. While not equipped to do repair work or handling torpedos, the rest of the resupply would be a cakewalk for them.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

We had no problem resupplying from the Moresby. The problem is getting proper repair services, and that requires a very large crew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Two ideas:
1) Purchase/leased of a floating drydock and forward positioning up where our eventual northern naval base will be. Build a mini FMF with housing facilities for workers. They can be flown up from BC and NS when needed.
2) To recover a disabled sub what about a heavy lift vessel (leased) to be forward positioned in the same locale as well? I am also sure if worse came to worse, then our eventual A/OPs could be used to tow the SSK to the closest safe port or back to FMF Freezing my Ass off.
As I don't know the waters at all, not sure how feasible the above are.


----------



## Neill McKay

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Two ideas:
> 1) Purchase/leased of a floating drydock and forward positioning up where our eventual northern naval base will be. Build a mini FMF with housing facilities for workers. They can be flown up from BC and NS when needed.
> 2) To recover a disabled sub what about a heavy lift vessel (leased) to be forward positioned in the same locale as well? I am also sure if worse came to worse, then our eventual A/OPs could be used to tow the SSK to the closest safe port or back to FMF Freezing my *** off.
> As I don't know the waters at all, not sure how feasible the above are.



I wonder if a specialized mini-FMF (possibly to include accommodation spaces) could be put together in a number of shipping containers and pre-positioned at the northern base, to be activated as needed?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

I think something like that could work, but it would be extremely expensive. There would need to be a comprehensive overhaul of the entire naval stores systems with very large budget increases before we could actually pre-position the spares required to support an FMF. Otherwise the parts would just be poached for use in Halifax/Esquimalt.

There's also the matter of installing and maintaining a syncro-lift in the Arctic. Has anyone done that before? What's involved in syncro-lift maintenance?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ATL ran a large ship repair facility for years in the Arctic, a floating drydock could be built and positioned there, but would be ice bound for most of the year. I suspect that as the Sub fleet gets more use, the repairs and upkeep will actually fall off a bit as the crews get to know the vessels and problem areas get proper fixes. The current government has made Northern waters more of a pirority, even if they have not followed through with as much funding as needed, this is an area where the navy can shine, showing they can provide flexiable forward support for subs and surface vessels will certainly make the navy more relevant for the new era that is rapidaly appraoching.

Some CCG vessels could assist as required, a role the CCG has to stand up to as well.
http://www.ccg-gcc.gc.ca/eng/Fleet/Vessels?id=1115&info=6


----------



## a_majoor

While politics will probably keep the option off the table, the operational need for Canadian nuclear boats is underlined yet again:

http://strongconservative.blogspot.com/2008/07/about-those-nuclear-subs.html



> *About those Nuclear Subs...*
> 
> The Liberals once blasted Prime Minister Brian Mulroney for planning to build nuclear submarines for the defence of Canada. But with Russia's plan to begin patrolling the arctic once again, it seems Mr. Mulroney's plan was ahead of it's time.
> 
> If Canada is going to defend its sovereignty in the north effectively, it cannot do so without nuclear submarines to patrol under the ice at all times of the year. Sorry, but I don't think global warming is going to get rid of the ice completely despite what David Suzuki and Al Gore might believe.
> 
> CNN reports:
> 
> _Patrols by the Northern Fleet's Severomorsk submarine destroyer and Marshal Ustinov missile cruiser will begin Thursday, Navy spokesman Igor Dygalo said.
> Russia began sending aircraft carriers to the Mediterranean Sea in December and resumed long-range bomber patrols last August.
> "We have been talking for a long time about widening our activity in the Arctic," Dygalo said. "There is nothing aggressive in it -- it is in the interests of security."_
> 
> Now with all the crying by Grits and New Democrats about the loss of manufacturing jobs, and of course Mr. Buzz Hargrove too, the Tories have a perfect opportunity to provide thousands of manufacturing jobs, high tech jobs, and support roles in some of the most economically depressed areas of the country. Simultaneous building programs in BC and the Maritime provinces would be a spark to both economies while providing Canada with some long needed defensive capabilities.
> 
> We need nuclear submarines to ensure our sovereignty is respected, we need subs to project power when our sovereignty is violated, and we need to create and implement the technology in Canada to provide jobs and opportunities to struggling communities.
> 
> Let's roll.


----------



## jimderfuhrer

Canadian navy primary role during World War two was for escorting/search&destroy any German submarines/vessels.  In 1945 Canada had the 3rd largest navy fleet in history. During cold war the Canadian experience for anti-submarines was used against Russian submarines who passed over the Canadian/u.s ocean, the Canadian navy don't really gave importance for submarines(This is for why our fleet was never large like U.S submarines fleets). In 2000's Canada acquired 4x second handed Submarines for his fleet when Canadian navy acquired CH-124 Sea King and CP-140 for anti-submarines patrol aircraft and the Destroyer City-class for anti-submarine capabilities. I mean why Canada waste money on Submarines if since over 60years the Canadian fleet where built against submarines/ship capabilities.  

I don't like minister of defence like O'gornor (British) who buy some submarines without inspection ,and without know if Canada really need a waste of money like that..Canada need combat/patrol vessels not submarines. 






This is our waste of money , in reparation since 4 years.


----------



## aesop081

jimderfuhrer said:
			
		

> In 2000's Canada acquired 4x second handed Submarines for his fleet when Canadian navy acquired CH-124 Sea King and CP-140 for anti-submarines patrol aircraft and the Destroyer City-class for anti-submarine capabilities. I mean why Canada waste money on Submarines if since over 60years the Canadian fleet where built against submarines/ship capabilities.



If i were you i would take the crack back to your dealer and ask for a refund......


----------



## cp140tech

Seems to me that the crack is working just fine.


