B.C. keeps $1.5b Submarine contract

[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]

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.