Replacing the Subs

[Stoker]

The contract states one on the west coast and one on the east coast.
Whatever happens, each facility should have the ability to handle at least 1 sub, 1 river and 1 cdc at a time, preferably those 3 plus at least 1 more.

The last thing we need is a faculty that can only handle a sub and a river at one time and nothing else. We have a very long track record of during the absolute minimum at the very cheapest price and then wring our hands when it comes up short.
G7 country in name only.

Of course there's going to be maintenance facilities on the WC. I would foresee the same facilities supporting the west coast Victoria's being used as a possibility.

I always said Canada needs more facilities to allow warship maintenance other than the big three shipyards. Saint John to look after the subs and whatever ships that need docking that Halifax and Davie can't handle.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I would not be surprised if Seaspan bought another large floating drydock, currently they have 3 in North Vancouver.

 

[WestIsle]

Not going to happen. I foresee SK partnering with some shipyard to try and win the maintenance contract. Its probably going to be Irving, Davie or Seaspan. The smart yard would be talking to SK now and investing in a facility for just that. The really smart yard would also include maintenance facilities for warships as well.

I believe the main partner here is going to be Babcock so expect them to be involved with the in country work

 

[Stoker]

I believe the main partner here is going to be Babcock so expect them to be involved with the in country work

If they are, they still need a yard so it will be them, a yard and SK.

 

[Czech_pivo]

If they are, they still need a yard so it will be them, a yard and SK.

Well here’s to Saint John (for the East Coast site), being reopened and all the new jobs and opportunities for the city and its people that will go along with it.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Canada’s New Submarines Will Be Lethal, Stealthy, and Very UnCanadian​

In 2017, HMCS Chicoutimi undertook a dangerous and difficult assignment. For months, the Canadian submarine operated as part of an international task force enforcing sanctions against North Korea. The mission demanded long stretches of silently listening and watching as ships moved along the coast. From this vantage point, Chicoutimi gathered intelligence on vessels suspected of carrying contraband and cued surface warships to intercept them.

The risks were real. North Korea’s navy had fired at, and even sunk, South Korean naval patrols in these waters. For the Royal Canadian Navy, however, the mission was a vindication. Canada’s current submarine force—four boats in total, all bought second-hand from the United Kingdom—has had a troubled history, and none embodied this more than Chicoutimi. In 2004, a fire during her delivery voyage killed one sailor and left the vessel sidelined for years. Operating off the Korean Peninsula, Chicoutimi showed that she, and her Victoria-class counterparts, could still shoulder an operationally significant role

Canada’s New Submarines Will Be Lethal, Stealthy, and Very UnCanadian

unpublished.ca

 

[Underway]

This is the quote from Topshee that is the real point of things:

a very unCanadian capability, and that’s the ability to stealthily approach another coast and hold them at risk. Because in this world, it’s not enough to sit back and wait for someone to attack us and hope that we can defeat that attack. We need to be capable of deterring that attack and, potentially, retaliating against that attack to make sure that we can protect ourselves and hold them at risk, just as they hold us at risk. It’s a different world. It’s a different way of thinking for us in Canada.

 

[OldSolduer]

This is the quote from Topshee that is the real point of things:

Agreed.

There are some folk who continue to think along the lines of "everyone loves Canada we're peacekeepers" and think listening in and gathering information is "unfair" and we should not do it.

 

[Underway]

Agreed.

There are some folk who continue to think along the lines of "everyone loves Canada we're peacekeepers" and think listening in and gathering information is "unfair" and we should not do it.

There are plenty on this board. And in gov't and even in the military. The paradigm has shifted and like all things some people will take longer to change their view, and some may never move. Its not IF war its WHEN war now.

 

[OldSolduer]

There are plenty on this board. And in gov't and even in the military. The paradigm has shifted and like all things some people will take longer to change their view, and some may never move. Its not IF war its WHEN war now.

I have said forever that Canada needs to be better prepped for war, and that includes Stealth capabilities. If that includes having a sub or four parked off North Korea or China's coasts....so be it. You can be guaranteed the Russians, Chinese etc don't "fight fair". +-
Every soldier, sailor or aviator is a potential source of information and they need to be trained and equipped to fulfill those needs.


"Fighting fair" only applies to sports and even then they don't fight fair either. Buzz Beurling had a quote about fighting a war and it was to the effect that "there is no room for soft headedness". I can't find it right now but at some point I will.

 

[Czech_pivo]

There are plenty on this board. And in gov't and even in the military. The paradigm has shifted and like all things some people will take longer to change their view, and some may never move. Its not IF war its WHEN war now.

Time to start easing those in the CAF that think along those lines into roles of less significance and into an early retirement.