----------



## GAP

:rofl:


----------



## jimderfuhrer

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsubs/chicoutimitimeline.html  
Fire on HMCS Chicoutimi
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnsubs/
Between 2000-2006 Canadian submarines had problem with hull/fire accident and many another problems.
http://www.corlobe.tk/article9603.html
problem with Lead found in 2006 in the HMCS Victoria (French article)
http://www.corlobe.tk/article9576.html
HMCS Victoria / HMCS Windsor is right now in maintenance for 2009 and the HMCS Chicoutimi will be receive reparation in 2010 to 2012 and HMCS Corner Brook still in maintenance. (French article) 
http://www.corlobe.tk/article9245.html 
Only 1 submarine will be fully operational in 2009. (French article)
http://www.corlobe.tk/article8043.html
some people in canadian navy still claim the SSK victoria is a good investiments, when we know the German submarine it is aproximatly 600 Million/each or for 6x nuclear submarine from Australia cost $5 Billion dollar. The 4x SSK victoria class = 900 millions CAN$ but that is without maintenance in 2010-2012 for the three another submarines. In reality canadian submarine cost more $2 Billion dollar ( Not exactly sure )


----------



## aesop081

Listen,

I'm not saying that buying the Upholders was a good idea. What i am saying is that you are out to lunch when it comes to our Navy and ASW. We had submarines before we bought these from the UK. There were an integral part of the readiness of our ASW forces and provided one more capability to the Navy. We need to be able to control what goes on above the surface, on the surface and below it. We need our own submarines to train our ASW forces and for a multitude of other roles.


----------



## aesop081

jimderfuhrer said:
			
		

> for 6x nuclear submarine from Australia cost $5 Billion dollar.



Australia does not build nuclear submarines does it ?


----------



## Sub Standard

some people in canadian navy still claim the SSK victoria is a good investiments, when we know the German submarine it is aproximatly 600 Million/each or for 6x nuclear submarine from Australia cost $5 Billion dollar. The 4x SSK victoria class = 900 millions CAN$ but that is without maintenance in 2010-2012 for the three another submarines. In reality canadian submarine cost more $2 Billion dollar ( Not exactly sure ) 


[/quote]

Australia does not have and does not build nuclear subs.  The 6 Collins Class Subs they have are diesel/electric just like the Victoria class.


----------



## GAP

So we should, because you read a french magazine with reprinted articles from the Ottawa Sun, just wander away from our submarine program.....


Yep, the crack is working just fine  :


----------



## jimderfuhrer

what ever they use nuclear or not what i mean for newer and better you can spend less money on it...you can be proud of Canadian submarines but for my part is a terrible waste of money...why not buying some newer and better submarines and anyway Canada can create his own submarines like our own ship. $1.5 Billion dollar isn't 1$ is billion dollar, for only maintenance, Canadian Governments has cancelled the JSS because the project cost $2.9 Billion ,and i hope they don't cancel another project like the Amphibious Class ($1 Billion dollar programe) just because they want a b/s submarine who since 8years is only in maintenance. did you imagine 8years in maintenance, one sank himself in Scotland by a fire (2004) in 2006 they found lead, for 2010-2012 another maintenance and modernization for arctic patrol because the Sonar are not built for detect iceberg (because iceberg don't reflect any sound)  so another million of modernization for our Sonar on board...only 1x of 4 victoria still working...isn't a good submarines is a waste of money and waste of times. I'm not an expert but i know wasting on submarine when you can get a newer,better and faster for less prices. 

German Submarines are very strong between U.K made, and anay a U.K second hand Victoria i guess cost 
- 280 Million each  ( aproximatly 900 Million )
- 1.5 Billion for maintenence and modernisation 

German submarines, 600 Million each and is a better/faster and newer (New not second hand) so for the same price you have better and newer submarines. Its only a waste of money ,you need to understand my point i'm a former of canadian forces and try to returned for end 2008 in regular forces (I was a reservist in Montreal) so when is about canadian forces that made me sick canadian waste on crap submarines and cancelled the Joint Support Ship for still used a 40years old boat, the only remaining steam boat in the world. That made me sick some responsible Minister of defence waste on crap just because the prices is cheap.


----------



## aesop081

jimderfuhrer said:
			
		

> what ever they use nuclear or not what i



Maybe start by getting your facts straight before coming here and bitching.  For my part, i cant wait until more of the Victorias are up and running so i can train against them more often.


----------



## jimderfuhrer

You should understand Canada have only $18,9 Billion dollar (2008) and for 2031 , $96 billion dollar but for right now canada don't have lot of money and we have 3 branch of Canadian forces : Army , Navy , Air forces. And we can't only favourings one branch when Canada need his 3 forces...Canadian navy/air forces in 2007/2008 were the priority because Russia/usa wanted our North..so Harper purchase 8x news Heavy Armed Arctic Patrol and 12x medium arctic patrol, for the north but cancelled the Joint Support Ship (The key for Canadian navy) because they have two choice : reduced the north pole protection , or purchase a great project. Peter Mckay claim the old Protecteur class ( the only remaining steam boat in the world )  will be still work for more 4 years in Canadian forces (2012) but his life ended in approximately 2009/2010 after that his life is over. It is only a idea of the Canadian army situation...spending on second hand submarines our newer AOR/Patrol Ship...for my part i prefer the new AOR/Artic Patrol than second hand submarines who finish his life in 2020 (Approximately). Don't forget the submarines is a 20years old not  8 years old. 

And like i said before, canadian navy is a anti-submarines/patrol/escort and attack, so why waste on submarines if since more 60years canada don't really gave some importance for Submarines and anyway the submarines since 8years is only in maintenence i guess since we have submarines only 260 day of patrol was accomplished by HMCS victoria, the rest was only in N-S or B-C base not in patrol. The only patrol turned in nightmare, one guy lost his life because the submarines sank and had a huge fire (8x injured) 
I mean ok yes we have submarines...but how much country still used the submarines? and anyway i don't bitching man it is my opinion and you should understand the submarines is a terrible waste, when in North canada approximately 6x foreign country send his nuclear submarines for spying canada and russia...and our navy can't destroy this submarines because we don't have enought boat for coast to coast to coast protection.

