[img]http://www.vancouversun.com/news/thewest/5353015.bin[/img]
[quote]The navy’s last operational submarine is now sidelined until 2016, leaving the service without an underwater capability and potentially throwing into question the future of the submarine fleet.
The submarine program, which has already cost around $900 million, has been plagued with various maintenance issues that have prevented the boats from being available for operations on a regular basis.
A media report in July noted that one of the subs, HMCS Windsor, arrived in Canada in the fall of 2001 but since then it has operated at sea for just 332 days.
HMCS Corner Brook, damaged when it hit the ocean floor during a training accident in June on the West Coast, is now dockside. It will be repaired and overhauled during a planned maintenance period now underway.
But it is not scheduled to return to sea until 2016, the navy confirmed in an email to the Ottawa Citizen.
HMCS Chicoutimi, damaged by a fire in 2004 that killed one officer, still remains sidelined. That leaves HMCS Windsor and HMCS Victoria, which are also not available for duty at sea.
“The navy is focused on HMCS Victoria and HMCS Windsor and returning both to sea in early 2012,” stated navy spokesman Lt.-Cmdr. Brian Owens in an email. “Trials are already underway with Victoria in anticipation to her returning to sea.”
He noted that plans call for Victoria to do a test dive in the Esquimalt harbour on Vancouver Island sometime this month as part of a plan “to verify the submarine’s watertight integrity, and the functionality of other key systems.”
But defence analyst Martin Shadwick said the latest news on the four submarines is yet another blow to the program.
“All the arguments the navy made for having submarines 10 or 15 years ago are still fundamentally valid, but they haven’t been actually able to provide the politicians with specific concrete examples because the subs are not available all that much,” explained Shadwick, a York University professor. “That makes the subs a lot more vulnerable to budget cutters in the department and outside of it.”
He said the future survival of the submarine force could be put in jeopardy if the problems continue.
Canada purchased the subs second-hand from Britain and took delivery of the boats between 2000 and 2004. The navy said it did a thorough examination of the vessels to ensure they meet Canadian needs, but problems with the Victoria-class subs started materializing almost immediately.
High-pressure welds had to be replaced and cracks were found in some of the valves on the four subs. Steel piping also needed to be replaced as the submarines were put into storage in Britain with water in their fuel tanks. HMCS Victoria also underwent repairs after a dent was discovered in her hull.
In addition, there have been delays in installing Canadian equipment, such as the weapons fire control and communications gear. The subs are still not capable of firing Canadian torpedoes.
“The introduction of the Victoria Class has been fraught with many issues and faced a number of setbacks,” a May 2009 briefing note produced by the navy acknowledged. The Ottawa Citizen obtained that document through the access to Information law.
In July, media reports citing other navy documents noted the subs are also restricted in the depth they can dive because of rust problems.
In June, two sailors were injured when Corner Brook hit bottom near Nootka Sound, off the west coast of Vancouver Island. The boat was conducting submerged manoeuvres during advanced submarine officer training.
Owens said navy divers did an initial “in-water” damage assessment of Corner Brook. They found there was damage to the fibreglass bow dome, which Owens noted could mean that there may be damage to the sonar equipment it contains. There was also minor leakage in a forward ballast tank.
“The exact scope of the damage, and subsequent repair estimate, can only be derived after a more thorough assessment with the submarine docked and the development of complete repair specifications,” he added.
The cost of repairs is not known at this time.
HMCS Corner Brook is alongside the dock at Esquimalt and is being used as a training platform for submariners.
It is now undergoing an already scheduled maintenance regime in which minimal work is done, such as replacing certain components and doing an engineering survey of what needs to be done during a much more elaborate overhaul called the Extended Docking Work Period or EDWP.
The submarine will not go to sea again until after the EDWP.
Owens said Corner Brook’s EDWP is scheduled to be complete in 2015-16, making the vessel available for testing, trials and personnel training in 2016.
[/quote]
[url=http://www.vancouversun.com/news/thewest/Canadian+submarines+commission/5353076/story.html]**SOURCE**[/url]
I would say something like scrap them and buy six new subs but fuck that. They'd be easily well over a billion dollars each and we would not see one of them for at least five years.
canada had submarines?
Well, maybe we should've went back to the 1987 White Paper plan to buy 10+ nuclear attack submarines instead of opting to purchase those ex-British SSKs.
