The UK laid up the Upholder class for one reason and one reason only - Defence Cuts. So the UK was essentially confined to nuclear subs and out of the conventional submarine game. The subs were put up for disposal so it is hardly surprising that the RN were going to maintain these boats out of an ever reduced and pressurised budget. The Canadians crawled all over these boats and decided to buy them and I postulate did not spend enough money restoring them to a serviceable condition. The RCN clearly did not have the budget to sort these boats out properly and in a reasonable timescale before taking them back to Canada. Thereafter some rather questionable decisions on equipment ‘improvements’-allied to insufficient budget have compounded the issue. I do not believe the Canadian taxpayer can blame the UK government, MoD or RN for this sad story but rather need to do some honest soul searching on what their own organisations did or did not do.
From the "horse's mouth", so to speak. I was on a submarine tech course back in 2012. This was at the UK Submarine school in Torpoint. After some time there I got to know some of the Jr. rates/Sr. rates, and Officers. One afternoon during a smoke break, I asked an Officer whom I had become aquainted with (and knowing he was a part of the original Upholder Program) what the deal was with these boats. His reply, "One day we came into work and DOD had decided all UK Sub operations will now be nuclear powered." Even though the boats at that time were new, running, and past trials; the decision was made to go exclusively nuke. That's it, plain and simple. They weren't lemons, they weren't shitty boats, they just got pushed aside for nuke capability. The deciding factor here was they sat wet for 4+ years with no one looking after them and being used for spare parts. Park your car in the back yard for that time and expect to jump in and drive away? Canada failed these boats, not the other way around. BTY, your typical new boat will run you about 1B, that's just one. We got 4, along with another billion or so worth of problems. We still haven't caught up to what it should have cost us (if we had done it right) in the first place. Dolphin 38.
The fire @ sea was not an issue from the sub, the sailors forgot to shut the hatch & water pored in. it doesn't fire torpidos because for some resign the RCN wants to buy american torpidos & its not designed to use them. Everyone learns from lemons. i'm glad we have them. in 20 years we can make our own.
EXACTLY!!! This had nothing to do with Britain. Neither did running it into the bottom of the sea either, that was just the pure "competence" of the Canadian "navy".
"im confused, why doesnt canada make there own? they buy tanks, boats, subs from others. why cant they build there own?" ... they CAN build their own but, for a mere FOUR planned operational units, beginning an entirely new domestic production program really doesn't pay off (economy of scale - the more produced, the less the impact of basic production costs on each individual unit). Australia built its own only because it had very distinct requirements not met by an extant class (and, at the time, the U.K. was not prepared to sell the Upholders - which Australia ALSO had wanted).
You only have to look at what Canadian politicians did to the Avro Arrow to see why Canada doesn't build their own. After the Arrow was destroyed, Canada signed an agreement with the US saying that Canada would never independently develop a weapons system again. Interesting to note that the UK destroyed their TSR2 prototypes in favour of a US plane too. Canada could build their own but would be going against politics both internationally and corporately to do so. Note that Revenue Canada bankrupted the Canadian company involved in the civilian, French
( oops, last message incomplete ). The civilian companies were building an eight man nuclear powered civilian sub called the SAGA 1 based on the Canadian SLOPOKE reactor. It could only recharge it's batteries rather than cruise on nuclear power but the concept would've worked for the patrol role that Canada needed.
+John Wang Frankly the Canadian politicians axed the Arrow because they couldn't find anyone who would buy more than a few to help offset the development costs. As the Australian autoworkers have discovered, with their huge tariffs on imports subsidizing their less productive autoworkers, when the government can spend less with them on welfare, it won't spend more to keep them in their high paying jobs.
+edborticus snorticus Canada is having to modernize its shipyards at great expense to build new Arctic Offshore Patrol Boats and Replenishment ships, along with the new polar icebreaker and new frigates. Canada let its shipyards ROT, not having bought a warship in twenty years. So a whole new generation will have to learn how to build warships as the previous generation have either retired or have been laid off.
The Aussie Collins class were an unmitigated disaster. They are buying French subs now, made in Aussieland, a wise move! New generation subs shared with the French Navy which operates SSNs and SSBNs. The Aussies will go non-nuke, but extended underwater capability...just as good...the food runs out before the fuel.