This is for why i said, why...the most important for Canadian navy isn't submarines but anti-submarines aircraft like the P-8 Poseidon (2012) because our old CP-140 Aurora have more 28years old services and his a varriant of a 50years old aircraft (P-3 orion). The primary objectif for Canadian forces is a surface combatants and anti-submarines for patrol and security of canadian territory. And anyway country who still used submarines is only for spying somewhere around the globes and ready to fired a long range nuclear weapon. And remember the SSk have more 20years old, not 8years old so his ended life is approximately in 2020-2025 and right now all our fleet is in maintenance for 2010-2012.


----------



## aesop081

jimderfuhrer said:
			
		

> You should understand Canada have only ............



Yeah thanks, i guess after 16 years in the CF, i am still too stupid to realize what we have for a budget.





> And like i said before, canadian navy is



I'm well aware of what the roles of our Navy are. I can say the oposite for you with absolute certainty.





> because the submarines sank



HMCS Chicoutimi did not sink. Again get your facts straight before posting.



> but how much country still used the submarines?



There are currently over 400 submarines in service around the world and this number is growing.




> because our old CP-140 Aurora have more 28years old services and his a varriant of a 50years old aircraft (P-3 orion).



Please tell me more about the CP-140. What is this plane for and how does it work ? I have never heard of it.




> And anyway country who still used submarines is only for spying somewhere around the globes and ready to fired a long range nuclear weapon.



Again, you need to get your facts straight.



You know its better to be thought of as a fool than opening your mouth and removing all doubt. I leave you to guess whch case applies to you.


----------



## CEEBEE501

Wasn't there some sort of mystery dent on one of the submarines that was discovered when it was pulled in to a dry dock in Canada that had not been there when it left the UK?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

jimderfuhrer said:
			
		

> what ever they use nuclear or not what i mean for newer and better you can spend less money on it...you can be proud of Canadian submarines but for my part is a terrible waste of money


Why are they a terrible waste of money? If you knew anything about naval warfare you woul realize how much your statement is bogus. Look through the naval section and you will see why submarines are crucial.



> ...why not buying some newer and better submarines and anywayCanada can create his own submarines like our own ship


While I would like to see Canada develop its own submarine force we do not have the skill base nor the knowledge to do so. It would cost us more in the long run.


> Canadian Governments has cancelled the JSS because the project cost $2.9 Billion


The Government cancelled the JSS because the program could not support 3 ships as it wanted. It was a monster project that got bigger and bigger. As many threads in here have stated, best get a dedicated AORs and dedicated amphibs.


> and i hope they don't cancel another project like the Amphibious Class ($1 Billion dollar programe)


if you are referring to General Hilliers BHS (Big Honking Ship) then its safe to assume thats gone as well. If I recall correctly no amount was ever set aside for this program.



> just because they want a b/s submarine who since 8years is only in maintenance. did you imagine 8years in maintenance, one sank himself in Scotland by a fire (2004)


get your facts straight, the Chitcoutimi never sank. 



> in 2006 they found lead, for 2010-2012 another maintenance and modernization for arctic patrol because the Sonar are not built for detect iceberg (because iceberg don't reflect any sound)  so another million of modernization for our Sonar on board...only 1x of 4 victoria still working...isn't a good submarines is a waste of money and waste of times. I'm not an expert but i know wasting on submarine when you can get a newer,better and faster for less prices.


Your trying to come across as an expert. Victoria would have been a great class had we bought it 5 years before we actually did.



> German Submarines are very strong between U.K made, and anay a U.K second hand Victoria i guess cost


I will agree with you there, I would have went Type 212 or Type 214 before I would have looked at the Upholders.


> you need to understand my point i'm a former of canadian forces and try to returned for end 2008 in regular forces (I was a reservist in Montreal) so when is about canadian forces that made me sick canadian waste on crap submarines and cancelled the Joint Support Ship for still used a 40years old boat, the only remaining steam boat in the world.


Well you know what some of us have elected to stay in because we are proud of what we do, no matter what equipment we use. Its a brother/sisterhood that spans generations and elements. The shiny stuff only goes so far because at the end of the day its you and your co-workers that know that you have done a great job.



> And like i said before, canadian navy is a anti-submarines/patrol/escort and attack,


Ummmm hello....you still have no clue what you are referring to. The warfare area of the Canadian Navy are Anti Surface (ASuW), Anti-Air Warfare(AAW), ASW (Anti-submarine Warfare). To be an effective navy there Sparky, you need submarines. _Especially_ if you want to hone your skills in ASW. The periods where the O-Boats were decommissioned and before we got the first Victorias our ASW skills plummeted. We sucked pure and simple. We are only now starting to getskills we lost back.


> so why waste on submarines if since more 60years canada don't really gave some importance for Submarines


We have always given importance to submarines. While never a vig part of our navy, they have been a part nonetheless.



> The only patrol turned in nightmare, one guy lost his life because the submarines sank and had a huge fire (8x injured)


Whats this revisionist history? Chitcoutimi was not on patrol, she was on her way back to Canada to begin Canadianization. :


----------



## geo

JDF...
you seem to put blame on Mr O'Connor for the purchase of the Upholder subs.....
- The Subs were bought under a Liberal gov't & with the backing of the Navy's brass.
In theory, the Upholders were a good buy for subs that had been built & immediately mothballed.  If we had taken up the UKs offer & the get go (when offered), they wouldn't have had the bugs you always get from something that has been in storage for too long.


----------



## aesop081

jimderfuhrer said:
			
		

> ,you need to understand my point i'm a former of canadian forces and try to returned for end 2008 in regular forces (I was a reservist in Montreal)




I am raising the BS flag..........


----------



## geo

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I am raising the BS flag..........



Certainly driving outside his lane.....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If I recall correctly, by the time we did buy the Upholders, the yard building the 214 class was nearing the end of a production cycle and we could have had them build some more and had the benefit of experienced yard and brand new subs. At the time the Upholders were offered it made sense and I can imagine even then it was a tough sell to the apathetic political masters of the time. In fact one could say that their handling of the army's budget was the Liberals first try of the "Green Shaft" (I know, back under my rock...)


