HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Your right about the fact that the PRC will be cheesed off. The Americans have proposed building conventional submarines for the Taiwanese in the past, and it got a very negative reaction from Beijing, hence it is part of the reason why the Americans are dragging their feet. The other reason the Americans are dragging their feet is local pressure from the US Navy not to build conventional submarines. There was some serious backlash against France and the Americans earlier for selling Mirage 2000 and F-16 jets, plus La Fayette class frigates to the Taiwanese in the late 1980's, early 1990's. Future arms sales from Europe due to pressure from Beijing are now highly unlikely due to this.

Canada signed recently many trade bilaterals between us and the Chinese, representing billions of dollars of trade for us, and we do not wish to risk them. Also, we signed in 1970, an agreement with the PRC, formally recognizing the PRC government, as the "sole legal government of China" and "takes note" of China's position that Taiwan is an "inalienable part of the territory" of the PRC, hence we will be breaking the founding communique that established PRC-Canada relations.

And playing the oil card with China will just get us brushed off by Beijing. The PRC does not depend at all on Canadian oil exports, they depend on mostly domestic and Russian energy imports. So that card is already in the trash can already. The Chinese can theoretically dump our markets with goods, which will not be good for Canada at all. And check the back of your computer or any electronic or consumer good you own; most likely, it came from China.

My humble opinion is to say "screw the existing deals" because we're getting the short-end of the trade balance anyway.

RE:  The back of my computer - I'm with you on that.  I've actually done my best to boycott PRC goods for the last 3 years and I had to hunt to buy a laptop not built in China.  More recently I went looking for a coffee maker....THEY WERE ALL "MADE IN CHINA".  Even the Stainless Steel Cuisinart I ended up buying was from China (which really pissed me off because I didn't even realize that until I had gotten it home). 

I even went looking after-the-fact and the only way I could buy non-PRC would've been to drop $450+ on a SAACO Espresso Machine.

I can hardly wait until they start dumping cars into North America....


Matt.   

 

[TCBF]

Countries invariably act in accordance with their owninterests.  The ChiComs will no doubt try to bully - it's called diplomacy, by the way - others to ignore Taiwan, but, I could see South Africa, Isreal, or others making a good deal or two with Formosa.

Tom

 

[WCST]

I'm curious, is it the general consenus in the navy that the Vics are lemons?

From technical types it is. The guys who work on the Vic are just estatic to be ON a sub. Nevermind they're not sailing her. Just repairs and fixing and climbing scaffolding. It's so frustrating for them.

M :brickwall:

 

[The Gues-|-]

Hey why don't we just get the subs from West Ed mall, paint them black and strap a couple torpedos to the sides we'll have double the subs we have now.

 

[TCBF]

What are you going to torpedo in the West Ed  Mall?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Hey why don't we just get the subs from West Ed mall, paint them black and strap a couple torpedos to the sides we'll have double the subs we have now.

:

 

[chrisf]

What are you going to torpedo in the West Ed  Mall?

About as much as the Victoria's will torpedo in dry dock

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I am glad you folks find the navy not having a much needed capability very amusing, its about as funny as the army not having any tanks and buying the MGS....

 

[redleafjumper]

Actually, it isn't a very funny situation. I am sure that most of us hope that the recent announcement of a plan for a three-ocean navy comes to fruition.

Sometimes a little humour makes it easier to bear a difficult or annoying situation.  It's the old phrase "if you can't take a joke , you shouldn't have joined".  I don't think anyone trying to add some humor here was trying to be offensive, but one can see how people may have strong feelings about the penny-wise and pound foolish spending habits that seem to plague many government contracts.

 

[cobbler]

Sometimes a little humour makes it easier to bear a difficult or annoying situation.  It's the old phrase "if you can't take a joke , you shouldn't have joined".  I don't think anyone trying to add some humor here was trying to be offensive, but one can see how people may have strong feelings about the penny-wise and pound foolish spending habits that seem to plague many government contracts.

Learn from Australia, if you let jokes like that creep into the nation's mind they will never be erased.

Before all the collins class troubles were fixed, jokes were commonplace, and now the subs are brilliant, but ehir reputation has been burned deep into the belief of the media and the general public. So now in Australia it is "common knowledge" that our submarines are "dud subs", and no matter what the facts are nor how much they prove themselves the collins will never be rid of that tag. Thanks to jokes.

All the troubles we went through were worth it to get what we have today, but of course the public cant see it that way, they have been virtually brainwashed into a false opinion.

This not only reduces pride, it affects recruitment, future defence programs, the publics perception of the building company (whom were not at fault), and many other.

Jokes are bad for submarines, because they never go away, trust it from an aussie.

 

[redleafjumper]

Good point.  It is true that something can creep into the public conscious and become a reputation, whether deserved or not.