"In order to maintain a continuous prescience in the Arctic, the Canadian Navy should look at procuring nuclear powered vessels." No, in the era of air independent non-nuclear propulsion (as in the Type 212/214), nuclear no longer has any advantage apart from range. A nuclear boat, even idle in the water, requires the constant action of noisy coolant pumps - this making it a far more detectable vessel compared to any conventional boat which can actually go completely silent (in addition to having a much smaller active sonar profile, conventional power plants not requiring nearly as large a vessel as nuclear power plants do).
The existing AIP sub's typically use stored oxygen either compressed or cryogenic, both being dangerous and cryogenic liquid oxygen boils off in two weeks. However, the University of Southern Denmark has developed a synthetic oxygen absorbing crystal which can store oxygen more densely than compressed oxygen and can be recharged from the dissolved oxygen in seawater so a new breed of AIP sub's which extracts oxygen from seawater is possible but it would have to be developed not purchased off the shelf.
These submarines when they work are unbelievably quiet and scary in their effectiveness. Why the Canadian Navy tried to adapt the tubes to fire US weapons I'll never know, simply buying UK weapons that they were designed for would have been better. They have had some bad luck with them for sure and remember of the $800m purchase price only about 10% was cold hard cash.
Its a sad state of affairs. Here in the US, they spend $2.4 billion on just one Virginia class boat. The worst mistake the US made, was all the wasted money on the Seawolf class, which was designed for the cold war with the USSR, but didn't come into service til long after it was over. The US still has 42 Los Angeles-class subs in inventory, and there were 20 others that have already been scrapped. I agree, German subs are definitely worth the investment.
@MapleBalls Our last batch of British submarines were the "Oberon's". They were decent and served us well for more then 30 years.The Upholders though just seem to be bad for us. I think making our own would solve many of our problems.
Canada doesn't have the skill base. India has more sophisticated weapons manufacturing capabilities then Canada. They've been the chum of the big powers for their entire lifespan and like the smaller EU countries will never put the effort or the finances into a professional Army, Navy, or Air Force. They are a territorial level defense military force. They've never had the need to expand beyond that and likely couldn't due to finances alone.
@@6120mcghee The Astute Class(British) is leaps and bounds better than the LA Class, although probably not as good as the Virginia Class, The Astute Class is much more modern with better systems throughout!
However I will say this, the region that Canada needs to provide submarine cover is the Arctic and these boats were designed for coastal patrol. You probably need to cut your losses and call the Germans for some Type 214's with AIP or be bent over by the Yanks and pony up about $20bn for 6-8 Virginia Class SSN's.
They were truly fantastic submarines, way ahead of any other nations technology. Sadly they were stored improperly by VSEL in Barrow and were so badly deteriorated when sold that this was inevitable. The responsibility lies with VSEL and the surveyors when they were sold.
The Upholders were fine boats and were sold at a reasonable price which Canada was happy with at the time, but the Canadian govt. simply failed to budget to maintain them. All the consequent problems were squarely Canada's fault, but don't expect to hear that from the Canadian Govt. or media.
@chinadashan Keeping the Oberon's "Ojibwa" class in service longer would have given us time to upgrade the new "Upholders" Victoria class. And we still would have maintained a functional submarine fleet. But our government did not do that and showed a disdain for our navy and the important mission it tries to carry out. This whole fiasco disgusts me. Our subs proved they're usefulness when removing Spanish fishing trawlers that stole fish from our waters.
In order to maintain a continuous prescience in the Arctic, the Canadian Navy should look at procuring nuclear powered vessels. At present, the DCNS Barracuda offers Canada an opportunity to procure a cutting-edge design that requires a major re-fit every 10 years.
diesel boats are quieter and better for Canada's needs. Nuclear boats are ridiculously noisy and not good hunter killers for that reason and Canada doesn't have a capable yard to build subs
The Candian Governement should contact the Australian Governement and buy into it's Submairne program. Australia and Canada have similar design needs for submarines.
Except that Australia had no 'submarine program' prior to building the Collins class (its first, and mostly based on a European design), and there is no reason to assume Canada could not also domestically build its submarines, perhaps even a class of its OWN design.
Canada has a longer history of building its own warships than Australia does. Australia happened to build its own submarines (which, even then, are based on a European design), but all almost of Australia's even remotely capable surface warships are of foreign origin. Not so in Canada, which runs an ENTIRELY domestic surface fleet. The issue with submarines in Canada as that funding was not allocated to maintain as many operational units as would have made domestic production of submarines cost effective. Building their own frigates and destroyers made sense when they wanted over a dozen of them, but in order to acquire just four submarines? Buying foreign really DOES make more fiscal sense. It's the simple economy of scale.
The majority of Australia's surface fleet has been built in Australia. Australia is teaming up with Japan now to develop it's next submarine design Japan is the leader in Large conventional ocean going submarines. It would be of clear benefit for Canada to join. We could share the Building work between the 3 nations and have the benefit of having the same subs with the same supply and maintenance systems
Australia's surface combatants are comprised of the Oliver Harvard Perry class frigate, an American design, and the Anzac class frigate which is based on a German design. The Canadian surface fleet is comprised of the Halifax class frigate, a Canadian design, and the Iroquois class destroyer, also a Canadian design.
"Canada has the technology and money to build our own." True, but it really doesn't pay off to fund a new, domestic production program when you only intend to procure four units. Designing and building their own Halifax class frigates made more sense as initial plans were for the procurement of over a dozen units.
Canada originally wanted four nuclear sub's and were jumping between UK and French sub's as well as driving a Canadian company out of business through a reassessment of taxes, the Canadian company was working with a French company to build the civilian nuclear powered SAGA 1 sub which could recharge it's batteries underwater. The switch to the Victoria class was because the Liberals ousted the Tories and needed to replace the nuclear sub's with something after saying the Tories were irresponsible with the nuclear sub procurements. Canada is still screwing up their military procurements with the F35 procurements, the arctic ice breaker procurements and the helicopter procurements. Canada has also had a string of useless defense ministers. The problem is purely political.
@chinadashan I cannot agree with that statement. Why do we need submarines? Very simple. To protect our own territorial integrity from foreigners. We live in a very unstable world these days. Its most unwise to take our own safety and liberty lightly. There were two things that disturbed me about this submarine deal. 1 Was that they chose to replace 12 older but functional subs with 4 that hadn't been used in years. And 2 that they didn't keep the older Oberon's in service.
As far as not firing a single weapon, each torpedo is 5 million dollars, so no you don't fire them unless there is war. Considering the fire did 100s of millions of dollars of damage, if we have only spent two billion we are still ahead of the game. Would have been better off just buying new, yes but it would have cost us 4 billion in purchase price, and another 4 billion (or more) in maintenance and upgrades. Think that is high, the Aussies have spent far more than that on there 6 subs, of similar capability, and problems. If we funded these programs at half that we would be have been able keep these subs operation far more often. We can't expect to try and operate these machines on a shoestring budget and still get great results. It must be kept in mind that these are by far the most potent weapons in the RCN. A single US Navy battle group would probably take out our entire surface fleet and air force with ease. Our quiet SSKs though would still be a massive threat. Overall though these are deadly machines that provide the RCN with pound for pound, man for man, dollar for dollar, far more military capability than our surface fleet.
+Brad Johnson The Australians are planning a new batch of new submarines, some 8 to 12 for AU $20-40 billion. Japan, Germany, and France are fighting to build new submarines in Australia.
I know, hopefully the Germans get the contract, then the French. I have nothing against Japan but France and Germany are in NATO, and Canada will need a similar submarine with similar specifications to what Australia will buy. It makes no difference to Australia whether they buy from NATO or not but Canada does have obligations to try and purchase from other NATO countries.
Brad Johnson If you wish to use US combat data systems, the Japanese sub is the best choice. CINPAC, a career submariner, has been quoted in the Australian press the best diesel electric submarines are built at Kobe. I trust his judgement more than any political hack.
But not the pollitcal will, witch is the main problem with all Canadian military procuments, must of our leaders are a bunch of pussy who would rather give our money away to any pittily shit country that comes begging or to give millions of dollars to a terrorist.
Who the hell is blaming the Brits? from there own testimony they say these subs were lemons! So shut up we aint blaming anyone and YES we are putting them up ready for sea trials on our highers standards!
We need to get nuclear submarines, Canada has to patrol the arctic and cover large areas of ocean, and a diesel doesn't have the range or speed for it, seriously though, the US in the past 20 years has decommissioned over 400 submarines, and Canada their closest ally in land terms, needs Sub's badly, we need someone to put 2 and 2 together here, cause otherwise the navy's boned.... I remember when we had a carrier, and now that's gone, and the third largest fleet in the world... How the mighty have fallen, and how we need to invest in our navy since you know we're surrounded by ocean, come on NATO help out a member here.
+hqwefg Say what...? We had a carrier..? I had no idea.... Where did we sink it..? and please don't tell me we parked it like a BC Cat. Oh and @hero hnl , didn't the kangaroo's build their own sub..? Discovery Channel says ya... and i trust them like CNN.. TV don't lie, or am i on pixie dust..?
+hqwefg Canada has never built a submarine before. Submarines are much more complicated than a surface warship, something Canada hasn't built in the past twenty years. Simply put, Canada doesn't have the expertise to build submarines, not without full support from another nation that does. Australia has come to the conclusion after their first attempt that they need to do a continuous build of submarines to maintain and develop the shipyard workers skills. And even with that they still need for the next batch of submarines significant help from another nation whether Japanese or German or French. Why is this the case you ask? Because the senior executives and engineers along with the blue collar shipbuilders have retired, and the previous younger apprentices were laid off without new ship orders.
Brad Johnson Or to anyone else for that matter. Besides even if Canada could, they couldn't afford them at more than US $2 billion each. Which is close to CAN $3 billion each.
SeaToby11 When a civil war breaks out in SA, the Canadian dollar will soon be worth more than the US dollar and we could afford them. 2 billion isn't that bad, 1 billion is actually the fair value for a Victoria/Upholder built new and a Virginia can run 300 days a year compared to a Victoria's 100 days a year. Also you are basically buying 30 years of fuel up front. The point is moot though since we can't buy them, the only possible nuclear submarine for sale is the French Astute(edit *Barracuda Class*) class. The other possibility would be to take a SSK and insert a nuclear power plant of our own design, likely a nuclear/diesel hybrid.
1st sub that had the fire had wiring problems, when salt water hit those wires they started a fire... who the fuck wires their subs with such shitty wiring that cant handle getting wet... It was the manufacture cutting costs. Your right about some of it, Harpoon system removed cause government was too cheap to buy the firing system and the right harpoons. They completely stripped the firing system and reworked the tubes cause they were too cheap to buy new torpedo's etc.....
Can't handle getting wet? You mean pouring 2,000 litres of water on them? Try that test on any sub in the world and see what happens! Try getting your sub commanders to keep hatches closed when in heavy seas - see the accident inquiry report for who they blamed.
British are terrible when is comes to designing mechanical and electrical systems. We need to design and build them, whatever the cost as long as we can defend our sovereignty.
The UK laid up the Upholder class for one reason and one reason only - Defence Cuts. So the UK was essentially confined to nuclear subs and out of the conventional submarine game. The subs were put up for disposal so it is hardly surprising that the RN were going to maintain these boats out of an ever reduced and pressurised budget. The Canadians crawled all over these boats and decided to buy them and I postulate did not spend enough money restoring them to a serviceable condition. The RCN clearly did not have the budget to sort these boats out properly and in a reasonable timescale before taking them back to Canada. Thereafter some rather questionable decisions on equipment ‘improvements’-allied to insufficient budget have compounded the issue. I do not believe the Canadian taxpayer can blame the UK government, MoD or RN for this sad story but rather need to do some honest soul searching on what their own organisations did or did not do.
From the "horse's mouth", so to speak. I was on a submarine tech course back in 2012. This was at the UK Submarine school in Torpoint. After some time there I got to know some of the Jr. rates/Sr. rates, and Officers. One afternoon during a smoke break, I asked an Officer whom I had become aquainted with (and knowing he was a part of the original Upholder Program) what the deal was with these boats. His reply, "One day we came into work and DOD had decided all UK Sub operations will now be nuclear powered." Even though the boats at that time were new, running, and past trials; the decision was made to go exclusively nuke. That's it, plain and simple. They weren't lemons, they weren't shitty boats, they just got pushed aside for nuke capability. The deciding factor here was they sat wet for 4+ years with no one looking after them and being used for spare parts. Park your car in the back yard for that time and expect to jump in and drive away? Canada failed these boats, not the other way around. BTY, your typical new boat will run you about 1B, that's just one. We got 4, along with another billion or so worth of problems. We still haven't caught up to what it should have cost us (if we had done it right) in the first place. Dolphin 38.
As soon as they mentioned Gene Cretin it all made sense.
sure dumb fish
The fire @ sea was not an issue from the sub, the sailors forgot to shut the hatch & water pored in. it doesn't fire torpidos because for some resign the RCN wants to buy american torpidos & its not designed to use them. Everyone learns from lemons. i'm glad we have them. in 20 years we can make our own.
EXACTLY!!! This had nothing to do with Britain. Neither did running it into the bottom of the sea either, that was just the pure "competence" of the Canadian "navy".
"im confused, why doesnt canada make there own? they buy tanks, boats, subs from others. why cant they build there own?" ... they CAN build their own but, for a mere FOUR planned operational units, beginning an entirely new domestic production program really doesn't pay off (economy of scale - the more produced, the less the impact of basic production costs on each individual unit). Australia built its own only because it had very distinct requirements not met by an extant class (and, at the time, the U.K. was not prepared to sell the Upholders - which Australia ALSO had wanted).
You only have to look at what Canadian politicians did to the Avro Arrow to see why Canada doesn't build their own. After the Arrow was destroyed, Canada signed an agreement with the US saying that Canada would never independently develop a weapons system again. Interesting to note that the UK destroyed their TSR2 prototypes in favour of a US plane too. Canada could build their own but would be going against politics both internationally and corporately to do so. Note that Revenue Canada bankrupted the Canadian company involved in the civilian, French
( oops, last message incomplete ). The civilian companies were building an eight man nuclear powered civilian sub called the SAGA 1 based on the Canadian SLOPOKE reactor. It could only recharge it's batteries rather than cruise on nuclear power but the concept would've worked for the patrol role that Canada needed.
+John Wang Frankly the Canadian politicians axed the Arrow because they couldn't find anyone who would buy more than a few to help offset the development costs. As the Australian autoworkers have discovered, with their huge tariffs on imports subsidizing their less productive autoworkers, when the government can spend less with them on welfare, it won't spend more to keep them in their high paying jobs.
+edborticus snorticus Canada is having to modernize its shipyards at great expense to build new Arctic Offshore Patrol Boats and Replenishment ships, along with the new polar icebreaker and new frigates. Canada let its shipyards ROT, not having bought a warship in twenty years. So a whole new generation will have to learn how to build warships as the previous generation have either retired or have been laid off.
The Aussie Collins class were an unmitigated disaster. They are buying French subs now, made in Aussieland, a wise move! New generation subs shared with the French Navy which operates SSNs and SSBNs. The Aussies will go non-nuke, but extended underwater capability...just as good...the food runs out before the fuel.
Wow,
This makes our Collins class look good.
"In order to maintain a continuous prescience in the Arctic, the Canadian Navy should look at procuring nuclear powered vessels." No, in the era of air independent non-nuclear propulsion (as in the Type 212/214), nuclear no longer has any advantage apart from range. A nuclear boat, even idle in the water, requires the constant action of noisy coolant pumps - this making it a far more detectable vessel compared to any conventional boat which can actually go completely silent (in addition to having a much smaller active sonar profile, conventional power plants not requiring nearly as large a vessel as nuclear power plants do).
The existing AIP sub's typically use stored oxygen either compressed or cryogenic, both being dangerous and cryogenic liquid oxygen boils off in two weeks. However, the University of Southern Denmark has developed a synthetic oxygen absorbing crystal which can store oxygen more densely than compressed oxygen and can be recharged from the dissolved oxygen in seawater so a new breed of AIP sub's which extracts oxygen from seawater is possible but it would have to be developed not purchased off the shelf.