----------



## jimderfuhrer

Art Eggleton not o'conor i'm sorry but all minister of defence before Peter Mckay was a foolish, this guy before to be the Minister of Defence between 1997-2002 during the Jean-Chrétien Government he was the minister of infrastructure,  he lease-to-purchase British made train in 1990's for replacing old Canadian CN fleet, but the problem European and Canadian laws isn't the same , British train are more smaller and less expensive than Canadian train ( There are not isolate..) the train cost less 700 Million dollar i guess , but for modernization and reparation and replaced the lead train cost more Billion dollar...he does the same mistake with the submarines in 1998 , lease-to-purchase British made without know if is a good investment, with out inspection and since we have the submarines they sank himself in Scotland or find some lead (Ultra toxic). One of the submarines can't dive over 100m because they have some floating on the submarines right now is in maintenance to 2009...in 2010-2012 another 2x submarines in maintenance, oh yes is a good investment 900 Million dollar for 4x submarines , but more Billion of modernization, reparation and maintenance that is more than newer and better submarines.  

In 2002 two submarines found problem about floating...they patch the submarines and never be used again...only one submarines was full operational the Chicoutimi but sank in 2004, another found lead in 2006...you have no idea what you're talking about the Canadian submarines is a real joke.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> you have no idea what you're talking about the Canadian submarines is a real joke.


Says the man who thinks Chitcoutimi sunk... :


----------



## aesop081

jimderkaiser said:
			
		

> only one submarines was full operational the Chicoutimi but sank in 2004,



Please provide proof that HMCS Chicoutimi sank. If you can do that, i will beleive anything you have to say.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Please provide proof that HMCS Chicoutimi sank. If you can do that, i will beleive anything you have to say.



I would be amazed if he could as I see her everyday in the Dockyard.... 

but what do I know as Mr kaiser is clearly the expert in all things navy.


----------



## geo

jimderkaiser said:
			
		

> Art Eggleton not o'conor i'm sorry but all minister of defence before Peter Mckay was a foolish,



From a personal perspective, I found that Bill Graham was a GOOD if not excellent Minister of National Defence.


----------



## gwp

jimderfuhrer said:
			
		

> ...you have no idea what you're talking about the Canadian submarines is a real joke.



Not to the people who know what they are talking about

What the Canadian Navy and the Government says
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=892

What submariners say
http://www.saoc-central.com/letter.html

What Defence Analysts say
http://www.cda-cdai.ca/symposia/2000/mckinley.htm

What an eminent scholar has to say
http://www.navyleague.ca/eng/ma/papers/Future_Submarine_Capability.pdf

What the boats have been doing

HMCS Cornerbrook
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cornerbrook/home/index_e.asp

HMCS Windsor
http://www.navy.dnd.ca/windsor/home/index_e.asp

HMCS Victoria has been in a scheduled extended work period
HMCS Chicoutimi will be repaired as Victoria and Windsor go back into service

As of June 8, 2008 See paras titled Achievements and Fleet Status
http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=2713

By taking the time to read through this material you may get a better idea about the value and importance of the Canadian submarine service.

and by the way:
The Royal Australian Navy have had many of the same challenges getting the Collins Class boats operational.



> According to defence analysts, the Upholder class submarines are considered to be among the finest diesel-electric submarines in the world in terms of stealth, endurance, and lethality. As well, in an era of tight fiscal constraints wherein Canada's domestic shipbuilding industry is unable to construct modern submarines, the federal government was limited to purchasing surplus submarines from the United Kingdom. By contrast, the construction or purchase of new submarines would have proven to be more costly. *For example, Australia has constructed new submarines in partnership with Sweden (Collins class). The result has been less than smooth; the program has been plagued by construction flaws, design defects, and other unforeseen problems. In addition, the Australian submarine program is severely over budget ($5.5 billion Cdn), which has placed considerable pressure on other military expenditures, thereby resulting in a national political scandal. * Therefore, in the light of the acquisition of the Upholder submarines, and the exchange for the privilege of the British air force to train in Western Canada, the federal government has negotiated the best possible procurement for Canadian taxpayers.
> http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2004-3/issue8/op-so.html


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The Collins boats have had a very expensive teething period, but could actually fight if they needed to. 

The Upholders would have issues with fighting, and there aren't any upgrades even planned to deal with that. They're good clockwork mice though.


----------



## Navy_Blue

As long as your Surfaces = your dives (sinking) your good to go.  ;D  So Yes Chicoutimi has sunk a few times in her life.  Regardless our "guest" feels the Canadian navy has not seen subs to be important for the last 60 years.  We have maintained (done our best to maintain) this capability since WWII.  Just because you didn't hear about it doesn't mean we didn't think Subs to be importart or that they weren't out patroling the seas very effectivly.  Infact because they have not been big news until we acquired the Vic's means the Submarine community was doing its job.  

Victoria was not the only Sub to complete time at sea.  He could benifit from a few of the other Sub related threads on here.

 :warstory:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Let me see, take the number of times you dove and the number of times you surfaced and divide by 2, if you get a odd number don't open the hatch!!!

What is the latest on the torpedo issues?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Colin i think you are looking at at least 3 years for that question to be answered. I am also willing to go on a limb and say thats best case scenario....


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Looks like about another year at the least to get Victoria to the point she can fire torpedoes. Probably another 2-3 years after that for the rest of the boats.

However, the FC system and torpedoes are still basically what was installed for SOUP. The cutting edge of submarine technology...in 1979.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> The cutting edge of submarine technology...in 1979.



From where I stand, that is pretty modern...compared to my 1973 vintage sonar and radar...


----------



## Sub Standard

> However, the FC system and torpedoes are still basically what was installed for SOUP. The cutting edge of submarine technology...in 1979.



The system we are using these days in the Victoria's for FC is far from 1979 era technology.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

You're right...my bad.

The heart of the Librascope system was designed in the early 1970's, and first released all-up in 1978. It was installed in all 3 boats from 1982-1985.

