Sub debacle bodes ill for jet fighter deal

The problem isnt the subs themselves but more how the Brits wont share the plans with us so we can manufacture our own spares and their companies are dragging their feet getting us replacement parts...wish these reporters would actually do some proper research

I think the point might be that the US will be as unlikely to share as the UK, thereby driving up costs.

You pretty much nailed that but there was also the dents below the waterline that had to be repaired as well and the asbestos was everywhere as well. I think it is somewhat fair to blame the UK contractors in the delays but really as a nation we should be looking to our on resources in this effort. We need the hulls but we don't need the sensors, weapons or propulsion even. All of that we can and should be making ourselves but we been submarining on the cheap since WWII. There is a whole industry built around their boats that we have to provide, not the Brits and we haven't invested and it shows up here. If we want Mark 48's to be fired down a tube any hull will do but if you want it done right then we have to be able to support our own military shipping and no other country is going to do that for us.



That's a PR problem more than anything. We have three wet boarders and subs have been very effective for us before and they will be again. We could looks to the auzzies and the Collins class subs they built from scratch but this footnote is asking if we should have a dam sub program at all. It's like saying why have an army if the Yanks have one argument.

The issue with the US supplying spares for possible Canadian subs has to do with the fact that you folks don't want nuc boats and that's all we make down here. If you folks wanted nucs then you'd be in find shape having your subs serviced at Bremerton or New London.

Well that's the other problem. No one wants to ship maintenance to the US, which is why Canada opted out of buying rhe four extremely cheap Kidd class DDGs that were built for Iran.

That, and I believe there is not lot of interest in the US in Canada having nuc boats - those pesky claims of Arctic soverignty and all. I find it curious that when Canada was seriously flirting with the idea of going nuc, it was either the UK Trafalgar class or the French Rubis that they were considering. Not a word on the LAs.

Who wants the LA's? I've no doubt you guys could cut a deal on a converted Ohio class. Those things are so quiet they can bugger a whale.

And we got a few to spare.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UT ... 5&t=h&z=18

I don't get the whole Nuc option from strictly a logistical point of view. We would have to create a whole new support industry for the nuc for storage and transport and for what? For subs it means missions could be entirely underwater for the mission but they make more noise because of coolant issues. Diesel-electric or hydro makes no noise at all and if we were to transfer to more expensive drive we should go with a quiet option and that would be hydro power. I do not see the pressing need as diesel does the job already. It may take longer to get there because of recharge/snorkeling but we already have the support in place for diesel whereas for nuc or hydro we would be starting from square 1 and diesel/electric would be supported entirely in house without the reliance on other nations.

Nuc ain't going to happen.

I read an article on the Auditor Generals report and Sheila Fraser put the F-35 purchase this way, "I hope no one is thinking this is a low risk purchase". Right.

I also read a post here on CKA that seemed to be a little informed. It stated that the Canadian military never really wanted the subs anyway. The Liberals bought them because they were relatively cheap and the military said "anywho, we could do fisheries patrol with them." Right.

Never say never.

There was more to it, the Brits have a problem getting ranges for training their troops. We had a lot of it to spare so it was a win-win for both parties. We get a cut rate on the subs and they get to train their regiments and their Gurkha engineers get to fix up some of our barracks. Not a bad deal overall.

A "hydro" powered submarine? Do I need a CKA decoder ring to figer out what that is? I have high school science and I know there are no "hydro" powered submarines. However it's considered "discussion" on CKA military threads. Fuck.

Never say never.

I can and will say NEVER, I work on the maintenance side of our fine Navy, and trust me we end up cutting a lot of corners to make things work.

You can't cut corners when it comes to anything nuclear, just look at the mess we are in with regards to Chalk River

I don't think we will have any issues with the F-35, yes there will probably be delays, it seems that American defense contractors are not interested in timely delivery because those that buy from them do not punish them for failing to meet their contracted commitments.

Buying brand new in a consortium with other countries is good business as spare parts will be plentiful, buying used and having to have every part manufactured creates a lot headache with timing and finances