CKA Forums
Login 
canadian forums
bottom
 
 
Canadian Forums

Author Topic Options
Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2011 11:08 am
 


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


Bang on. Hind sight of course is 20/20 - however, at the time, it had all the makings of a good deal. Higher end deisel subs at a fraction of the price of us trying to build a sub program or buy from Germany.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Calgary Flames


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 1651
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:45 am
 


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


What are you talking about the Victoria was in dry dock for almost 6 years, the Chicoutimi is currently out of the water on blocks......just sayin


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23084
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:59 am
 


Scape 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.


R=UP

I'd rep if I could. Neither party has distinguished itself with the defence portfolio in decades.


Offline
Forum Elite
Forum Elite
 Calgary Flames


GROUP_AVATAR
Profile
Posts: 1651
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:20 am
 


There are two reasons why we did not buy the nuclear subs that Mulroney wanted:

1) at the time the Canadian public equated nuclear subs with nuclear weapons which is still a political bomb to this day.

2) We cut a lot of corners on the maintenance that we do in order to keep the ships available and when it comes to nuclear, you cant cut corners. For example you couldnt go to sea with only one coolant pump available....etc


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber


GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23084
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 11:58 am
 


stokes stokes:
There are two reasons why we did not buy the nuclear subs that Mulroney wanted:

1) at the time the Canadian public equated nuclear subs with nuclear weapons which is still a political bomb to this day.

2) We cut a lot of corners on the maintenance that we do in order to keep the ships available and when it comes to nuclear, you cant cut corners. For example you couldnt go to sea with only one coolant pump available....etc


It's not just subs Stokes, it's the entire defence portfolio.

If people here want to bitch about the Liberals cutting defence in the 90s, then they also have to acknowledge that Harper's fallen short on his promises too.

Despite talking big, the Conservatives are only spending a small amount more than Martin's Liberals would have. And he's stalled/cancelled all sorts of other programs.

Look at the icebreaker situation - he originally promised three heavy armed icebreakers. That would give us lots of operational capability in the Arctic. Instead, he's building one (unarmed) heavy icebreaker. That's going to replace the TWO we already have (both nearing the end of their service lives). We may sometime in the distant future build his Arctic Patrol Vessels, which on paper sound good, but only allow us to operate up there for a few months a year.

Then look at budget overruns on the new Chinooks - they might cost DOUBLE what was planned. Or look at the JSS file. He originally promised to build three ships - now because of delays and increases, the Navy will get only two (for the same price as the three originally promised).

He is planning to spend between $15 and $30 on fighter planes for which we never had a competition. Proponents say it is the best, but without a proper examination of its competitors, are we really sure? Or are we really buying it to make sure Canadian companies get access to the contracts for the F-35? That's my guess - that we're going to buy it because we're looking after Canadian companies - not Canadian pilots.

Harper may talk big on defence, and the military may believe him (especially guys like Hillier), but the fact is he isn't doing much better (if at all) than the Liberals did before him.


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35283
PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2011 12:22 pm
 


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


What are you talking about the Victoria was in dry dock for almost 6 years, the Chicoutimi is currently out of the water on blocks......just sayin


Nuke boats require nuke pens. We only had support in place for diesel/electric. Also German boats are hydrogen cell based, we have Ballerd power here in BC but that would still require a compleat retooling for the docks.


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 334
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 11:41 am
 


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


What are you talking about the Victoria was in dry dock for almost 6 years, the Chicoutimi is currently out of the water on blocks......just sayin


Nuke boats require nuke pens. We only had support in place for diesel/electric. Also German boats are hydrogen cell based, we have Ballerd power here in BC but that would still require a compleat retooling for the docks.


There is no special requirements to dock a nuclear submarine, they can be drydocked in any suitably sized facility. The special requirements come from maintaining the reactor.


Offline
Forum Super Elite
Forum Super Elite
 Vegas Golden Knights
Profile
Posts: 2577
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 4:14 pm
 


If we have no intention of properly funding our military, we should have no intentions of having a properly functioning military.


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19986
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:06 pm
 


bootlegga bootlegga:
Instead, he's building one (unarmed) heavy icebreaker.


Can you give a link to this information, as far as I know the only vessels being considered are the Arctic Patrol Vessels which are classified as "light" ice breakers, capable of being used in only 1 metre ice conditions, if that.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:47 pm
 


stokes stokes:
There are two reasons why we did not buy the nuclear subs that Mulroney wanted:

1) at the time the Canadian public equated nuclear subs with nuclear weapons which is still a political bomb to this day.

2) We cut a lot of corners on the maintenance that we do in order to keep the ships available and when it comes to nuclear, you cant cut corners. For example you couldnt go to sea with only one coolant pump available....etc


Neither Victoria or Halifax wanted them.


Offline
CKA Uber
CKA Uber
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 23565
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:49 pm
 


Hyack Hyack:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Instead, he's building one (unarmed) heavy icebreaker.


Can you give a link to this information, as far as I know the only vessels being considered are the Arctic Patrol Vessels which are classified as "light" ice breakers, capable of being used in only 1 metre ice conditions, if that.


http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=2252


Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
 Vancouver Canucks


GROUP_AVATAR

GROUP_AVATAR
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 19986
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:52 pm
 


Gunnair Gunnair:
Hyack Hyack:
bootlegga bootlegga:
Instead, he's building one (unarmed) heavy icebreaker.


Can you give a link to this information, as far as I know the only vessels being considered are the Arctic Patrol Vessels which are classified as "light" ice breakers, capable of being used in only 1 metre ice conditions, if that.


http://pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=2252


Thanks


Offline
CKA Moderator
CKA Moderator
 Vancouver Canucks
User avatar
Profile
Posts: 35283
PostPosted: Fri Aug 05, 2011 9:31 pm
 


Nuggie77 Nuggie77:
There is no special requirements to dock a nuclear submarine, they can be drydocked in any suitably sized facility. The special requirements come from maintaining the reactor.


ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL

Sorry, what? So your saying we have nuclear qualified staff at docks right now and they are tooled up ready to go with spare parts and a manufacture base to churn out replacement parts? These subs aren't rentals chum. We gotta maintain them inhouse and have that kit sorted out BEFORE we even think about dry docking them.


And no, we can't hire THIS GUY


Offline
Active Member
Active Member
Profile
Posts: 334
PostPosted: Mon Aug 08, 2011 12:15 pm
 


Scape Scape:
Nuggie77 Nuggie77:
There is no special requirements to dock a nuclear submarine, they can be drydocked in any suitably sized facility. The special requirements come from maintaining the reactor.


ROTFL ROTFL ROTFL

Sorry, what? So your saying we have nuclear qualified staff at docks right now and they are tooled up ready to go with spare parts and a manufacture base to churn out replacement parts? These subs aren't rentals chum. We gotta maintain them inhouse and have that kit sorted out BEFORE we even think about dry docking them.


And no, we can't hire THIS GUY


Is there something you didn't understand about "maintaining the reactor". There are no requirements to be a nuclear specialist to conduct repair work on the remainder of the submarine outside of the reactor compartment. Take the reactor compartments off and you have a regular submarine.


Post new topic  Reply to topic  [ 44 posts ]  Previous  1  2  3



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 50 guests




 
     
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © Canadaka.net. Powered by © phpBB.