Read more about it here:
[url]http://www.journal.dnd.ca/vo8/no4/lajeunes-eng.asp[/url]
[QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;32122297]canada had submarines?[/QUOTE]
They're actually civilian vessels used to harvest sap from sea-trees.
[i]now is the time to plan my attack! hahah![/i]
Huh, I thought they just gave a bunch of scuba divers bats, and had them beat on enemy vessels.
[quote]
[img]http://tryingtoohard.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/canadiannavyul5.jpg[/img]
[i]Canadian Destroyer, pictured, participating in Navy Exercises[/i][/quote]
I've been to CFB Esquimalt and saw HMCS Victoria a few months ago. Lots of work was being done with it.
Strategically, Canada would have been a bitch to defend. Soviets could fly over the arctic, they can hop from Alaska, and you would have to rely on two entire fleets to operate in two oceans. It would take weeks for them to get across the Panama Canal. How the Hell can they just have four subs.
"Second hand" and "made in Britain" are probably not two phrases you want to put together, probally explains all of the problems that you have had with them.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;32122483]Strategically, Canada would have been a bitch to defend. Soviets could fly over the arctic, they can hope from Alaska, and you would have to rely on two entire fleets to operate in two oceans. It would take weeks for them to get across the Panama Canal.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, but why would anyone attack Canada?
[QUOTE=YouWithTheFace.;32122297]canada had submarines?[/QUOTE]
The ones docked in Halifax harbour are brown from rust.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32122505]Yeah, but why would anyone attack Canada?[/QUOTE]
To get to the Capitalist pigs below it.
[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;32122463][t]http://tryingtoohard.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/canadiannavyul5.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
This is our latest upgrade. We used to have .22s mounted on canoes.
Wait, we really had submarines? How did I not know?
canada has a military?
[QUOTE=MightyMax;32122666]canada has a military?[/QUOTE]
Canada is a country?
Why would Canada even need subs? Who would even want to invade Canada? :v:
Also, they should take the nuclear reactors out and hook them up to the power grid.
[QUOTE=Master Kief-117;32122721]Why would Canada even need subs? Who would even want to invade Canada? :v:
Also, they should take the nuclear reactors out and hook them up to the power grid.[/QUOTE]
They aren't nuclear. They are diesel electric.
[QUOTE=MangoJuice;32122686]Canada is a country?[/QUOTE]
Yup, and the U.S. is our underpants.
[QUOTE=Master Kief-117;32122721]Why would Canada even need subs? Who would even want to invade Canada? :v:
Also, they should take the nuclear reactors out and hook them up to the power grid.[/QUOTE]
Our ships and subs aren't exclusively for defence; we also support other countries with various things.
no, we are the shirt, mexico is our thong
[QUOTE=Jsm;32122749]They aren't nuclear. They are diesel electric.[/QUOTE]
I didn't know those are still used.
[QUOTE=Niteshifter;32122772]Our ships and subs aren't exclusively for defence; we also support other countries with various things.[/QUOTE]
Like for America in it's war against anything and everything
[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;32122790]I didn't know those are still used.[/QUOTE]
Soviets had theirs since the mid-90's.
I got into the Soviet Scorpion that's docked at Long Beach and it's fucking small. 90% of those subs were just stuffed with batteries and rooms used for ballast.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;32122505]Yeah, but why would anyone attack Canada?[/QUOTE]
Quick easy war that we can all go home and laugh about at the end of the day (Canadians included)?
[QUOTE=FuzzyPoop;32122790]I didn't know those are still used.[/QUOTE]
Uhh IIRC diesel electric submarines are making a comeback now that the Cold War is over.
[QUOTE=CabooseRvB;32122819]Soviets had theirs since the mid-90's.
I got into the Soviet Scorpion that's docked at Long Beach and it's fucking small. 90% of those subs were just stuffed with batteries and rooms used for ballast.[/QUOTE]
Since the 1950s, actually. The Soviet Union was gone by the 1990s.
[QUOTE=Tac Error;32123002]Since the 1950s, actually. The Soviet Union was gone by the 1990s.[/QUOTE]
Well a few of them got decommissioned in '94. They even had a few that were sold to some other countries that lasted to the early 2000's.
Oh Canada, you're so militarily impressive :v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