So basically it's *early* 1970's technology.

The boats have new displays, but that's equivalent to setting a new video card and flat screen monitor on your old 286 and expecting it to run new applications or run the old ones faster...it's not going to happen.

The torpedoes were also designed in the same time frame, and they haven't had any changes at all.


----------



## Sailorwest

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Looks like about another year at the least to get Victoria to the point she can fire torpedoes. Probably another 2-3 years after that for the rest of the boats.
> 
> However, the FC system and torpedoes are still basically what was installed for SOUP. The cutting edge of submarine technology...in 1979.


Pardon my ignorance on the issue (I am not a submariner and have little desire to become one) but are you suggesting that the VIC class can't fire any torpedos?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Why wouldn't you want to become a submariner? That whole cleanliness thing is just a joke ya know. Submariners shower every week whether they need it or not.  :skull:

But no, the Victorias currently have issues firing torpedoes. Victoria herself completed a weapons cert before she went into the refit without end, but the other boats either haven't completed "Canadianisation" or haven't run weapons certs and therefore aren't allowed to shoot.

Victoria should be able to shoot again once she's left refit, run her post-refit trials, run her workups and then run her weapons certs. If everything goes right that should be end-2009/2010. The other boats will have to wait until they've finished the same series of trials/wups/etc. There should be one tricling out every year or so.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect life on the Upholders is likely 2-3 more pleasent than on the O boats. I also expect that if all sorts of nastiness broke out, they would have their Weapon certs pretty quick. Is this the same system the Brits used to sink the Belgano? if so then it's the only combat proved system going, I can't think of another war related torpedo kill since then.


----------



## Sailorwest

It isn't really the cleanliness thing, more to do with being in a cigar tube 200 m underwater that I'm a bit uncomfortable about. Well, that and the other cigar tube issue.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect life on the Upholders is likely 2-3 more pleasent than on the O boats.



I don't, but thats just opinion. The showering problem on the O-boats was because of a lack of drain space, not a lack of fresh water. At least once the ROD's were put in. The Upholders are only a few hundred tons larger than the O-boats, I doubt they significantly enlarged the grey water tanks.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I also expect that if all sorts of nastiness broke out, they would have their Weapon certs pretty quick.



I don't think so. They'd have to go to AUTEC to do that, and it's heavily scheduled. On top of that, there's a very extensive prep period. It isn't something you do off the cuff.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Is this the same system the Brits used to sink the Belgano? if so then it's the only combat proved system going, I can't think of another war related torpedo kill since then.



Not a thing in common with the Belgrano sinking. Different FC gear, different torpedoes. Different tubes for that matter.



			
				Sailorwest said:
			
		

> Well, that and the other cigar tube issue.



That was never proven in a trial that wasn't later declared to be a mistrial!  :rage:

Besides, the alleged victim was allegedly drunk, and RN. If that isn't showing Canadian hospitality by supplying 2/3 of the traditional "Rum/Sodomy/Lash" triad, I don't know what is. 

And did you ever think that maybe just maybe he was demonstrating how the "Bubbleless Torpedo Discharge" gear worked?


----------



## Sailorwest

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Besides, the alleged victim was allegedly drunk, and RN. If that isn't showing Canadian hospitality by supplying 2/3 of the traditional "Rum/Sodomy/Lash" triad, I don't know what is.
> 
> And did you ever think that maybe just maybe he was demonstrating how the "Bubbleless Torpedo Discharge" gear worked?



LMAO . Thanks for that, I was starting to have a crappy day but that brought it back to normal.  
Cheers


----------



## Sub_Guy

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I don't think so. They'd have to go to AUTEC to do that, and it's heavily scheduled. On top of that, there's a very extensive prep period. It isn't something you do off the cuff.



Isn't Nanoose capable of handling this task?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Only for the Victoria. The other boats have a 6500 nm transit to get to Nanoose, which has the same scheduling difficulties. Then they have a 6500 nm transit home, and they'd need a surface escort for both ways.


----------



## Navy_Blue

This would be directed to Sailorwest and anyone else who may have thought or said "Hell NO!" to Subs.  As a very Happy soon to be ETech in 07 I was politely told I would be the Submarine communities newest member.  At first after the shock wore and the numbness set in I was disappointed.  However a year and a half in I have to say its one of the best voluntold situations I have ever been subjected too.  I still enjoy my job even though I'm not a day worker with OD's under me.  I have allot of responsibility and the community as a whole is much closer and supportive.  Its worth a go if you can be completely comfortable with your mortality  >.  Just kidding   It is worth a shot. 

Later

N_B


----------



## Sub_Guy

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Only for the Victoria. The other boats have a 6500 nm transit to get to Nanoose, which has the same scheduling difficulties. Then they have a 6500 nm transit home, and they'd need a surface escort for both ways.



Sure it would be a long transit, I was merely pointing that we are not held hostage to the AUTEC schedule.    As for the escorts, what good is it having a submarine fleet that has to be led from port to port under the watchful eyes of our skimmers?

I seriously hope that I see the submarine fleet fully operational before I reach my 20 years!


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Sure it would be a long transit, I was merely pointing that we are not held hostage to the AUTEC schedule.



The consequences of not using AUTEC are a lot larger than waiting for a slot to open. 



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> As for the escorts, what good is it having a submarine fleet that has to be led from port to port under the watchful eyes of our skimmers?



Yes, well that's the question isn't it? They're definitely going to need an escort if a Nanoose slot is being held open for them...it's unlikely they'd be able to tow themselves, no matter how resourceful they are.



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I seriously hope that I see the submarine fleet fully operational before I reach my 20 years!



That would depend on what you mean by "operational". If you mean "clockwork mouse" operational, you'll probably see a lot more of that in the next few years. If you mean "combat-capable" they will NEVER be there under current plans.


----------



## Sub_Guy

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Yes, well that's the question isn't it? They're definitely going to need an escort if a Nanoose slot is being held open for them...it's unlikely they'd be able to tow themselves, no matter how resourceful they are.



