# What next?-Sub Article



## bossi (29 Feb 2004)

(amazing - the media are surprised to "discover" that new kit/eqpt costs more than old stuff ...)

Feb. 29, 2004. 03:54 PM 
New subs to cost more than expected
Boats were supposed to be cheaper to run than Oberon-class predecessors

OTTAWA (CP) - Contrary to original predictions, the navy's new Victoria-class submarines are going to cost millions of dollars more to operate than their predecessors. 

Supporters of the 1998 sub purchase made a key selling point out of a claim that the running costs of the four Victoria boats would be the same as those for the three Oberon-class boats they are replacing. 

"Our 1998 estimate we said we can run four boats for the same cost as three," said Navy Capt. Mike Williamson, director of the sub project. 

"In the six years since, we've learned that we've overshot that by 25 per cent." 

An internal review conducted last year and just recently released concluded it will cost $121 million a year to run the new boats compared with $97 million for the old ones. This comes at a time when the navy's operating budget is stretched to the limit. 

Williamson insists, though, that the new warships will still deliver more bang for the buck than the obsolescent Oberons. 

"Simply stated, for a 25-per-cent increase in costs we're getting a 30-per-cent increase in availability," he said. 

There are a number of reasons for higher costs, he said. For one thing, the Victorias will sail from both costs, whereas the Oberons were only permanently based in Halifax. 

"That's increased the costs," Williamson said. "These boats are more complex, and safety standards and rigour applied to engineering has increased since the Oberon class." 

The total cost of the four subs has also risen, to almost $900 million from $812 million, but Williamson said that is because a number of items related to the purchase, which were carried in other budgets, were consolidated into one budget. 

"We're not looking for new money," he said. 

The four diesel-electric-powered Victorias were originally built in the late 1980s and early 1990s for Britain's Royal Navy, which mothballed them in 1994 when it decided to stick with an all-nuclear sub force. 

Buying them new would have cost between $3 billion and $5 billion, and the Canadian navy figures it got a bargain. 

However, the boats are running about three years behind schedule because of a series of technical glitches and teething problems. When the British brought the boats out of storage, they found cracks in some key valves. Repairs and tests to certify the boats safe to dive took longer than expected. 

This, in turn, delayed the process of installing Canadian equipment in the ships. 

HMCS Windsor, which originally was supposed to be ready for operations in July 2001, is set to start a year of testing next month. 

HMCS Victoria is in Esquimalt, B.C., preparing for sea tests starting this summer. HMCS Corner Brook is just starting the installation of Canadian equipment in the Halifax dockyard. 

The fourth boat, to be named HMCS Chicoutimi, is still in British hands and still bears the name HMS Upholder. 

"The boats were a good buy, they remain a good buy," says Williamson. "The delays are costing us a bit now, but we want to work through them." 

It will still take a long period of testing and shakedown cruises before the vessels are prepared for operations anywhere. 

"All of these boats will be ready to go into harm's way once we've proven the weapons system ... the sonars and the radios and the crew, and that's still a couple of years out," Williamson said. 

The navy argues that the boats are an important asset and provide an unparalleled capacity for surveillance of Canada's coastlines. 

With its sensitive sonar systems, a sub can survey thousands of square kilometres, eavesdropping unseen on passing vessels. 

"Submarines are like hidden cameras in Canada's ocean areas," says one navy report. 

With only 55 crew, they are far cheaper to sail than destroyers or frigates, with crews of 200 or more. 

And the Victorias are stealthy. Quiet is a submarine's cloak of invisibility and the Victorias, with their engines run by batteries underwater and their hulls coated with thousands of sound-absorbing tiles, are deadly silent. 

Diesel-electric boats are usually quieter than nuclear-powered subs, because the latter need heavy-duty pumps to cool their reactors and run their steam turbines. 

The Victorias are slower than nukes, however. They can do 20 knots underwater and in a pinch, they can travel at eight knots submerged using their diesels and a snorkel. 

The subs can stay at sea for eight weeks and are cleared to dive to 200 metres.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (29 Feb 2004)

200m dive thats it?  Is that standard norm?
They should have had the Brits foot the bill to fix them.


----------



## Engineer Corporal (29 Feb 2004)

I beleive the term "You get what you paid for" is appropriate. Also at least the navy has new submarines. I‘m sure the faults will be worked out.


----------



## Evan (1 Mar 2004)

"Also at least the navy has new submarines"

Yea, but did they really need them.

Why did the navy buy them?, dose Canada actually need sub‘s?


----------



## Engineer Corporal (1 Mar 2004)

Well it‘s the same as anything else you need it in the event something happens. Just like the army. I‘m just saying there is so much talk in the military of what we don‘t have. Why not be happy a bit about what we do have.


----------



## Evan (1 Mar 2004)

true, but it just kinda seems a bit of more of a want more then a need.

just my $.02


----------



## K. Ash (2 Mar 2004)

"Yea, but did they really need them.

Why did the navy buy them?, dose Canada actually need sub‘s?"

Ok, does the army really need new armoured vehicles?

Canada needs a Navy that‘s on par with the rest of the world, just like we need an army that‘s on par with the rest of the world. Submarines are an important part of a Navy. So yes Canada do need them. 

edited for content.


----------



## RCD (4 Mar 2004)

Unfortunately we need a lot of everything


----------



## Yllw_Ninja (4 Mar 2004)

What does the navy need submarines for... i‘m sure they could borrow the 4 in West Edmonton Mall if they really really needed em    think of the money they could have saved


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Mar 2004)

Well Canada has never bought a new Sub before, so why all the whining.  The next step up from these is a Nuke and we can‘t afford those, once they have worked out the bugs, these subs will do us proud for the next 30 years and with new technology coming down the pipe, in 10 years they will probably have near-nuke endurance for under ice operations. They will also help counter the proliferation of subs that is happening in the Asia Pacific area.


----------