These submarines when they work are unbelievably quiet and scary in their effectiveness. Why the Canadian Navy tried to adapt the tubes to fire US weapons I'll never know, simply buying UK weapons that they were designed for would have been better. They have had some bad luck with them for sure and remember of the $800m purchase price only about 10% was cold hard cash.
The British have just built the world's kost advanced submarine the Astute class, why the fuck did we buy something which another country didn't want.
Its a sad state of affairs. Here in the US, they spend $2.4 billion on just one Virginia class boat. The worst mistake the US made, was all the wasted money on the Seawolf class, which was designed for the cold war with the USSR, but didn't come into service til long after it was over. The US still has 42 Los Angeles-class subs in inventory, and there were 20 others that have already been scrapped. I agree, German subs are definitely worth the investment.
@MapleBalls Our last batch of British submarines were the "Oberon's". They were decent and served us well for more then 30 years.The Upholders though just seem to be bad for us. I think making our own would solve many of our problems.
With the refit done recently, they make sense now, 20 years too late.
9:10, " 'Shed-you-el', 'Sked-you-el', I think you're full of 'SKIT' !", Dorothy Parker.
im confused, why doesnt canada make there own? they buy tanks, boats, subs from others. why cant they build there own?
Canada doesn't have the skill base. India has more sophisticated weapons manufacturing capabilities then Canada. They've been the chum of the big powers for their entire lifespan and like the smaller EU countries will never put the effort or the finances into a professional Army, Navy, or Air Force. They are a territorial level defense military force. They've never had the need to expand beyond that and likely couldn't due to finances alone.
We(The U S) have Los Angeles class Subs ready for decommisiond early. Give them to Canada. Better quality than the Brits.
It's called the royal navy
@@6120mcghee The Astute Class(British) is leaps and bounds better than the LA Class, although probably not as good as the Virginia Class, The Astute Class is much more modern with better systems throughout!
@@keithwatson1384 Astute is better in most departments than the Virginia.
However I will say this, the region that Canada needs to provide submarine cover is the Arctic and these boats were designed for coastal patrol. You probably need to cut your losses and call the Germans for some Type 214's with AIP or be bent over by the Yanks and pony up about $20bn for 6-8 Virginia Class SSN's.
They were truly fantastic submarines, way ahead of any other nations technology. Sadly they were stored improperly by VSEL in Barrow and were so badly deteriorated when sold that this was inevitable. The responsibility lies with VSEL and the surveyors when they were sold.
The Upholders were fine boats and were sold at a reasonable price which Canada was happy with at the time, but the Canadian govt. simply failed to budget to maintain them. All the consequent problems were squarely Canada's fault, but don't expect to hear that from the Canadian Govt. or media.
@chinadashan
Keeping the Oberon's "Ojibwa" class in service longer would have given us time to upgrade the new "Upholders" Victoria class. And we still would have maintained a functional submarine fleet. But our government did not do that and showed a disdain for our navy and the important mission it tries to carry out. This whole fiasco disgusts me. Our subs proved they're usefulness when removing Spanish fishing trawlers that stole fish from our waters.
In order to maintain a continuous prescience in the Arctic, the Canadian Navy should look at procuring nuclear powered vessels. At present, the DCNS Barracuda offers Canada an opportunity to procure a cutting-edge design that requires a major re-fit every 10 years.
diesel boats are quieter and better for Canada's needs. Nuclear boats are ridiculously noisy and not good hunter killers for that reason and Canada doesn't have a capable yard to build subs
The Candian Governement should contact the Australian Governement and buy into it's Submairne program. Australia and Canada have similar design needs for submarines.
Except that Australia had no 'submarine program' prior to building the Collins class (its first, and mostly based on a European design), and there is no reason to assume Canada could not also domestically build its submarines, perhaps even a class of its OWN design.
