Canadian Forces Order new tanks

[pbfoot]

thanks for pointing out you were being sarcastic and in particular into the life span of capital pieces of equipment and how archaic the hull design was.
I am now full of new respect for your knowledge of marine engineering perhaps you should investigate a career in such a field perhaps they have a spot for you in Groton . I am quite willing to admit I know little of submarines so I must cede to your superior knowledge .

 

[Maestro]

Ah ! Go jump off the Niagara Falls.

 

[Glider]

Yeah, yeah, you already said that the Brits changed their conventional subs for nuke ones. And I perfectly know that the Canadian army doesn't have the money to build/take care of nuke ships.

Now, the Victoria Class submarine is the Canadian version of the UK's Upholder Class (Type 2400) submarine built in late 1980s early 1990s and were withdrew from service in the Royal Navy in 1994. Before they entered service with the Canadian Navy, they were sent to BAE Systems (formerly Vickers Shipbuilding) at Barrow, UK to be refitted.

Source : Naval Technology - SSK Victoria Class Long Range Patrol Submarines

You're right, they're not old at all... They're only 17 years old. They're brand new...

If you haven't noticed, I was trying to be sarcastic.

Oh, and I said it was the Davis Shipbuilding that was supposed to receive the ships to upgrade them, but I was wrong. In fact it was three companies...

- Lockheed Martin Canada
- Lockheed Martin Undersea Systems
- Northstar Technical Inc

I'm not an accountant, but I'm pretty sure it would have been less expansive to build brand new diesel-electric submarines than buy used 17 years old ships, pay for repairs in the UK, and pay again for refitting them in Canada. But I guess some politicians had buddies within the industry who wanted to make money on taxpayers' backs.

If it helps I know that the RN were furious that they were sold as they were and are excellent submarines that set the standards for quiet running. They were only commisioned in 1990 not 1980 and were only four years old when sold.
They had built into them all the lessons that had been learnt from the development of the latest nuclear subs.

A quote
But nobody, including Admiral Sir Sandy Woodward, could understand why the brand new Upholder submarine squadron was withdrawn from service and listed for sale in what must surely be the most 'questionable' Government decision in respect of equipment procurement for the Royal Navy in the past 50 years.

The boats were ordered after the Falklands War with a detailed study to find a new generation of conventional class submarine, with an enhanced capability to detect and classify subsurface contacts, as well as being available to mount inshore operations in shallow water, in support of the Navy's special forces.

Vickers, won the contract and were able to integrate construction features of their Trafalgar class SSNs into the Upholder design and in 1986 the first of the new class was launched at Barrow in Furness. Fitted with sensors and all the computer power of a nuclear submarine she was described at the time as a technology leap forward for the Royal Navy'.

You got a bargin

 

[Nonskimmer]

All I'll say is this: The majority of responsibility related to any screw-ups concerning these boats, be they technically related or otherwise, ultimately must rest with Canada, not the UK. We willingly purchased them without the willingness to properly support them.

As submarines go, they're actually decent enough pieces of equipment. Nothing would operate smoothly without adequate support or supply. That responsibility rests squarley with Canada, not the UK. We went into the deal quite willingly, I can assure you, and any problems that continue to plague us are of entirely our own doing. Our own failure to loosen the purse strings doesn't make these things the problem of anyone else.

The same line of thought could be applied to tanks, aircraft, or anything else you can think of. We're hardly a third-world country. Yet we maintain the military capability of one.

 

[Maestro]

We're hardly a third-world country. Yet we maintain the military capability of one.

You are absolutely right.