I find this statement completely ridiculous, they are not going to need an escort, if our submarine fleet needs an escort any where it goes then why bother?  This goes back to my belief that some of the old CPO's are sitting around with a horse and buggy in their garage, just in case their car does not start in the morning. 

I could see an escort if they were sailing across the pacific, but hugging the coastline from Halifax to Esquimalt should not need the escort.

Also if they are never going to be combat capable then why have them?   A part of me wishes Harper would announce we are done with them so he could get his majority and the Navy could use the funds allocated to the submarine fleet on something else.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I find this statement completely ridiculous, they are not going to need an escort, if our submarine fleet needs an escort any where it goes then why bother?  This goes back to my belief that some of the old CPO's are sitting around with a horse and buggy in their garage, just in case their car does not start in the morning.



Yet they had an escort for Victoria's trip out West, on both coasts.



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Also if they are never going to be combat capable then why have them?   A part of me wishes Harper would announce we are done with them so he could get his majority and the Navy could use the funds allocated to the submarine fleet on something else.



You mean cut capabilities even if we can't afford them?!   But...they're the government that supports the military. They can't cut capabilities. It would look bad.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Yes they had an escort during the coastal transfer, probably had more to do with training opportunities than the actual hand holding, did the Corner Brook have an escort for her trip across the pond?   Or how about the trip down south?   How would a coastal transfer be any different than a 3 month trip around the Atlantic?

The point I am trying to make is this.  They should not need the escort.   Wether they are sailing across the pond or sailing along the coast the Submarine should be able to do it alone.  It kind of takes away the stealth factor when you have a skimmer sitting on the roof above the sub.


----------



## Sailorwest

As a point of comparison, only two of the six westcoast KIN class did a coastal transfer in company. NAN came around in company with OTT and EDM with MOR. The other four ships did single ship tranfers. I would think it would be reasonable that a sub could also do this alone (the O-boats probably did it in the past), although if there were a requirement for a surface ship to be going in the same direction it might be preferable that they go together. There isn't anything terribly complicated in a coastal transfer but having another ship along to help deal with unexpected issues/emergencies, wouldn't hurt.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Yes they had an escort during the coastal transfer, probably had more to do with training opportunities than the actual hand holding,



What training? They were surfaced and a lot of the escorting was done by an MCDV. 

There's not much opportunity for training in a transit because it slows down the SOA.



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> did the Corner Brook have an escort for her trip across the pond?



No, but that's a smaller transit and there are a lot more ships around to give her a tow if required.



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Or how about the trip down south?   How would a coastal transfer be any different than a 3 month trip around the Atlantic?



A coastal transfer is mostly transit, with most of the time pretty far from a port capable of effecting repairs on an ailing boat. That's completely different from the latest trip down South.



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The point I am trying to make is this.  They should not need the escort.   Wether they are sailing across the pond or sailing along the coast the Submarine should be able to do it alone.  It kind of takes away the stealth factor when you have a skimmer sitting on the roof above the sub.



So? They shouldn't but they do. They're not supposed to spontaneously burst into flame when splashed either, but that didn't stop it from happening.



			
				Sailorwest said:
			
		

> As a point of comparison, only two of the six westcoast KIN class did a coastal transfer in company. NAN came around in company with OTT and EDM with MOR. The other four ships did single ship tranfers.



Kingstons have more than one motor/prop AFAIK. You can have a casualty and the boat will still be able to move. Victorias have a bit more of a problem.



			
				Sailorwest said:
			
		

> I would think it would be reasonable that a sub could also do this alone (the O-boats probably did it in the past), although if there were a requirement for a surface ship to be going in the same direction it might be preferable that they go together.



O-boats did do it alone in the past. And it bit us in the ass in a huge way on their last West coast patrol. As humiliating as a tow would have been, it would have been greatly preferred to what actually happened.



			
				Sailorwest said:
			
		

> There isn't anything terribly complicated in a coastal transfer but having another ship along to help deal with unexpected issues/emergencies, wouldn't hurt.



You'd be surprised what can crop up when you have no backup. Or your backup and primary both go T/U.


----------



## gwp

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Yet they had an escort for Victoria's trip out West, on both coasts.


Vic had an escort on her coastal transfer because the boat was undergoing some very important "warm water" trials.  It was also doing some ASW work with the escort.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

There was a bit more to it than that. There were some questions about just how successful the trials would be. Previous experience on the Oberons was not promising.

Submarines normally don't need escort vessels for trials, unless command thinks there's a significant chance of something going wrong.


----------



## gwp

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> There was a bit more to it than that. There were some questions about just how successful the trials would be. Previous experience on the Oberons was not promising. Submarines normally don't need escort vessels for trials, unless command thinks there's a significant chance of something going wrong.


It was the first time these boats had been subjected to tropical conditions.  To have an escort was due diligence.  Here is open source discussion from the Commons Defence Committee discussing the engine room conditions.  Other systems were affected as well. 