Canada has a longer history of building its own warships than Australia does. Australia happened to build its own submarines (which, even then, are based on a European design), but all almost of Australia's even remotely capable surface warships are of foreign origin. Not so in Canada, which runs an ENTIRELY domestic surface fleet. The issue with submarines in Canada as that funding was not allocated to maintain as many operational units as would have made domestic production of submarines cost effective. Building their own frigates and destroyers made sense when they wanted over a dozen of them, but in order to acquire just four submarines? Buying foreign really DOES make more fiscal sense. It's the simple economy of scale.
The majority of Australia's surface fleet has been built in Australia. Australia is teaming up with Japan now to develop it's next submarine design Japan is the leader in Large conventional ocean going submarines. It would be of clear benefit for Canada to join. We could share the Building work between the 3 nations and have the benefit of having the same subs with the same supply and maintenance systems
Australia's surface combatants are comprised of the Oliver Harvard Perry class frigate, an American design, and the Anzac class frigate which is based on a German design. The Canadian surface fleet is comprised of the Halifax class frigate, a Canadian design, and the Iroquois class destroyer, also a Canadian design.
Both are modified for Australian conditions and both where built in Australia. The Anzac Class more modified then the Adelaide class.
"Canada has the technology and money to build our own." True, but it really doesn't pay off to fund a new, domestic production program when you only intend to procure four units. Designing and building their own Halifax class frigates made more sense as initial plans were for the procurement of over a dozen units.
Canada originally wanted four nuclear sub's and were jumping between UK and French sub's as well as driving a Canadian company out of business through a reassessment of taxes, the Canadian company was working with a French company to build the civilian nuclear powered SAGA 1 sub which could recharge it's batteries underwater. The switch to the Victoria class was because the Liberals ousted the Tories and needed to replace the nuclear sub's with something after saying the Tories were irresponsible with the nuclear sub procurements. Canada is still screwing up their military procurements with the F35 procurements, the arctic ice breaker procurements and the helicopter procurements. Canada has also had a string of useless defense ministers. The problem is purely political.
@chinadashan
I cannot agree with that statement. Why do we need submarines? Very simple. To protect our own territorial integrity from foreigners. We live in a very unstable world these days. Its most unwise to take our own safety and liberty lightly. There were two things that disturbed me about this submarine deal. 1 Was that they chose to replace 12 older but functional subs with 4 that hadn't been used in years. And 2 that they didn't keep the older Oberon's in service.
orphan submarines plenty of countries have them not just canada. Australia and Japan have orphan subs, you never see japan complaining
1 billion could have bought 2 new German boats
As far as not firing a single weapon, each torpedo is 5 million dollars, so no you don't fire them unless there is war.
Considering the fire did 100s of millions of dollars of damage, if we have only spent two billion we are still ahead of the game. Would have been better off just buying new, yes but it would have cost us 4 billion in purchase price, and another 4 billion (or more) in maintenance and upgrades. Think that is high, the Aussies have spent far more than that on there 6 subs, of similar capability, and problems.
If we funded these programs at half that we would be have been able keep these subs operation far more often. We can't expect to try and operate these machines on a shoestring budget and still get great results.
It must be kept in mind that these are by far the most potent weapons in the RCN. A single US Navy battle group would probably take out our entire surface fleet and air force with ease. Our quiet SSKs though would still be a massive threat. Overall though these are deadly machines that provide the RCN with pound for pound, man for man, dollar for dollar, far more military capability than our surface fleet.
+Brad Johnson The Australians are planning a new batch of new submarines, some 8 to 12 for AU $20-40 billion. Japan, Germany, and France are fighting to build new submarines in Australia.
I know, hopefully the Germans get the contract, then the French. I have nothing against Japan but France and Germany are in NATO, and Canada will need a similar submarine with similar specifications to what Australia will buy. It makes no difference to Australia whether they buy from NATO or not but Canada does have obligations to try and purchase from other NATO countries.
Brad Johnson If you wish to use US combat data systems, the Japanese sub is the best choice. CINPAC, a career submariner, has been quoted in the Australian press the best diesel electric submarines are built at Kobe. I trust his judgement more than any political hack.
SeaToby11 The only issue with Japanese subs is I believe there is a NATO agreement to make a best effort to buy from other NATO countries
SeaToby11 The US Combat data systems is exactly why it would be good for Canada for the Aussies to buy German or French.