 

[aesop081]

This whole thread :  :

A few of the posters here would benefit from the 3 weeks i just had seeing first hand what SSK's can do to a modern surface fleet.  Rather than making jokes you would be screaming for our sub fleet to get operational.  As already mentioned by Ex-Dragoon, it is a sorely needed capability.

 

[NavyShooter]

AESOP, I'm living that right now too.  I'm on the Montreal.

These boats are GOOD.

NS

 

[Collin.t]

You could also read the paper in the thread "Is the US Navy overrated", it's a real moral booster for the canadian forces and also the other small navies around the world.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

This whole thread :  :

A few of the posters here would benefit from the 3 weeks i just had seeing first hand what SSK's can do to a modern surface fleet.  Rather than making jokes you would be screaming for our sub fleet to get operational.  As already mentioned by Ex-Dragoon, it is a sorely needed capability.

[WARNING: Understanding of a Civvie.  Not to be mininterpretted as fact  ;D]

If we're talking about operation within territorial waters could not Aurora, F-18, or even ground-launched Harpoons or other SSM's could cause equal damage to enemy assets at a far lower operating cost? 

My point is that I always understood that Submarines were intended to operate stealthily in places they weren't intended to be.  Areas where perhaps an enemy has air assets and snorkelling would expose their position. 

In short, I simply cannot reconcile spending a $1billion up-front and $XX million/year in operational costs for coastal self-defence submarines that most likely will never experience anything more dangerouse than a Spanish Fishing Trawler.  Surveillance of such vessels is done far more cost-effectively with UAV's like the Predator B (Mariners).  For $1 billion, we could've bought approximately 40 units (based on $25 million per copy), they can fly almost every day without requiring long periods for maintenance and crew downtime, and can cover huge areas of ocean with minimal crew and fuel.

The only way I can reconcile spending $1billion up-front and $XX million/year in operational costs is for an ultra long-range SSK with AIP that can operate submerged in dangerous territory for extended periods of time without requiring surfacing (perhaps as trail-blazers for an eventual LPD-based battle group) which appears well beyond the capability of the Victorias in their current configuration.

Now if you're going to tell me the current configuration is transitional to an eventual AIP-refit (and hopefully extended range) and that we're just getting people trained-up on these vessels at the moment so we don't lose our capability, I'll humbly retract my objections.



Matthew.   

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Blackshirt-

Suppose what you're looking for in our territorial waters is not on the surface.  How does a Harpoon armed aircraft help you now?  The best ASW platform is another submarine.

There are many ways for a snorkelling submarine to hide it's snort- particularly when operating in litoral waters.  There is almost always lots of little radar contacts that they can just blend in with...

Our submarines are not just coastal defence vessels.  You have missed out on several of their assigned missions, most of which have nothing to do with operating in our waters, but have everything to do with carrying our fair share of being in a Western Alliance.  I hesitate to go further, because I am not sure what is in the public domain and what is not.  Perhaps a serving submariner can go further than I have.

Operating submarine of our own gets us access to water space management info, which is roughly like air traffic control for submarines.  You don't operate submarines, you don't get the info.

A Navy not having submarines is like an Army without tanks... oh wait.  Anyway, it leaves the force unbalanced and it hands the entire undersea dimension to any potential adversary.

You don't want to believe me that subs are necessary for our Navy to have, that is your perogative.  But I'm the trained professional who has to find them on occasion, and in my opinion, they are absolutely necessary.

Cheers

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Your tank point hits the nail on the head.  IF we accept that we'll never get a budget that will allow us to buy all the kit we should have for all services and that we have to rationalize priority #1 (airlift) vs priority #2 (tanks) vs priority #3 (submarines) vs priority #4 (sealift), IF we're going to commit to operate submarines (which I'm not arguing is a bad decision), I just can't rationalize running non-AIP vessels.

It would be like buying used F-5's for Combat Air Patrol, or M-60 Pattons as our new MBT.  They may fill a role, but faced with combat versus a competent enemy and they would be a huge liability.



Matthew.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I guess you have been missing my posts (and others) about how naval warfare is a 3 tiered approach of above, on and below. You remove one from the equation and you might as well stay in port.  :

Going the niche approach like you are advocating only further erodes our effectiveness as a military. After all look how quickly the skill sets of being a submariner eroded at least now we are able to maintain some degree of proficiency.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

How about we suspend ALL welfare and provincial equalization payments and put the money into all branches of the military.  Then, if you want to live off the States teat, then you better make yourself useful to the Armed Services.  Starship Troopers, here we come! :dontpanic:

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

How about we suspend ALL welfare and provincial equalization payments and put the money into all branches of the military.  Then, if you want to live off the States teat, then you better make yourself useful to the Armed Services.  Starship Troopers, here we come! :dontpanic:

Not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand?