Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Canada may buy nuclear submarines
CBC News ^ | Oct 27, 2011 | Greg Weston

Posted on 10/28/2011 7:42:27 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki

Canada may buy nuclear submarines

Harper government considers mothballing 4 British-made diesel subs

by Greg Weston, CBC News CBC News has learned the Harper government is considering buying nuclear submarines to replace its problem-plagued fleet of diesel-powered subs, all of which are currently awash in red ink and out of service for major repairs.

The four second-hand subs Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government bought from the British navy in 1998 for $750 million were portrayed at the time as the military bargain of the century.

Instead, they have spent almost all of their time in naval repair yards, submerging Canadian taxpayers in an ocean of bills now totalling more than $1 billion and counting.

One of the subs, HMCS Chicoutimi, has been in active service of the Royal Canadian Navy exactly two days in the 13 years since it was purchased from the Brits.

The Chicoutimi caught fire on its maiden voyage from the U.K. to Canada, killing one sailor and injuring a number of others.

It has been in the repair shop ever since, and isn’t expected back in service for at least another two years and $400 million more in repairs and retrofits.

'In an ideal world, I know nuclear subs are what's needed under deep water, deep ice.'—Defence Minister Peter MacKay

National Defence said this week that one of the subs, the Victoria, could be back in service in 2012.

The other three would remain out of service until at least 2013. One may not be out of the repair shop until 2016.

By that time, the submarines will have cost taxpayers an estimated $3 billion, almost enough to have bought all new subs in the first place.

But the real problem is that by the time the whole fleet is in active service for the first time in 2016, the submarines will already be almost 30 years old with only perhaps 10 years of life left in them.

High-ranking sources tell CBC News the government is actively considering cutting its losses on the dud subs, and mothballing some if not all of them. P.O.V.:

Should Canada buy nuclear subs? Take our survey.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay is hinting they might be replaced with nuclear submarines that could patrol under the Arctic ice, something the existing diesel-electric subs cannot do.

Outside the Commons this week, MacKay told CBC News the government is anxious to have its submarine fleet fully operational as soon as possible, providing a “very important capability for the Canadian Forces.”

But asked whether the government might look at other subs, MacKay said: “Well there was a position taken some time ago to go with diesel-electric.

“But you know, in an ideal world, I know nuclear subs are what's needed under deep water, deep ice.” Nuclear submarines $3B each

Nuclear submarines are hugely expensive — they start around $3 billion apiece — and it is unclear where the Harper government would find that kind of money, much less how it could justify such an enormous expenditure during a period of supposed austerity.

The last time a Canadian government seriously considered nuclear subs was in the late 1980s before then prime minister Brian Mulroney sank the whole program amid a public uproar.

A decade later, the Chrétien government bought the four used diesel subs from the British navy in large part because it was seen as such a huge bargain.

Senator Art Eggleton, who was Liberal defence minister at the time, told CBC News Thursday that his government gave "absolutely no consideration" to buying nuclear submarines, although some inside the navy were pushing for them.

"We were coming out of a period of budget-cutting and nuclear submarines would have been far too expensive."

Instead, the British navy was offering a deal Eggleton said the Canadian military couldn’t refuse — the four diesel-electric submarines mothballed after only two years in service when the Royal Navy switched to nuclear subs.

"We got them at a quarter of the cost it would have cost to build new ones," Eggleton says. "We wouldn’t have had the money to build new ones."

He concedes the Liberal government gave serious consideration to not having submarines at all.

"It was either buy these subs, or get out of the submarine business altogether." 'It makes no difference to our security'

Some defence critics think that’s exactly what the current Conservative government should be considering — scrapping the problem-plagued diesel-electric fleet rather than throwing what they see as good money after bad.

“When you look at the cost of trying to get these things seaworthy again, it just doesn’t make sense," said Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute on defence issues.

The Harper government has just awarded a $25-billion contract to build a new fleet of Canadian destroyers and frigates, and Staples says that should be enough.

“Once you are in a hole, the first thing that you should do is stop digging, so I think that it is time to say goodbye to the submarines right now and focus on the new surface fleet.”

Staples says the history of the diesel subs suggests Canada could get by without them.

"The fact that all four submarines are sitting tied up at a dry dock right now doesn’t mean that Canada is in any great danger. It makes no difference to our security.”


TOPICS: Canada; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: canada; rcn; ssn; submarine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 10/28/2011 7:42:27 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

PLEASE DONATE


2 posted on 10/28/2011 7:43:32 AM PDT by JoeProBono (A closed mouth gathers no feet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki
The four second-hand subs...

Is that the ones now at Edmonton mall or are these the only ones left "serviceable"?

3 posted on 10/28/2011 7:48:07 AM PDT by TexasRedeye (Eschew obfuscation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Might be a good idea, except they’ll never be able to go to Vancouver if they do. Vancouver is a “nuclear-free zone”. Says so on signs at the city limits. No ship carrying nuclear material or powered by nukes is allowed in the city.

Vancouver: Beautiful city, populated by morons.


4 posted on 10/28/2011 7:50:33 AM PDT by hoagy62 (The United States of America. Great idea...while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Clive

Ping.


5 posted on 10/28/2011 7:51:21 AM PDT by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoagy62

Does that include Esquimault BC where the base is?


6 posted on 10/28/2011 7:53:35 AM PDT by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile

I think it’s just Vancouver proper. However, all the anti-nuke enviro-peace-nuts will certainly squeal that “It’s too close!” or some idiotic statement like that.


7 posted on 10/28/2011 7:56:05 AM PDT by hoagy62 (The United States of America. Great idea...while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Having proved they lack the industrial and technical skills to keep a diesel electric submarine operating for any length of time I don’t see how jumping to nuclear power is going to somehow fix that problem.


8 posted on 10/28/2011 7:57:10 AM PDT by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
Having proved they lack the industrial and technical skills to keep a diesel electric submarine operating for any length of time I don’t see how jumping to nuclear power is going to somehow fix that problem.

Well, the subs were British: Lucas Electrics was probably involved somehow.

9 posted on 10/28/2011 8:10:03 AM PDT by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Canada depends on being under the U.S. Nuclear Umbrella..
Thats, Why they spend so little (of their economy) on the military..
Most all of Canada’s expenditures are to keep their socialism going..

Truth is Canada does not need submarines at all..
A very small Navy, Air Force, and Army is for propaganda purposes..
Like a Cat puffing up.. to seem bigger.


10 posted on 10/28/2011 8:13:56 AM PDT by hosepipe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps; exg; Alberta's Child; albertabound; AntiKev; backhoe; Byron_the_Aussie; ...

Thank you for the ping, Army Air Corps.


11 posted on 10/28/2011 8:18:04 AM PDT by Clive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Grut

This story ran on CBC The National last night.

Seems that they have spent more that $3B maintaining
these to date. I guess they didn’t realize how expensive
keeping these boats really is. The reason for having them
is to assert sovreignity over the the Far North. They know that our boomer can hide out up there and they don’t like it and would like to be able to chase US subs out of there. Of course, theres no chance to do that without having nuke boats.


12 posted on 10/28/2011 8:32:59 AM PDT by RitchieAprile
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RitchieAprile
>>>>>>The reason for having them is to assert sovreignity over the the Far North. <<<<<

That was also the reason for purchase of F-35 fleet. The small problem is that F-35 can not communicate in the far north,nor have needed operation radius for such task. But hey, what's $100B from my or your pocket for idiots in charge. Especially if they get kickbacks for merchandise no one else wants to buy.

It seems Canadian government has a pattern of spending billions on useless military hardware and spending billions to murder innocent civilians around the world. At the same time Search and rescue from Canadian waters is one of the worst in developed world, Canadian waters are not controlled and Canadian skies not defended.

13 posted on 10/28/2011 9:11:15 AM PDT by DTA (U.S. Centcom vs. U.S. AFRICOM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

Snowmobiles......that’s the answer......snowmobiles.....as long as you keep the track turning fast, they’ll go over water. Strap a nuke to it and you have the perfect weapon. Lots of fun on the snow, too.


14 posted on 10/28/2011 9:38:05 AM PDT by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki

so best mind the line when you’re out there fishing on Lake Huron, eh?


15 posted on 10/28/2011 10:02:37 AM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
A very small Navy, Air Force, and Army is for propaganda purposes..

I suggest you research all the fighter intercepts Canada has conducted in the past 60 years.

16 posted on 10/28/2011 9:27:50 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DTA
Canadian skies not defended.

I beg to differ on that point.

17 posted on 10/28/2011 9:30:00 PM PDT by buccaneer81 (ECOMCON)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hoagy62

“However, all the anti-nuke enviro-peace-nuts will certainly squeal that “It’s too close!” or some idiotic statement like that.”

Then they need their heads cracked. I’m sure the RCMP is up to the task. :)


18 posted on 10/29/2011 1:05:12 AM PDT by Levante
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: sukhoi-30mki; All

I see there are many still posting on FR that think they have all of the facts on Canada. Jokers.


19 posted on 10/29/2011 9:54:31 AM PDT by NorthOf45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoagy62

Van Francisco.


20 posted on 10/29/2011 9:57:38 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (America First)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson