Worthington Rakes the Subs

[aesop081]

This is only my personal opinion......

Submarines are an indispensable part of a modern naval force.  The army and the air force talk about dominating the battlespace.  This applies to the navy as well.  The sea is the environment and it is not sufficient to control only the surface.  Submarines have an incredibly disporportinate effect in relation to their size ( one only has to look at the effect that a single RN sub, HMS conqueror, had on the Argentinian navy in the Falklands. After the sinking of the cruiser Belgrano, the Argentine navy confined itself to harbour).  Did the Canadian military need other new equipment , Yes. Were submarines needed, Yes.  The ability to see without being seen is of incalculable value in naval operations.  Beyond the purely operational aspects, they provide invaluable training for ASW force.  Wether they be surface assets or air assets, ASW forces need to be able to train using the real thing.  At present time, we do not have any sophisticated means of simulating ASW ( speaking only from my so-far limited experience in the MPA world) and have to learn these skills the hard way.  From what i have been told and from what i have been able to see so far, ASW is a very perishable skill and it would cost alot of lives to have to re-learn them in wartime.

Was the choice of SSKs right for Canada ? IMHO it was.  I remember the uproar of an uneducated Canadian public to the conservative decision to buy SSNs.  Canada needs nuclear submarines if it is to patrol its arctic waters, that , to me, is undeniable.  Can we afford it ?  I seriously doubt it.  SSK do serve their purpose and Canada also needs them.  SSNs tend to be big, open ocean affairs.  SSKs on the other hand tend to be small, able to operate near shore and inland waters.  This makes them essential as alot of the world's navies focus on litoral operations.

I'm not saying that the decision to buy the Upholder class was good.  I certainly do not agree with the decision to base the subs on different coasts.  IMHO, all of them should have been based out of Halifax for ease of training and  for the resons i mentioned in a previous post ( relating to rotation on patrol).  I also believe that Canada should have bought more.  A larger number would have assured that we would have more subs available for deployment at any given time and would have given us more resources to carry out operations as well as the myriad of training these vessels and our ASW forces require ( not to mention the disproportionate effect i alluded to)

That being said, i realise that all 3 elements have their own pressing needs and we will have to continue to set priorities for the conceivable future.

 

[Blue Max]

AESOP081, well said unfortunately people in the know were not consulted adequately enough. Actually I am still confused with how and why we bought the Victoria class subs to begin with.

As I have read the limited information available, our Navy was pushing for these subs as the right tool for the job, not seeming to mention the continuous problems the Brits had with this class of sub.

It has now come out as well that the Liberal's delayed this purchase and rebuild far longer than was prudent for a sub sitting idle. Apparently they were not "free, no cash" either, so my question, why did we not do a deal like the Indians and have say the German Type 214, a fuel cell SSK built by our own shipyards?

Is no one concerned in the navy for the loss of major shipbuilding expertise in this country, we know the Liberals are not?

 

[Sub_Guy]

I agree with all of that, except for the fact that all should be based in Halifax.  We have 3 coasts, and everyone seems to think Halifax is it.  The most potential future hotspots are sitting in the Pacific.  2 on each coast is good, the navy should balance the fleet a bit more.  The west coast always seems to be forgotten.


Submarines are the true stealth.


I read somewhere that they are considering basing troop transport capability out of Halifax, sounds good, but for my fellow army brothers in Edmonton it is a long trot to Halifax.

We have to be able to mobilize from both coasts.  Not just the one.


It took the Aussies over 10 years to get their sub fleet operational, and believe me they had some major issues too.

 

[aesop081]

I find the loss of shipyard expertise perticularly alarming.  The fact that we have lost this capability is the lack of long term planing for our navy.  If we planned for the upgrade/replacement of our ships as soon as they left the builder's yard, we could have a constant flow of work for our naval industry.  This has not been the case in Canada as far as i can tell.  As far as submarines are concerned, i do not know of any canadian shipyard with expertise in this field.  The Upholder class, from hwhat i have rad on them, are not a bad design.  Simple fact is that the RN decided to have an all nuclear fleet ( SSN and SSBN) and subsequently mothballed the Upholders.  IMHO, what ultimately killed the Victoria class is the long wait by the government that allowed the boats to sit and rott in Britain.

As for how the deal went down, i'm sure that the commons comitee will shed more light on this issue.  It was to be expected that the "Canadianization" would go longer than scheduled and over budget.  once again, IMHO, the Australian Collins class SSK would have been a better choice for the Canadian Navy and in retrospec to what we seem to have paid for the Victorias, would not have costed more.  There are a number of SSK classes out there that also would have been suitable for our navy ( Walrus, A17, A19.....)

Sub guy:

I agree that Halifax is not the "be all end all".  My point is that 2 subs on each coast provides either coast with a "non-event" due to the lack of critical mass.

 

[buckahed]

Lets see,


Canada was going to go in with the Brits on the Upholders.
Then we were gonna buy SSNs.
Then we were gonna go in with the Aussies on the Collins class.
Then we were gonna go in with the Swedes on AIP.
Then we sunk a big chunk of sub money into Ballard Power for research on fuel cells for AIP.
Then we ended up with the Upholders because they were cheap, available and the government had to do something to keep from getting tossed out of NATO and the G8. ( Plus sink a few hundred million into the JSF program.)

Canada is not a serious country.

 

[mainerjohnthomas]

Lets see,


Canada was going to go in with the Brits on the Upholders.
Then we were gonna buy SSNs.
Then we were gonna go in with the Aussies on the Collins class.
Then we were gonna go in with the Swedes on AIP.
Then we sunk a big chunk of sub money into Ballard Power for research on fuel cells for AIP.
Then we ended up with the Upholders because they were cheap, available and the government had to do something to keep from getting tossed out of NATO and the G8. ( Plus sink a few hundred million into the JSF program.)

Canada is not a serious country.

    Canadian governments are not serious about defence, or foreign policy.  We have become sound and not-so-much fury, signifying nothing.  Pretty much the regard other nations have for our politicians pious mouthings.  Our leaders have chosen time and time again to respond to the militaries requests for first rate combat equipment with something cheaper from the discount rack, but announced like its cutting edge equipment.  We have not become a paper tiger, because we don't even look good on paper any more.  The navy found some subs that we could get for a song, and it still took us so f*&king long to get them that they needed major work.  The navy knew it wasn't going to get new subs, and don't even bother asking for nuclear boats, so it asked for what it figured it could get.  The army would have liked main battle tanks, but they can't have them, so they asked for LAV III to give them a tool they have a chance of getting that can still do the job (at least partly).  The navy, faced with the same situation, made the same call.  The blame lies in the public that can't be bothered to care, if they cared, then politicians would fear the results of being caught endangering the lives of service men and woman with their substandard and superannuated kit.  As it is, dead soldiers are only worth a sound byte if the statement is attacking the military, not the government whose policies have cost so many needless lives.  If you get the government that you deserve, then all of Canada has been sufficiently punished in the last decades....

 

[GK .Dundas]

Peter Worthington as writer on modern Naval warfare make a pretty good hairdresser