• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Replacing the Subs

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,573
Points
1,160
Which goes to show how much of a colossal screw up in procurement that project still is, how many billions have been wasted because that project hasn't fully delivered after almost 2 decades? How have we not penaltied the company into the ground
Canada did…took Lockheed-Sikorsky right to the full-extent of contractual liquidated damages.

Things is, in business, once maximum LDs have been paid and written-off by a company, there is little business incentive to bend over backwards rushing to make an orphan product do everything the customer thinks they want (including the full system integration that the client contractually obliged NEITHER the airframe manufacturer, NOR the mission system OEM…yup, nobody actually tasked to make it work together).
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,619
Points
910
(including the full system integration that the client contractually obliged NEITHER the airframe manufacturer, NOR the mission system OEM…yup, nobody actually tasked to make it work together).
Where is the face palm emoji? You gotta be kidding....but some how I don't think you are.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
180
Points
530
Which goes to show how much of a colossal screw up in procurement that project still is, how many billions have been wasted because that project hasn't fully delivered after almost 2 decades? How have we not penaltied the company into the ground
And the truly, truly sad thing of it is this - there’s most likely no one left from the original team who started the project back in 1993 when the EH-101 contract was signed to even know all the details or to be able to point out where all the bodies/mistakes are. As a result no one can be held accountable. I mean how many MoD’s have there been since the EH-101 to present day?
A person could have started their very first day of their career on this project and 28yrs later be just about ready to retire and the RCN has yet to receive the last Cyclone. It’s mind boggling and frankly, disgusting. Such a sad state that we’re in.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,573
Points
1,160
“I’ll take dis pen, an’ write in da number….zero…zero ‘elicopters. Zip, zero, nada!”
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,350
Points
940
A person could have started their very first day of their career on this project and 28yrs later be just about ready to retire and the RCN has yet to receive the last Cyclone. It’s mind boggling and frankly, disgusting. Such a sad state that we’re in.
...and to bring it back to subs, the Australians (before they cancelled the deal) started the Attack-class submarine project in 2007, and would have had the last sub in 2050.

That is not a typo.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
180
Points
530
Cue a timely written article -

"Unless Canada substantially stepped up in another defence area, “getting out of the sub business would mean that our friends and allies (and, of course, those who oppose our friends and allies) would take Canada even less seriously in defence matters than they do now,”

"It would also “effectively cede operational control over our coastal and Arctic waters to others,” both allies and enemies, Nossal added."
- Not sure I agree with this (but I will let others with vastly more experience weigh in on this) because even with the 4 subs we have now we don't have operational control over the Arctic waters, they are not able to patrol throughout the entire region at all and the new AOPS's cannot as well, so do we have operational control over our entire Arctic?

"We need to move forward with a viable program to replace the current capability,” said Norman.
-
Replacing our 'current capability' will not address the short-fall in operating throughout our entire Arctic under the ice.

“The idea that Canada could return to its 1950s past of relying on US or UK submarines to undertake these missions on our behalf is myopic.”
- Refer to the recent comments on the Arctic by the British top military commander.



EDIT-

I'd like to point out the phase 'Canada’s ability to exert influence in its vast maritime domain will be tested' in the title of the article. It says 'exert influence', it doesn't say 'control' or 'ability to have a strategic presence' or 'defend' or 'maintain sovereignty' - its a statement implying that we don't have any of the above.
 
Last edited:

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,013
Points
910
Which goes to show how much of a colossal screw up in procurement that project still is, how many billions have been wasted because that project hasn't fully delivered after almost 2 decades? How have we not penaltied the company into the ground
Well when one opts out of a program as a key stakeholder -- then tried to get in with a barebones model with CF required add ons later (which is eventually for more money than the fully up EH-101) you need to sit in the queue for the line like everyone else who isn't a stakeholder...

The project is a screw up - but the blame goes 110% to Politicians
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
64
Points
330
Cynical me would think that they had something ready to go, and waiting for a moment when an ally replaced their subs to push it out.

Brush it off, change a few names, and send.

