- Reaction score
- 4,350
- Points
- 1,260
Good messaging....
E.R. Campbell said:
yoman said:
Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
- Thread starter Cdn Blackshirt
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 60
well, test shots were good, at least the dummies that float. so the torpedos do fit, and fire.
drunknsubmrnr
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
More like fit and jettison, which is also good to have.
There's a lot more to firing a Mk 48 and getting it working than just ejecting it from a tube.
Hopefully the recent fire won't delay the weapon cert.
There's a lot more to firing a Mk 48 and getting it working than just ejecting it from a tube.
Hopefully the recent fire won't delay the weapon cert.
- Reaction score
- 4,350
- Points
- 1,260
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,035
- Points
- 1,160
Owners of British cars and subs should note that all Lucas parts run on smoke, if the smoke escapes, then the part will fail to work. Lucas also makes 3 position switches: Dim, Flicker and smoke. Lucas will also guarantee the supply of lukewarm beer with it's line of fridges.
Lucas the Prince of darkness, bring dark to you since 1925
Lucas the Prince of darkness, bring dark to you since 1925
- Reaction score
- 2,871
- Points
- 940
My first bike was a Norton; you'd think that the Brits could devise an electrical system that would work when it's damp.Colin P said:
It's not a rhetorical question kids; Lucas IS the Prince of Darkness -- and that's not a cool vampire metaphor -- when you need lights (or ignition), British electrics will leave you in the dark
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
14 Sept 2011, Halifax Chronical Herald
Scrap Canada’s naval submarine fleet — critic
Last of four vessels grounded until 2016
By JONATHAN ARENSON
Wed, Sep 14 - 4:54 AM
Canada’s naval submarine program is a bust and the time is perfect for the federal government to scrap the four-vessel fleet, says the president of the Rideau Institute, an independent research, advocacy and consulting group in Ottawa.
"I don’t think we’ll ever see all four submarines operating all together and at their full capacity," Steven Staples said Tuesday.
Two weeks ago, the HMCS Corner Brook was put dockside until at least 2016 as a result of damage caused by hitting the ocean floor back in June. As a result, none of Canada’s four Victoria-class submarines are in action.
The damage to the Corner Brook occurred during a training exercise near Nootka Sound off the west coast of Vancouver Island.
Staples said he doesn’t think there would be any political downside to scrapping the submarines.
"I think an argument could be made by the government that they are still committed to the navy by spending upward of $30 billion on a new surface fleet."
Earlier this year, the federal government announced plans to spend up to $35 billion on shipbuilding across the country.
According to Staples, the submarines are doing Canada more harm than good.
"I think it is becoming painfully clear that the sub fleet is providing no benefits to Canada in terms of our defence and, in fact, is probably more of a hazard to submariners than any benefit to the navy."
In October 2004, the HMCS Chicoutimi was handed over to the Canadian navy from Britain. While making the voyage from England to its new home at CFB Halifax, the submarine caught fire in the North Atlantic, resulting in nine people being treated for smoke inhalation and killing one Canadian sailor, navy Lt. Chris Saunders.
The Defence Department has no plans in the foreseeable future to get the Chicoutimi back in action, navy Lt. Heather McDonald, a Royal Canadian Navy public affairs officer, said Tuesday in an email.
The HMCS Windsor landed in Nova Scotia in October 2001. Almost 10 years later, the submarine has been at sea 332 day and has extensive rust damage that will limit its diving depths once repaired.
The Windsor, which has been out of action since January 2007, is scheduled to be operational in 2013, the department said.
The HMCS Victoria is scheduled to be operational in 2012. But last week the submarine’s communications mast caught fire.
The submarines were launched by the British navy in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Britain took the submarines out of service in 1994 before selling them to Canada in 1998 for just under $900 million.
"There were certainly arguments made that $900 million for four submarines was a bargain deal, but we eventually paid $900 million for no submarines," said Staples.
In a letter to the Globe and Mail published Saturday, Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, who heads Maritime Command, defended the submarine program.