My father refitted past subs in the 80s
Canada has the technology and money to build our own.
But not the pollitcal will, witch is the main problem with all Canadian military procuments, must of our leaders are a bunch of pussy who would rather give our money away to any pittily shit country that comes begging or to give millions of dollars to a terrorist.
Who the hell is blaming the Brits? from there own testimony they say these subs were lemons! So shut up we aint blaming anyone and YES we are putting them up ready for sea trials on our highers standards!
should have bought their 4 boats from EB
Canada got them cheap, what were they expecting? I would like to see you build your own.
Lol. They should've just bought new German diesel subs.
Now they are very effective
NEW SUBMARINE NOT NOT THE OLD ONES .
Other youtube videos on this sub have comments turned off. That's because these subs are shit. My I suggest Canada buy the 212.
We need to get nuclear submarines, Canada has to patrol the arctic and cover large areas of ocean, and a diesel doesn't have the range or speed for it, seriously though, the US in the past 20 years has decommissioned over 400 submarines, and Canada their closest ally in land terms, needs Sub's badly, we need someone to put 2 and 2 together here, cause otherwise the navy's boned.... I remember when we had a carrier, and now that's gone, and the third largest fleet in the world... How the mighty have fallen, and how we need to invest in our navy since you know we're surrounded by ocean, come on NATO help out a member here.
+hqwefg Say what...? We had a carrier..? I had no idea.... Where did we sink it..? and please don't tell me we parked it like a BC Cat. Oh and @hero hnl , didn't the kangaroo's build their own sub..? Discovery Channel says ya... and i trust them like CNN.. TV don't lie, or am i on pixie dust..?
+hqwefg Canada has never built a submarine before. Submarines are much more complicated than a surface warship, something Canada hasn't built in the past twenty years. Simply put, Canada doesn't have the expertise to build submarines, not without full support from another nation that does. Australia has come to the conclusion after their first attempt that they need to do a continuous build of submarines to maintain and develop the shipyard workers skills. And even with that they still need for the next batch of submarines significant help from another nation whether Japanese or German or French. Why is this the case you ask? Because the senior executives and engineers along with the blue collar shipbuilders have retired, and the previous younger apprentices were laid off without new ship orders.
+hqwefg The US won't sell its submarines to Canada.
Brad Johnson Or to anyone else for that matter. Besides even if Canada could, they couldn't afford them at more than US $2 billion each. Which is close to CAN $3 billion each.
SeaToby11 When a civil war breaks out in SA, the Canadian dollar will soon be worth more than the US dollar and we could afford them.
2 billion isn't that bad, 1 billion is actually the fair value for a Victoria/Upholder built new and a Virginia can run 300 days a year compared to a Victoria's 100 days a year. Also you are basically buying 30 years of fuel up front.
The point is moot though since we can't buy them, the only possible nuclear submarine for sale is the French Astute(edit *Barracuda Class*) class.
The other possibility would be to take a SSK and insert a nuclear power plant of our own design, likely a nuclear/diesel hybrid.
Here is a video about the Victoria class when it was operated by the Royal NAvy ua-cam.com/video/L-Lu9F8RAb4/v-deo.html
1st sub that had the fire had wiring problems, when salt water hit those wires they started a fire... who the fuck wires their subs with such shitty wiring that cant handle getting wet... It was the manufacture cutting costs.
Your right about some of it, Harpoon system removed cause government was too cheap to buy the firing system and the right harpoons. They completely stripped the firing system and reworked the tubes cause they were too cheap to buy new torpedo's etc.....
Can't handle getting wet? You mean pouring 2,000 litres of water on them? Try that test on any sub in the world and see what happens! Try getting your sub commanders to keep hatches closed when in heavy seas - see the accident inquiry report for who they blamed.
Should have bought new subs
We should look at the subs made and sold by Sweden. They have subs that in a War Game with the US Navy, 'sank' a US Super carrier and then escaped.
British are terrible when is comes to designing mechanical and electrical systems.
We need to design and build them, whatever the cost as long as we can defend our sovereignty.
why do we need submarines?..... we dont
your clueless diesel subs are an actual real need, know what your talking about before uttering