My thoughts too. It shows what the public thinks of our pacifism lack of a national security strategy. It shows British forethought into potential customers and their ability to take Canada's 'pulse' with the multiple national news articles regarding Canada and AUKUS. From the attention AUKUS related articles are getting and their position in the newscast/news sites, you could say that the public does care alot about national security and China's rise to a superpower and that Canadians want something to be done and said about it.

I'm of the opinion that Canadians actually care about the CF and how we view ourselves in the world as the good guys. I think Canadians want the CF to have good equipment, but there is so little insight into what the CF can and can't do that the public doesn't know how vulnerable we've made ourselves.

I'd argue half of the project to replace our SSKs would be the selling of the project to Canadians. Work with CDN media to produce documentaries into what it's like on a HMCS; to be a sailor. There has been so much quality programming coming from the UK, whether its a documentary on being a sailor on a Type 45, Perisher course, or Royal Marine youtube content, there is much to be desired here.
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
37
Points
380
And while they speak in the news about building eight submarines in Australia, the RAN might be still considering twelve. Might this imply direct sales of the other four either from US or UK? This may well be under consideration in the 18-month period set to arrive to conclusions.

“Instead we should buy 12 of a proven design which is already in the water. We want long-range hunter-killer vessels. (...)

I was not so bad guessing...

 
Last edited:

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
956
Points
910
Canadians want something to be done and said about it.

Once the right words have been said - words and intentions are what matter, not deeds - it's back to worrying about domestic issues. Arctic sovereignty is simply a matter of a few more Canadian Rangers and more aboriginal self-governance to look after the North.

The dreaming we do on any of the capability/equipment threads would be aspirational under a conservative government, which might try to scrape up a few coppers for defence. Under prolonged liberal/left governance, it's just delusional.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,619
Points
910
Once the right words have been said - words and intentions are what matter, not deeds - it's back to worrying about domestic issues. Arctic sovereignty is simply a matter of a few more Canadian Rangers and more aboriginal self-governance to look after the North.

The dreaming we do on any of the capability/equipment threads would be aspirational under a conservative government, which might try to scrape up a few coppers for defence. Under prolonged liberal/left governance, it's just delusional.
I recall about 11 years ago I wrote an essay for the OPMEs. It was about peacekeeping and was it - is it - a "fatal distraction" for the CAF?
I concluded that it was not at the time due to our presence in Afghanistan and that all three components of the CAF were engaged in some way during that time.
Now during the past five years I am starting to wonder if I was wrong. It seems the average Canadian knows less about their own military than they know about (insert famous emptyheaded celebrity that you really detest-mine are the Kardashians). Sad but true.

I fear once this class of subs are no longer sustainable the GoC will opt for "no subs".
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
333
Points
1,010
Not as an alternative to replacing the Victorias, but perhaps investing in a fleet of XLUUVs could help offset the fact that we can't afford as large a fleet of subs as we would like.

Combine a small-ish fleet of 4-6 SSKs with a sensor net of XLUUVs and USV's and maybe some additional MPA's and we could have a useful capability at a lesser cost than 8-10 nuclear boats.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,309
Points
1,060
Not as an alternative to replacing the Victorias, but perhaps investing in a fleet of XLUUVs could help offset the fact that we can't afford as large a fleet of subs as we would like.

Combine a small-ish fleet of 4-6 SSKs with a sensor net of XLUUVs and USV's and maybe some additional MPA's and we could have a useful capability at a lesser cost international credibility than 8-10 nuclear boats.

There, FTFY :)
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
990
Or to be more accurate: 'Canada needs to start looking for a few good used subs now' :)
25 used Australian Hornets to supplement our current fleet of aging Hornets - ones that needed upgrades to ejection seats, computers, radios, etc.

When that money could have gone towards actually just buying the next fleet of jets, the same fleet everybody acknowledges we still need to buy.


And now you’re telling me they have used submarines too!? No way. What are the odds.

And only requiring changes to the computer systems, weapon systems, torpedo tubes, safety systems, etc?

No big deal at all. A year or so should be enough to have them operating like new. I’ll bet you they’ll cut us a pretty sweet deal to dispose of them, for them 😈
 
Top