"They cost no more to run than other submarines of equivalent capability and will provide a solid return on investment well into the 2020s," wrote Maddison.
Including the price of purchase, repairs and maintenance, the bill to the Canadian taxpayers for the four submarines is an estimated at $3 billion, said Eric Lerhe, a doctoral fellow with the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax.
However, Lerhe, a former Canadian navy commodore, maintains that because of disagreements over the rights to oil in the Arctic, the submarines are still crucial to Canada’s northern interests.
"There is an 80 per cent chance that this will all be done peacefully in the UN and negotiated by maritime lawyers. The other 20 per cent of it is insurance, and that is submarines."
( jarenson@herald.ca)
Scrap Canada’s naval submarine fleet — critic
Last of four vessels grounded until 2016
By JONATHAN ARENSON
Wed, Sep 14 - 4:54 AM
Canada’s naval submarine program is a bust and the time is perfect for the federal government to scrap the four-vessel fleet, says the president of the Rideau Institute, an independent research, advocacy and consulting group in Ottawa.
"I don’t think we’ll ever see all four submarines operating all together and at their full capacity," Steven Staples said Tuesday.
Two weeks ago, the HMCS Corner Brook was put dockside until at least 2016 as a result of damage caused by hitting the ocean floor back in June. As a result, none of Canada’s four Victoria-class submarines are in action.
The damage to the Corner Brook occurred during a training exercise near Nootka Sound off the west coast of Vancouver Island.
Staples said he doesn’t think there would be any political downside to scrapping the submarines.
"I think an argument could be made by the government that they are still committed to the navy by spending upward of $30 billion on a new surface fleet."
Earlier this year, the federal government announced plans to spend up to $35 billion on shipbuilding across the country.
According to Staples, the submarines are doing Canada more harm than good.
"I think it is becoming painfully clear that the sub fleet is providing no benefits to Canada in terms of our defence and, in fact, is probably more of a hazard to submariners than any benefit to the navy."
In October 2004, the HMCS Chicoutimi was handed over to the Canadian navy from Britain. While making the voyage from England to its new home at CFB Halifax, the submarine caught fire in the North Atlantic, resulting in nine people being treated for smoke inhalation and killing one Canadian sailor, navy Lt. Chris Saunders.
The Defence Department has no plans in the foreseeable future to get the Chicoutimi back in action, navy Lt. Heather McDonald, a Royal Canadian Navy public affairs officer, said Tuesday in an email.
The HMCS Windsor landed in Nova Scotia in October 2001. Almost 10 years later, the submarine has been at sea 332 day and has extensive rust damage that will limit its diving depths once repaired.
The Windsor, which has been out of action since January 2007, is scheduled to be operational in 2013, the department said.
The HMCS Victoria is scheduled to be operational in 2012. But last week the submarine’s communications mast caught fire.
The submarines were launched by the British navy in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Britain took the submarines out of service in 1994 before selling them to Canada in 1998 for just under $900 million.
"There were certainly arguments made that $900 million for four submarines was a bargain deal, but we eventually paid $900 million for no submarines," said Staples.
In a letter to the Globe and Mail published Saturday, Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, who heads Maritime Command, defended the submarine program.
"They cost no more to run than other submarines of equivalent capability and will provide a solid return on investment well into the 2020s," wrote Maddison.
Including the price of purchase, repairs and maintenance, the bill to the Canadian taxpayers for the four submarines is an estimated at $3 billion, said Eric Lerhe, a doctoral fellow with the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax.
However, Lerhe, a former Canadian navy commodore, maintains that because of disagreements over the rights to oil in the Arctic, the submarines are still crucial to Canada’s northern interests.
"There is an 80 per cent chance that this will all be done peacefully in the UN and negotiated by maritime lawyers. The other 20 per cent of it is insurance, and that is submarines."
( jarenson@herald.ca)
- Reaction score
- 6,012
- Points
- 1,260
mad dog 2020 said:
Well, if I needed one, there is a perfect reason to keep the submarines.
If Stephen Staples says it is dark at night then you can rest assured that the sun now shines, brightly, at 0130 Hrs, in Ottawa and Halifax, too. The man is totally committed to the complete disarmament of Canada.
- Reaction score
- 27,905
- Points
- 1,090
Haletown said:
More like proof that Ottawa has an oversupply.
"Hmm, I'm a married politician with a security clearance. Maybe I should flirt with a Chinese security agent who operates under a journalistic cover. Yes, there's no possible downside to that!"
drunknsubmrnr
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
A stopped clock is right twice a day.
The boats are basically scarecrows right now, and would need considerable investment to be any more than that. Is the level of insurance they provide worth the considerable premium?
The boats are basically scarecrows right now, and would need considerable investment to be any more than that. Is the level of insurance they provide worth the considerable premium?
- Reaction score
- 17,239
- Points
- 1,010
I believe that Mr Staples' point was that no submarine force (or military force) is required by Canada, at all.
If the submarines we had bought spent 98% of their time at sea, he would be complaining about the cost of the sea days, or green house gases, or something else.
If the submarines we had bought spent 98% of their time at sea, he would be complaining about the cost of the sea days, or green house gases, or something else.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
mad dog 2020 said:
Pure genius this Staples guy is, considering there will always most likely be one in some sort of refit!
I don't understand how this guy always seems to get air time, stupid Charlie Brown looking know-it-all mother f*cker...
- Reaction score
- 6,012
- Points
- 1,260
Dolphin_Hunter said:
He gets all the air time because:
1. He is very visible - he bombards the media with press releases and offers to speak;
2. He is always available;
3. He is, to be fair, presentable and well spoken. He knows how to 'work' on TV. TV producers trust him to speak to a well established, easy to understand brief; and
4. He is free ~ some experts demand an appearance fee or, at least, expenses.
I've always thought he was the ideal commentator for a media which doesn't worry much about looking beyond the vacuous on the topic in question. Media needs someone who seems to be an expert on defence issues? Call up Steve and he'll give you a decisive 30-second soundbite on what may well be a matter crying out for all sorts of careful analysis and debate. I don't know that his being the go-to-guy for insights speaks highly of the media who seek him out but that seems the norm these days.
I suspect he'd be easy pickings for most folks with real expertise, and the time, to pick apart most of his arguments.
I suspect he'd be easy pickings for most folks with real expertise, and the time, to pick apart most of his arguments.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 12,035
- Points
- 1,160
I think Harper should go public in agreeing with Staples and state that Canada will buy new subs next fiscal. Also have him thank Staples for brining this issue to the forefront. Ah the look on SS face when he realizes he egged the government into buying newer subs.......almost priceless.
Versions of this letter from Vice Admiral Maddison have appeared in the Globe and Mail and Ottawa Citizen.
“Dear Editor,
I wish to take this opportunity to reply to an article that your paper recently published.
I am pleased that the article accepted that submarines are essential to Canada’s defence and security. Unrivalled in their stealth, persistence and lethality, submarines permit Canada to act decisively at sea. That capacity has been demonstrated in operations and exercises from tropical to Arctic latitudes, and in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Our boats have conducted surveillance at home and supported the interdiction of drug-traffickers in the Americas. They have helped to prepare our allies for operational missions and acted as formidable adversaries during advanced warfare training. In every instance, our boats performed admirably in the hands of Canadian submariners—outstanding men and women who have chosen to serve Canada at sea in one of the most challenging environments possible.
Our Victoria-class submarines are physically capable of firing the Mk48 heavyweight torpedo, among the world’s most advanced weapons. Had a national emergency made it essential to certify the submarines, we would have done so.
The boats will soon reach full operational status. Victoria and Windsor will be weaponized next year, and Chicoutimi the year after. From 2013 until the class is retired, Canada will have a submarine available for operations both east and west, with a third boat able to deploy where the Government so chooses. A fourth submarine will be with industry, undergoing necessary deep maintenance.
