Canadian Forces Order new tanks

[Maestro]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Do you know what the problem was with the subs

No... All I know is that they spent several months in Liverpool (or any other English port) to be repaired (don't forget that the RN first wanted to dump them because they were too old, so may be it was some deserved "maintenance work") and then were supposed to be sent to the Davis Ship Building to receive newer equipment.

All I know is that they could not take the sea to Canada without being repaired first.

[pbfoot]

They are pretty good subs not old at all its just the Brits mothballed them as they pursued a different path for their sub forces , I believe they were brought out of hibernation in Scotland somewhere.. From what I understand they had a short circuit due to sailing with open hatches and some intake of water via the hatch
Board of Inquiry - HMCS Chicoutimi | National Defence and the Canadian Forces
sorry its in English but there must be French version on the site but it has the results of the inquiry its pretty detailed

[Maestro]

If my sources are sensationalist, yours are propaganda ! Come on, you took your info from the same guys who said the day of the HMCS Chicoutimi's incident that there were no victims of the fire before saying the following day that there was two victims : one dead and one wounded.

Day 1 : Fire onborad. No victims reported.
Day 2 : No fire. Two victims reported.

Don't believe everything that is written on the Army's website. Most of it was created by brainwashed officers... The same kind of blokes who thinks that we've got some of the best equipment on Earth. No kidding ! I heard a Canadian officer saying that on the news after the "rocket malfunction on YouTube" incident.

You got to see the truth in face. Those subs were outdated.

[102first_hussars]

Well NS could dlear this up for us, but hes not around

[Maestro]

Yeah... That's too bad.

By the way, anyone heard about him ? I haven't seen him since... since... let's say November.

[102first_hussars]

Probably on another deployment

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by Maestro

If my sources are sensationalist, yours are propaganda ! Come on, you took your info from the same guys who said the day of the HMCS Chicoutimi's incident that there were no victims of the fire before saying the following day that there was two victims : one dead and one wounded.

Day 1 : Fire onborad. No victims reported.
Day 2 : No fire. Two victims reported.

Don't believe everything that is written on the Army's website. Most of it was created by brainwashed officers... The same kind of blokes who thinks that we've got some of the best equipment on Earth. No kidding ! I heard a Canadian officer saying that on the news after the "rocket malfunction on YouTube" incident.

You got to see the truth in face. Those subs were outdated.

If I wnat to know about Batons your the man if I want to know about military equipment well your not. Can't wait for your next news update from Allo Police

[Maestro]

Allô Police ? Man, stop being an ass !

First of all, Allô Police is a weekly paper about crime and justice... That paper doesn't talk about politics and national defence.

Secondly, I got contacts within the army... And I think my contacts can be more trusted than a website built up by a couples of brainwashed high-ranking officers of the Canadian army with the complicity of a few members of the gouvernment.

You know, the Canadian army kinda reminds me of the ex-USSR army... They had sh*tty equipment, the troops knew the equipment was sh*tty, the officers were saying it was not that bad, the high-ranking officers were saying that their equipment was the best on Earth and the politicians were doing the public-relation job by saying : "Our army is good. There was no incident onboard the K-19..." Next thing we know is that a bunch of sailors on the K-19 died due to radiations.

Now, my sources can be wrong, I can be wrong... And may be I see plots everywhere. But unless you (or someone else) can prove me wrong, I'll stick to my opinion.

Have a nice day.

[pbfoot]

Did you even read the article . Noooo. the Brits changed over from conventional boats to nuclear thats why they were in storage . We don't have the infrastructure to keep nuke subs. Ask any submariner the newer conventional subs are very good . Maybe your contacts in the army aren't familiar with the Navy . My military training taught me to asess before jumping to conclusions . An example being every air crash has those that jump to the incorrect conclusion before the facts are known all that does is make you look foolish . Read the article it tells all in a chronological manner with testimony from all involved . And if you believe that the investigation is a lie prove it with the input of your Army informants . Sometimes the truth is extemely dull . Now tell me how are you going to keep all the people involved quiet . Even your Army buddies can't keep their yaps shut

[Maestro]

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Maestro

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]

Originally Posted by Nonskimmer

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

You are absolutely right.