232 replies to this topic

[Sparky]

NDP Defence Critic David Christopherson and other NDP MP's ask for assurances in the house of commons about a number of bases.

This is Canadian politics at it's finest. I think that MacKay just did not want to start a guessing game as to which bases might close or downsize.

CFB Esquimalt has to be one of the most strategic bases west of Halifax.

[Mike K.]

Absolutely.

This country has dozens of bases and conceivably a number of them are well past their best before date. I have a feeling that the DoD will close some facilities to shore up funds for a larger navy footprint somewhere in the arctic (IMO).

[Bingo]

Absolutely.

This country has dozens of bases and conceivably a number of them are well past their best before date. I have a feeling that the DoD will close some facilities to shore up funds for a larger navy footprint somewhere in the arctic (IMO).

I agree, but why make a statement that makes you look like you are a rookie Minister of Defence.

[Sparky]

I agree, but why make a statement that makes you look like you are a rookie Minister of Defence.

In all fairness, I don't believe he tried to make a statement. He was being cornered by the oposition to provide a guarantee in the house, and he did not want to engage at that time in speculation.

They have not completed their study as yet. I think he answered the question the only way he could.

[AllseeingEye]

In order to maintain a semblance of credibility in the eyes of our allies particularly after 1968 - i.e. in order to be on good terms with them strategically as well as to ensure we receive favourable treatment and consideration in the world of economics and reated trade negotiations (and don't think for one minuste the two aren't closely interrelated) - Canada has strived for decades to maintain at least a facade of the two elements of the military with the most visibility - namely the navy and the army since ships and "boots on the ground" are the most visible evidence of a meaningful military contribution by Canada, be it in Iraq 1, Iraq 2, Afghanistan etc.

Therefore IMO look for RCAF-air force bases or facilities to take the hit where possible or even possibly the number of replacements for the F-18's to be reduced as cost saving measures.

CFB Esquimalt is far too visible a symbol of whatever military capability we do have - however limited it may be - to have much to be concerned about.

[dirtydeeds]

After 2 billion dollars thoughts of scraping the submarine program??
http://www.cbc.ca/vi...7/ID=2161330279

[AllseeingEye]

An incredibly poor purchase decision in retrospect so this wouldn't surprise me in the least. The Upholder class subs were excellent when new - arguably the best diesel attack subs in the world when designed and launched in the 1980's - however buying them "used' after sitting dockside in the UK for 7-8 years, really what did DND expect?

That is akin to letting your car sit on your boulevard for the same period of time, then deciding to turn over the engine one day and enter it into the Indy 500 the next. If Australia with less people and resources can design and build their own brand new attack subs from scratch, you'd think Canada at the very least couldv'e done better than to buy someone else's junk.....

In fact according to a senior defence department source who is a friend the "original" original plan that was (albeit very briefly) considered was Canada being offered 4 US Los Angeles-Class nuclear attack boats to fulfill the hunter killer role, for a grand sum of $1 per boat. The catch of course is they were slated by that time for retirement by the Americans, hence the deal would have seen them having to go to US naval yards for servicing and refurbishment to the tune of several hundred million dollars. Of course Canada, ever eager to project a global image of being your friendly neighborhood "warm and fuzzy" Good Guy, couldn't and didn't really seriously consider the offer primarily due to the fact the government figured the anti-nuclear brigade in this country especially would have a field day with nuclear powered submarines based in Esquimalt.

[Bernard]

As Canada was considering replacing our Oberons, so was Australia. They chose to build their own. From the start of the contract to when the sixth and final sub was delivered it took 16 years. The final two subs were cancelled.

The six subs cost between $5 and $6 billion to build, close to a billion each.

There are only three in service at the moment and that will fall to two shortly.

HMAS Rankin has been out of service since 2008, it was launched in 2003. It is not expected to be in service till 2013 or later.
HMAS Sheean has been out of service since 2008 and will not be in service soon
HMAS Dechaineux it almost sunk in 2003 because of a construction error - it is in service
HMAS Waller it has had the fewest problems and is currently in service
HMAS Farncomb has had ongoing issues of things that break down
HMAS Collins the first ship of the class and plagued with problems.

After the problems with the Sheean, all the subs were out of service in 2003. In 2009, due to accidents and other issues, only one sub was operational. this happened again 2010.

A significant amount of work on the subs was done in Sweden.

The Victoria class subs are of roughly the same vintage and capabilities

So as crappy as our subs seen, it could be worse

[Bingo]

A million will get you one of these babies




Captured Narco-Sub

Photograph by Mauricio Duenas, AFP/Getty Images

The Colombian Navy forces a handmade submarine, laden with 1.6 tons of cocaine, to make an unscheduled stop in the Pacific port of Tumaco in 2008.

Built of fiberglass and powered by ordinary marine diesel engines, most cocaine subs skim the surface of the Pacific undetected by radar as they cruise north from South America.

Costing about a million dollars each to build, most cocaine subs are scuttled after just one successful run.

http://news.national...285_600x450.jpg

[AllseeingEye]

Just to add to the story of the Upholder-class boats, at the time they were considered so stealthy that the US was adament during negotiations that if the UK was going to sell them they could only do so to Canada, a trusted ally.

My understanding is that had we backed out and the UK proceeded with the sale, that the US was quite prepared to outbid anyone to ensure they got the subs no matter the cost.

Of course we did purchase them and since our navies' exercise together more or less continuously a major benefit to the US is that they would gain practical experience tracking them under realistic conditions (when they are operatrional of course!); top notch modern diesel attack subs are as quiet, or quieter, than nuclear boats.

[VANRIDERFAN]

An incredibly poor purchase decision in retrospect so this wouldn't surprise me in the least. The Upholder class subs were excellent when new - arguably the best diesel attack subs in the world when designed and launched in the 1980's - however buying them "used' after sitting dockside in the UK for 7-8 years, really what did DND expect?

That is akin to letting your car sit on your boulevard for the same period of time, then deciding to turn over the engine one day and enter it into the Indy 500 the next. If Australia with less people and resources can design and build their own brand new attack subs from scratch, you'd think Canada at the very least couldv'e done better than to buy someone else's junk.....

In fact according to a senior defence department source who is a friend the "original" original plan that was (albeit very briefly) considered was Canada being offered 4 US Los Angeles-Class nuclear attack boats to fulfill the hunter killer role, for a grand sum of $1 per boat. The catch of course is they were slated by that time for retirement by the Americans, hence the deal would have seen them having to go to US naval yards for servicing and refurbishment to the tune of several hundred million dollars. Of course Canada, ever eager to project a global image of being your friendly neighborhood "warm and fuzzy" Good Guy, couldn't and didn't really seriously consider the offer primarily due to the fact the government figured the anti-nuclear brigade in this country especially would have a field day with nuclear powered submarines based in Esquimalt.

Our Navy was prepared to take possession of the Upholders the day they were tied up. There would have been an almost seamless transition from the O-boats to the U-boats. We would have maintained our submariners capabilities in the O-boats while we did the necessary refits to the U-boats to get them compatible to Canadian weapon systems.
But the Chretien government dithered for years on the decision to buy and in that 7 years mother nature did her work.
Are the U-boats a good deal? That depends, if you listen to the media and Steve Staples (whose experience in submarine operations is limited to reading Tom Clancy novels) they aren't. If you listen to other more knowledgeable people they are still pretty good value for the money spent.
If there are 3 subs operational by fall 2013 will there be a media frenzy stating "THREE SUBS OPERATIONAL!"? Time will tell, but I highly doubt it.

[dirtydeeds]

I would not want to be living in Esquimalt or View Royal when they start closing bridges and this shuttle is cut? Traffic is already terrible with the amount of Navy and Civillian traffic leaving the Dockyard and Shipyards.

http://www.vicnews.c.../142491965.html

[Bingo]

I would not want to be living in Esquimalt or View Royal when they start closing bridges and this shuttle is cut? Traffic is already terrible with the amount of Navy and Civillian trafiic leaving the Dockyard and Shipyards

http://www.vicnews.c.../142491965.html

Get the E&N running back and forth from Dockyard to Langford, and avoid the traffic.

[Bingo]

The Canadian Press
Date: Friday Mar. 16, 2012 6:47 AM ET

HALIFAX — A British MP says Canada got a bad deal when it bought four used diesel-electric submarines from Britain.

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CT.../#ixzz1pKGI3B2Q

Meanwhile, back at the testing range our renovated submarine HMCS Victoria fired its torpedo. No ships were sunk, no humans were harmed as it didn't have a warhead.

[Bernard]

The Canadian Press
Date: Friday Mar. 16, 2012 6:47 AM ET

HALIFAX — A British MP says Canada got a bad deal when it bought four used diesel-electric submarines from Britain.

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CT.../#ixzz1pKGI3B2Q

Meanwhile, back at the testing range our renovated submarine HMCS Victoria fired its torpedo. No ships were sunk, no humans were harmed as it didn't have a warhead.

I do not think any country that has added any new diesel electric subs in the last generation have not done well with the costs or with keeping them in operation. To have bought the equivalent subs elsewhere would have been a $2 billion cost.

It seems if you want to operate subs, you have to expect very high costs.

[AllseeingEye]

I do not think any country that has added any new diesel electric subs in the last generation have not done well with the costs or with keeping them in operation. To have bought the equivalent subs elsewhere would have been a $2 billion cost.

It seems if you want to operate subs, you have to expect very high costs.

I would agree if you are speaking strictly about nuclear boats; OTOH you can acquire French Scorpene diesel subs - brand new - for $300 million/unit. Interestingly too nations much smaller than Canada, including Sweden and the Netherlands, have thriving submarine submarine design and export industries. Even Venezuela has acquired diesel subs which, all things considered, are actually relatively cheap in acquistion terms.

In fact the US Navy is so concerned about the potential of diesel subs in terms of their ability to sail quietly, virtually undetected in key strategic waters, that they recently drilled extensively for over 2 years with a Swedish diesel boat and crew, in order to better understand what their own nuclear boats would be up against in potential combat situations. Relative to the dollars spent diesel submarines are actually a good (military) investment, assuming of course you do your due diligence and don't wind up buying someone else's junk.....

[VicHockeyFan]

http://www.timescolo...6468/story.html

This just make way too much sense, doesn't it. Especially at DND.

To start with, let's stop giving away free parking to employees unless the employer is willing to offer a menu of choices such as an employer-paid bus pass. The simple solution is to cash out free parking by giving all employees the cash and then charging for parking. The employees then get to decide how to spend the cash. They can buy a $100 parking spot, $80 bus pass, a bicycle or even choose to live near where they work.

By giving a free parking spot, we take away the economic choice from the consumer and continue, in the case of the DND parking, to use tax dollars to subsidize the single occupancy vehicle.

[Bingo]

Now that the Blue Boat service has been cancelled, this would be the time to try running the Budd cars back and forth on the E&N line from Langford to DND.

Or another idea would be to use the rail right of way to run busses back and forth. It could be managed like a railway with pullouts and to allow busses to pass each other.

Here is an example of how it is done.

Traffic returns to Stromeferry bypass route.. after rail line is adapted for cars
Mar 20 2012 By David Love



Read more:

http://www.dailyreco...86908-23795119/

[Sparky]

Nice work Bingo.

[VicHockeyFan]

Jeez, that railway conversion fixed a 140-km detour.