# Submarine's return makes history



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7059093.stm


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

I seen this title and thought maybe Canada was giving back the subs they bought from the Brits....


----------



## DAVIDJM (Sep 17, 2005)

Nine months on patrol. they may produce there own electricity and water but what about food?? were they on ships biscuits at the end.

and home just in time for the birth of their babies.


----------



## James_C (Feb 17, 2005)

Ah but David have they actually spent the 9 months underwater?
More likely it'll be 9 months away RN style - R&R visits at every opportunity, cocktail parties, downright piss ups and sporting events etc in every other port.


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/...0262.stm&news=1&nbram=1&nbwm=1&bbram=1&bbwm=1

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/7060602.stm


----------



## Coastie (Aug 24, 2005)

JoK said:


> I seen this title and thought maybe Canada was giving back the subs they bought from the Brits....


Oi! Just cos one went badly wrong!!!


----------



## Keltic Star (Jan 21, 2006)

Coastie said:


> Oi! Just cos one went badly wrong!!!


But the others don't work either! Not that it really matters because we didn't pay cash for them, we exchanged use of wasteland in Alberta for your squaddies to come over to play soldiers. I can think of better places to spend a holiday!(Jester) (Jester) 

Another fine example of British engineering compounded by the ignorance and incompetence of our Canadian Navy brass and the fickle finger of Joseph Lucas.


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

Keltic star i'd suggest you find a copy of this months Warships International Fleet review and read the comments by the head of Canada's Navy. I think you'll find your very much mistaken about the Victoria class SSK's. The Canadian Navy are very happy with the class now the initial problems are solved and the one that went on fire has damage a maximum of 1mx2m and the only reason she isn't being worked on is lack of dockyard space and it was only ever intended that 2 of the class would ever be under maintenance at any one time.

http://www.warshipsifr.com/


----------



## JoK (Nov 12, 2006)

HA "lack of space" Right
Lack of cash is more like it.

DND's propaganda machine doesn't lie, it just skirts the truth.(==D)


----------



## Gavin Gait (Aug 14, 2005)

Lack of cash is more likely I must admit JoK but the damage to the fire damaged sub isn't anywhere near as bad as first thought apparently ( again I only have the article to go by and the comments of the head of the Canadian Navy... ).

I think they only ever intended having 2 operational at any one time , 1 on each coast , 1 on interim refit and one on deep refit.

Davie


----------



## Keltic Star (Jan 21, 2006)

Davie Tait said:


> Keltic star i'd suggest you find a copy of this months Warships International Fleet review and read the comments by the head of Canada's Navy. I think you'll find your very much mistaken about the Victoria class SSK's. The Canadian Navy are very happy with the class now the initial problems are solved and the one that went on fire has damage a maximum of 1mx2m and the only reason she isn't being worked on is lack of dockyard space and it was only ever intended that 2 of the class would ever be under maintenance at any one time.
> 
> http://www.warshipsifr.com/


Hi Davie, cannot get a copy of WIF over here so unable to read V.Adm. Robertson's BS piece. I'm sure it was an enlightening article delivered by a man that has less sea time than the average 2nd. Mate or 3rd, Engineer in the MN. This is the same man who 30 minutes before being due to attend a Canada Day reception for the Navy junior ranks advised that he couldn't make it as he was too busy entertaining the Lieutenant Governor in the Base Wardroom. Obviously more important to set up one's retirement job as a military consultant or lobbyist than worry about troop morale.

The Navy brass and their political masters have spent the past three years covering their butts and doing damage control over the sub fiasco. There is no shortage of dockyard space, H.M.C.S. Chicoutimi has been housed, out of public sight, in a covered ship construction building in Halifax harbour since being piggybacked across the pond. I'll happily show Adm. Robertson where she is if he can't see the building from his office window.

As for extent of damage, the detailed repair specification plans cost $11.4 million, a bit more than a 1m x 2m section in my humble opinion. The actual repair contract is yet to go to tender. 

The latest official date I have for commencement of repairs on Chicoutimi is 2012, that is, if there is anything left, despite the Navy's denials she is being robbed for spare parts for the others. My sources, the crews of two of the other three subs, which by the way, according to them, are by no means fully operational.

As I have said before, I believe the subs were a bargain even if they didn't work properly and re-building them would be cheaper than new construction, however military procurement now has new priorities particularly in getting better equipment to keep our lad's safe in Afghanistan as only the Brit's, Dutch and Americans are alongside us protecting those chickensh-t Euro's.

Support our troops

Cheers
Bob


----------

