[GreenTiger]

The idea, if I remember correctly, was for Canada to purchase 4 top line diesel/electric subs as the RN decided to only operate nuclear powered subs.

Diesel/Electric can do a lot, but they don't have the range of a nuke but are quieter.

Didn't the RN provide some sort of warrantee that these subs will operate up to specs as I know you paid a lot to get these refurbished. I don't imaging that the Maritime command would buy these subs as a "as is" purchase.

[Scape]

It was a lend lease option. They need access to our bases so they can train troops. We have plenty of land for them to train their troops and in addition they sent over the Gurka engineer regiments to moderize a few of our bases in a series of renovations. Camp Aldershot and Gagetown for example. We in turn got the Subs they were going to mothball anyway for a song or one tenth the cost of a sub program.

They did promise that the standard of performance was going to be a set level but we were lying to each other going in. What did you expect with the guts having to be replaced with all the asbestos? Saunders died because he drowned in his own blood as the chemicals ate his lungs out from the fire. there isn't any way to hold the UK to that deal but we have gotten upgraded bases as a result.

[saturn_656]

$1:

We in turn got the Subs they were going to mothball anyway for a song or one tenth the cost of a sub program.

We would have been better off paying the full cost of a sub program for working submarines as opposed to paying one tenth the cost for subs that simply did not work and still do not work properly how many years later.

[Scape]

Really? Google Collins class submarine problems and you tell me what you find.

[saturn_656]

Scape Scape:

Really? Google Collins class submarine problems and you tell me what you find.

I never said we had to buy Australian. The Germans make good conventional boats.

[Scape]

It would be the same ballpark. 34 billion for the Auzzie subs and the German ones don't come cheap unless your Jewish.

[Scape]

Oh and for the record I never said we should buy Auzzie. I'm just putting that out there for frame of reference of the true cost of starting a sub program from scratch.

[saturn_656]

Scape Scape:

It would be the same ballpark. 34 billion for the Auzzie subs and the German ones don't come cheap unless your Jewish.

I'm sure they are not cheap, but that's the point. If we had been willing to fork out some more cash, we could have had new and effective subs that were mission capable from day one.

As opposed to the cheapskate route we took, eleven years later (from first commissioning) we still do not have four mission capable subs.

It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic.

[Scape]

We only had docks that could barely support the Oberons! Even if we got the new subs we couldn't afford to have the put to sea let alone support them.

[saturn_656]

Scape Scape:

We only had docks that could barely support the Oberons! Even if we got the new subs we couldn't afford to have the put to sea let alone support them.

The problem wasn't financial, it was political.

[Scape]

How so?

[saturn_656]

Because old Jean "Pepper, I put it on my plate" Chretien never would have approved the purchase of new submarines for the Navy. His nickel and diming of the CF should be legendary.

It was the Upholders or the end of Canadian submarine operations.

Not only that, he was found responsible for the degraded condition of the Upholders themselves.

[Scape]

Pausing the program was a potential option. Canada needs subs though. Frigates with AWACS and a few icebreakers can only go so far. Subs can go under and thru the ice. The liberals were not any different on military procurement then the Tories when you look at their white papers. Take away the bluster and the only difference is the contractors.

[martin14]

Scape Scape:

Canada needs subs though.

that work.....



No sense in buying boats dat dont float.

[Scape]

Or that you can't dry dock because you don't have the kit.