> Mr. Bill Casey:
> With respect to the transit of HMCS Victoria from the Atlantic to the Pacific and the reports of heat-related problems: (a) why did the engine room experience such high temperatures; (b) was the high temperature in the engine room related to environmental conditions; (c) was the submarine on the surface or was it submerged during these extreme heat readings in the engine room; (d) are the heat-related issues a fleet-wide problem; (e) was the crew of HMCS Victoria ever in danger because of these high engine room temperatures; (f) what additional cooling equipment is required to allow the Victoria-class submarine to operate in tropical waters; and (g) what is the estimated cost to rectify extreme heat build-up in the engine rooms of the Victoria class submarines so that they can operate in warmer climates?
> 
> Hon. David Pratt (Minister of National Defence, Lib.):
> The answer is as follows: a) The engine room in the Victoria class submarines contains large diesel engines that operate, when required, in a confined space that receives minimal cooling air. Like all the machinery rooms in Canadian warships operating under tropical conditions, the peak temperatures were uncomfortable. Submarines pose the greatest challenge in this regard, since, by design, they do not have regular access to outside air. For this reason, along with most modern machinery spaces, the Victoria class submarines have an automated engine room and the need for the continuous presence of engine room operators is limited.
> 
> b) This was the Canadian Navy’s first experience of operating a Victoria class submarine under tropical conditions. The data collected to date suggests that the environmental conditions, tropical or temperate, do not significantly influence the engine room temperature since the majority of outside air introduced to the space is devoted to supporting combustion in the diesel engines. Thus, the cooling and heating effects of outside air is limited.
> 
> c) The highest temperatures were recorded in the tropical environment immediately after the diesel engines were stopped and the submarine dived to its operational depth. The peak temperatures were also recorded in the highest part of the compartment adjacent to the hot engine exhaust manifold.
> 
> d) The temperatures experienced within the engine room in tropical conditions are not unique to the Victoria class submarines. They are consistent with temperature levels experienced in many diesel-electric submarine engine rooms.
> 
> e) Safety of the crew was of paramount importance for the commanding officer and crew exposure to the engine room temperatures was managed by the submarine’s physician assistant. There were no heat stress related injuries during the transit.
> 
> f) The transit demonstrated that, although at times uncomfortable, the Victoria class submarines can safely operate in a tropical environment. The Navy will continue to examine options for improving localized equipment cooling, air conditioning, and living conditions within the submarines as future deployments may include operations in tropical areas of the world.
> 
> g) Since the engine room is automated, it is not a priority for major modifications to reduce the temperature under either temperate or tropical conditions. Options for improving the comfort in the accommodation spaces and operating stations are currently being considered. Working conditions in the engine room will be monitored and the crew’s exposure to high temperatures will be managed in the same manner applied to many of our Canadian Forces members serving around the globe under similar conditions.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

gwp said:
			
		

> It was the first time these boats had been subjected to tropical conditions.  To have an escort was due diligence.  Here is open source discussion from the Commons Defence Committee discussing the engine room conditions.  Other systems were affected as well.



It wasn't really the first time; the RN had deployed one to the IO before they were laid up.

However, the conditions were pretty much the same as an Oberon was...minus the whole electrocution/balls o' fire thing. We never had escorts with the Oberon EastPacs, although we needed them.

It might have had something to do with the Upholders not being designed for long ocean transits. They were built to run out to the GIUK gap from the UK.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Gee excessive heat in a engine room, next you will see a report stating that oilly bilge water sloshing around might induce seasickness in young oilers.  

Almost every older vessel I sailed on, suffered from high heat in the engine room.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Colin P said:
			
		

> next you will see a report stating that oilly bilge water sloshing around might induce seasickness in young oilers.



It's not that they get seasick, it's a matter of being rejected by their food.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I was part of the escort for VIC up the west coast in 2003.  Once we left Panama, she did not run on the surface- she either snorted or ran on batteries the whole way.  I pinged on her every day for over two weeks, so there were substantial training opportunities, but at a basic level, because we did not have the SOA to screw around.

As things turned out- we had a major engine room fire and VIC almost had to rescue us.  It was difficult to to figure out, for a few days, who was escorting whom.


----------



## buckahed

Noticed the public service websites have had some job openings in Victoria the last couple of months. QC, senior hull inspectors, senior machinery inspectors, all for the sub program. Now, when that many people are getting hired all at once for a DND program, it usually means that either the program has been ramped up real fast ( and I haven heard of the subs getting a high priority) or the program is such a disaster that there has been large numbers of `lateral promotions`. Anyone got any bumf from the refit crewÉ.

On <some  distantly related topics, what did they do with Squadron. Leave it at jetty 8 or move it westÉ  and where do they do escape training nowÉ


----------



## Sub_Guy

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> What training? They were surfaced and a lot of the escorting was done by an MCDV.



Ville de Quebec from Halifax to Panama
Ottawa from Panama to Esq




			
				drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> However, the conditions were pretty much the same as an Oberon was...minus the whole electrocution/balls o' fire thing. We never had escorts with the Oberon EastPacs, although we needed them.



I find it hard to believe that you have much O-Boat time considering your profile mentions 3 years in the submarine community.  Sounds like you are just spreading hear say information out there. 

Some of the information you have thrown out here has been a little out to lunch and debunked by several posters.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Ville de Quebec from Halifax to Panama
> Ottawa from Panama to Esq



And? There were also MCDV's involved in the escorts. 



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I find it hard to believe that you have much O-Boat time considering your profile mentions 3 years in the submarine community.  Sounds like you are just spreading hear say information out there.



Believe whatever you'd like. How much time on the O-boats do *you* have?




			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Some of the information you have thrown out here has been a little out to lunch and debunked by several posters.



Such as?


----------



## Sub_Guy

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> And? There were also MCDV's involved in the escorts.


Above you mentioned that MCDV's were the escorts, implying that there would have been no training involved.  When in fact there was minor training... 



> Believe whatever you'd like. How much time on the O-boats do *you* have?


I really could care less, and that is the truth, but your profile states 3 years DDH, 3 years boats for a total of six years.  It is 2008 so that brings us to 2002, the last O-boat was to be decommissioned was in July of 2000.  To answer your question, I have no O-boat time, I have never claimed to know anything about the O-boats or sailed on them.



> Such as?


Mentioning that the sub ran on the surface for most of the transit, when those in the community know that it is more economical for it to be under the water, and that's how it usually travels (O-boats were the opposite).  Then to have someone come on here and tell you that it spent close to two weeks dived.

This has gone way off track, and the topic is about the submarine contract.


----------



## MarkOttawa

The battle continues (usual copyright disclaimer):

Fight over Victoria-class submarine maintenance contract gets ugly 
http://www.princegeorgecitizen.com/20080104110828/wire/national-news/fight-over-victoria-class-submarine-maintenance-contract-gets-ugly.html

REST DELETED--just noticed actual story was Jan. 4.  Oops :-[!

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## geo

> "We don't want a court victory that pays out damages," said Hudson. "We want to put 200 skilled shipyard employees at Halifax to work."