Our submarines remain an exceptional value. They were acquired at roughly one-quarter of the projected cost of a comparable new build. Our operating and maintenance costs are comparable to those of other navies. Given that the boats were purchased with 80% of projected hull life remaining, Canada will see a solid return on its investment well into the 2020s.
Admittedly, it has taken us longer to bring the boats into service than we would have wished. We underestimated a number of challenges, including: the effort needed to re-establish the class integrated logistics and supply chain; the need to establish a capability to sustain the boats in operational service on both coasts; and, finally, the effort associated with transferring strategic skills and knowledge into industry for the deep maintenance of the submarines. Each of these challenges was overcome through the tremendous effort and dedication of our people.
Submarines are an exceptionally demanding business. They are among the most sophisticated machines on the planet, and they operate in one of the world’s most extreme environments—underwater—where any error can be greeted by disaster. Operating submarines safely and effectively requires concentrated investments in training and maintenance. No shortcuts can be taken in any aspect of submarine operations.
We are near the end of a long beginning, and I believe that Canadians should be proud of the leadership, determination and professionalism of their submariners, who have brought us collectively to this point.
Yours aye,”
“Dear Editor,
I wish to take this opportunity to reply to an article that your paper recently published.
I am pleased that the article accepted that submarines are essential to Canada’s defence and security. Unrivalled in their stealth, persistence and lethality, submarines permit Canada to act decisively at sea. That capacity has been demonstrated in operations and exercises from tropical to Arctic latitudes, and in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Our boats have conducted surveillance at home and supported the interdiction of drug-traffickers in the Americas. They have helped to prepare our allies for operational missions and acted as formidable adversaries during advanced warfare training. In every instance, our boats performed admirably in the hands of Canadian submariners—outstanding men and women who have chosen to serve Canada at sea in one of the most challenging environments possible.
Our Victoria-class submarines are physically capable of firing the Mk48 heavyweight torpedo, among the world’s most advanced weapons. Had a national emergency made it essential to certify the submarines, we would have done so.
The boats will soon reach full operational status. Victoria and Windsor will be weaponized next year, and Chicoutimi the year after. From 2013 until the class is retired, Canada will have a submarine available for operations both east and west, with a third boat able to deploy where the Government so chooses. A fourth submarine will be with industry, undergoing necessary deep maintenance.
Our submarines remain an exceptional value. They were acquired at roughly one-quarter of the projected cost of a comparable new build. Our operating and maintenance costs are comparable to those of other navies. Given that the boats were purchased with 80% of projected hull life remaining, Canada will see a solid return on its investment well into the 2020s.
Admittedly, it has taken us longer to bring the boats into service than we would have wished. We underestimated a number of challenges, including: the effort needed to re-establish the class integrated logistics and supply chain; the need to establish a capability to sustain the boats in operational service on both coasts; and, finally, the effort associated with transferring strategic skills and knowledge into industry for the deep maintenance of the submarines. Each of these challenges was overcome through the tremendous effort and dedication of our people.
Submarines are an exceptionally demanding business. They are among the most sophisticated machines on the planet, and they operate in one of the world’s most extreme environments—underwater—where any error can be greeted by disaster. Operating submarines safely and effectively requires concentrated investments in training and maintenance. No shortcuts can be taken in any aspect of submarine operations.
We are near the end of a long beginning, and I believe that Canadians should be proud of the leadership, determination and professionalism of their submariners, who have brought us collectively to this point.
Yours aye,”
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
VICTORIA conducted a series of Camber Dives as part of post-refit trials two weeks ago. A Camber Dive involves a controlled dive within the harbour to allow submerged testing of various systems. The Harbour Acceptance Trials (HATs) included: Camber Dive (general shake-down and testing of boat systems); Stability Experiment Trim & Incline (to verify ballasting); and Torpedo Shape Discharges. Photos available at https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.268962473137768.74516.112082765492407&type=1
medicineman
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 5,890
- Points
- 1,110
What they didn't show were the photos the resultant SUBAR that occured shortly after the Camber dive... ;D
MM
MM
Similar threads