Tell that to the St John skilled shipyard employees that were put out on their a$$ when Irving shut down the Frigate program


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Tangents folks...lets get back on to the one in question....

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Ok.

There's going to be a considerable cost from sending the boats around the Panama Canal that probably hasn't been factored into the total contract award. On the other hand, CSMG has probably learned enough from Victorias EDWP that they'll do a lot better on the next 7. Hopefully the extra costs will be cancelled out by not having massive overruns on the refits.


----------



## gwp

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Ok.
> There's going to be a considerable cost from sending the boats around the Panama Canal that probably hasn't been factored into the total contract award. On the other hand, CSMG has probably learned enough from Victorias EDWP that they'll do a lot better on the next 7. Hopefully the extra costs will be cancelled out by not having massive overruns on the refits.


Travel time/expense of coastal transfers for maintaining the submarines is a red herring.  With two boats on each coast, all of the boats are going to travel from coast to coast regardless of which coast the primary contractor is located on.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

You mean 3 on the east coast and 1 on the west...or is that plan changed again?


----------



## Sub Standard

The eventual over all plan is to have 2 boats per coast so that at least one is running on each coast no matter which boat is in EDWP.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Yeah that is the plan, but wouldn't it make sense to split the maintenance contract so that shipyards on both coasts benefit?

It would be cheaper for the Navy and more importantly the tax payers of Canada.

Sort of like what they are going to do with FELEX?  I guess it doesn't matter because it a done deal.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

With 4 boats only one will be counted as "available" regardless of how they're split up between the coasts. The CASAP requirement was for 8 boats for a reason. 

It would be far more expensive to split the maintenance contract between the coasts. We'd see the problems with Victoria's refit repeated not only on the East coast, but again on the West as the shipyards went through boom and bust cycles. There just isn't enough work to keep two shipyards doing refits, assuming the refits go through on time.

The problem isn't necessarily East vs West for the maintenance contract, it's that splitting the boats between coasts has a lot of problems associated with it. The maintenance contract weirdness is just a symptom of that, not a cause.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

johnston.db said:
			
		

> The eventual over all plan is to have 2 boats per coast so that at least one is running on each coast no matter which boat is in EDWP.



Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## gwp

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> You mean 3 on the east coast and 1 on the west...or is that plan changed again?


The idea of three boats on the East Coast was predicated on the maintenance of the boats on the East Coast.   One boat one each coast operational.  One boat training and working up.  One boat in refit.   The boat that is working up or the boat in refit can be on either coast depending upon the work.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> And? There were also MCDV's involved in the escorts.



Sorry to drag this off topic, but it goes to the credibility of drunknsubmrnr in this thread:

I was there for the entire Panama to Victoria portion of the escort of HMCS VICTORIA in 2003.  There was only two vessels as part of that escort: OTTAWA and VICTORIA.  That's it.  No MCDVs.  None.  Not one.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

From what I understand, the MCDV's were on the East coast portion. They were definitely there...I *assumed* that they were also on the West coast. My bad...I know what that makes me.

FYI...the reasons the boats would normally transit surfaced have to do with the systems earlier alluded to for trials. Those systems (and the specifics are or should be OPSEC) are required for safety underwater, and do not function well in hot conditions. Running without those systems would be asking for an operational accident a la Ehime Maru.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I know HMCS Ville de Quebec did the east coast phase of HMCS Victoria's transit to Panama but I don't recall any MCDVs involved.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

They were definitely there...I saw pictures. 

They would have been needed if the trials went very wrong....CPF's don't have an ROV.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

have a link?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

No...they were in an email sent out to a few of the people on the last West coast transit before that one.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/marlant/news/marlant_news_e.asp?section=9&category=36&id=3754

Seems odd that the Navy who usually likes to recognize the NavRes and the MCDVs failed to in this article....


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

I agree. However, the only mention of the escort ships were for the full transits to/from the Canal. I only saw a few pictures of the MCDV's, and none of them appeared to be very far South from the water colour.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Which would seem to indicate they were not involved in the actual escort operation itself but if they were there, then they may have been involved in exercises of opportunity....


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

I agree. That's the logical conclusion.


----------



## GAP

Supreme Court won’t hear Irving appeal of sub refit contract
By The Canadian Press Fri. Oct 23 - 4:47 AM
Article Link

OTTAWA — The country’s top court has dismissed an appeal by an Irving-owned company challenging a multibillion-dollar submarine maintenance contract that went to a competing firm.

As is its usual practice, the Supreme Court of Canada did not give reasons for its decision not to hear the case.

Irving Shipbuilding Inc. of New Brunswick sued the federal government in 2007 after Ottawa informally awarded the first phase of the $1.5-billion contract to B.C.-based Canadian Submarine Management Group.

The Federal Court of Appeal ruled in April the shipbuilder did not have standing to ask for such a review, which was based on suspicions there was bias involved in the contract decision.

The Irving company filed an application with the high court last June.

The Irvings had contended the decision to shut down the legal review limits the ability of all companies to protest government contract decisions.

The contract was put on hold for about a year while the matter was reviewed. But in the end, the Defence Department made it clear that it had no intention of changing its decision.
More on link


----------



## DBF

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> From what I understand, the MCDV's were on the East coast portion. They were definitely there...I *assumed* that they were also on the West coast. My bad...I know what that makes me.
> 
> FYI...the reasons the boats would normally transit surfaced have to do with the systems earlier alluded to for trials. Those systems (and the specifics are or should be OPSEC) are required for safety underwater, and do not function well in hot conditions. Running without those systems would be asking for an operational accident a la Ehime Maru.



I was part of the first crew of VIC and was aboard for that transit.  There were no MCDVs involved in any part of the transit.  Also the assertion that submarines would normally transit surfaced is wrong.  The UPHOLDERS have a "teardrop hull" which significantly reduces the hydrodynamic drag on the sub when submerged but decreases the sea-keeping capabilities and increases the drag while surfaced.


----------

