# Used Submarines



## Hamish Mackintosh (Jan 5, 2006)

Watched a blurb last night on the tele re the subs Britain sold to Canada,Canada paid$ 750,000 for four deisel Electric used subs in 1998(?) so far they have spent two Billion trying to get them seaworthy ,with a projected two billion more before they are deemed "fit for sevice".All taxpayers funds of course,and now because of the "projected two billion more"they are talking of scrapping the whole project subs included.Make one wonder!!


----------



## chadburn (Jun 2, 2008)

Hamish, these Subs have been the subject of the S.N. Forum before, however, the information you have given is new and interesting as it look's like the Canadian's have also now given up on them. After they were built they were laid up and not properly looked after during their lay up period. My understanding was that there was a design fault with the Tube outer door's which would have meant a major re-construction and if Canada had not took them under a "special deal" which included payment for British Army use on the Canadian Ranges they would have been scrapped. When captken indicated that they were all going in for o/haul I wondered if our Government would be making a special contribution or was/is the situation that as far as HMG were concerned "They are now your problem you sort and pay for it".


----------



## Hamish Mackintosh (Jan 5, 2006)

Geordie Chief they have not "given up" yet ,just a suggestion by the defence minister that we stop throwing good money after bad, and making a bid for nuclear subs at the same time ,he states we MUST have subs,to guard our Arctic shores, but I am afraid that ploy will go over like a fart in church here in Canada, nuclear is a dirty word, especially given their intended use under the ice


----------



## charles henry (May 18, 2008)

Hamish Mackintosh said:


> MUST have subs,to guard our Arctic shores, bust I am afraid that ploy will go over like a fart in church here in Canada, nuclear is a dirty word, especially given their intended use under the ice


Guess he has never heard of the air force. 
Having spent a number of years in the arctic my opinion on subs is that the man should be put in a gah gah home.

Chas


----------



## ART6 (Sep 14, 2010)

chadburn said:


> Hamish, these Subs have been the subject of the S.N. Forum before, however, the information you have given is new and interesting as it look's like the Canadian's have also now given up on them. After they were built they were laid up and not properly looked after during their lay up period. My understanding was that there was a design fault with the Tube outer door's which would have meant a major re-construction and if Canada had not took them under a "special deal" which included payment for British Army use on the Canadian Ranges they would have been scrapped. When captken indicated that they were all going in for o/haul I wondered if our Government would be making a special contribution or was/is the situation that as far as HMG were concerned "They are now your problem you sort and pay for it".


"Sold as seen!"(*))


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

Also sold to build spec from Canada.

In a yard which builds the entire R.N. nuclear submarine fleet and has built submarines for many countries for well over 100 years, there is a lot of displeasure about these minnows.

There is a lot of blame which does not lie at the builders door.


----------



## Hamish Mackintosh (Jan 5, 2006)

sparkie2182 said:


> Also sold to build spec from Canada.
> 
> In a yard which builds the entire R.N. nuclear submarine fleet and has built submarines for many countries for well over 100 years, there is a lot of displeasure about these minnows.
> 
> There is a lot of blame which does not lie at the builders door.


I do not think that is correct! You are implying that Canada ORDERED these subs whiich is not the case Canada was in the market for a sub fleet and as I see it would have bought from Russia or the States had they had any for sale,but opted instead forthese "Used" gems


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

I'm not IMPLYING anything.

A bit more "on the ground" knowledge may be required.


----------



## sbb (Oct 9, 2009)

*Second hand subs*

Has there not been a death or two onboard as well?

seem to recall fires and being towed into port


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

Correct.

Sadly true.


----------



## Hamish Mackintosh (Jan 5, 2006)

sparkie2182 said:


> I'm not IMPLYING anything.
> 
> A bit more "on the ground" knowledge may be required.


"Also sold to BUILD specs fromCanada"?


----------



## Klaatu83 (Jan 22, 2009)

Hamish Mackintosh said:


> I do not think that is correct! You are implying that Canada ORDERED these subs whiich is not the case Canada was in the market for a sub fleet and as I see it would have bought from Russia or the States had they had any for sale,but opted instead forthese "Used" gems


As I recall, the Canadians tried to negotiate to buy new-built subs from the U.S. but, for reasons that defy understanding, the U.S. Government refused to allow any U.S. shipyards to build submarines for export. 

In fact, the U.S. sold a lot of WW-II surplus subs to various NATO and South American nations. When it came time to replace them, none were made available from the U.S., so most of those countries replaced them with new-built German U-Boats. As a result, the German shipyard industry is making money building subs for export, profits that the U.S. yards are missing out on.


----------



## Hamish Mackintosh (Jan 5, 2006)

Klaatu83 said:


> As I recall, the Canadians tried to negotiate to buy new-built subs from the U.S. but, for reasons that defy understanding, the U.S. Government refused to allow any U.S. shipyards to build submarines for export.
> 
> In fact, the U.S. sold a lot of WW-II surplus subs to various NATO and South American nations. When it came time to replace them, none were made available from the U.S., so most of those countries replaced them with new-built German U-Boats. As a result, the German shipyard industry is making money building subs for export, profits that the U.S. yards are missing out on.


Hey don't feel bad, we bought two super ferries built for us in Germany, while our own shipyards stood idle


----------



## Keltic Star (Jan 21, 2006)

Hamish Mackintosh said:


> Hey don't feel bad, we bought two super ferries built for us in Germany, while our own shipyards stood idle


But they were to replace crap built high speed catamarans constructed in your West Coast yards.


----------



## Keltic Star (Jan 21, 2006)

sparkie2182 said:


> Also sold to build spec from Canada.
> 
> There is a lot of blame which does not lie at the builders door.


Never built to Canada's spec but the pre-transfer refit to Canada's spec carried out in the UK was typical of the quality of work in British yards. However, the Canadian navy's superintendence of the refit was an equal disgrace, more time living in 5 star hotels getting their leg over rather than keeping an eye on the shoddy work being carried out in the yard.

_"There is a lot of blame which does not lie at the builders door."_

Not so, British yards quality record says it all. Which must be why Mrs Thatcher hired a Canadian to put British Shipbuilders out of their misery.


----------



## TOM ALEXANDER (Dec 24, 2008)

Keltic Star said:


> But they were to replace crap built high speed catamarans constructed in your West Coast yards.


Having travelled several times on those high speed cats, I believe they weren't crap. I acknowledge they had some teething troubles but what new technolgy doesn't. They were built differently from most catamaran ferries mainly to accomodate the existing ramp heights used by all the other ferries. I perceive the main problem was that they were never run at their designed speed so they fitted in better with the other regular ferries schedules, and also ran even more slowly past Gabriola and Bowen Islands to appease the residents who claimed the wash/wake was damaging their waterfront properties. I postulate any such damage would be chicken feed with a 50 knot Nor'Westerly, or 50 knot Sou'Westerly respectively at high tide - a not too uncommon an occurence. The vessels would have been far better suited to provide high speed vehicle service between Victoria and Seattle - which service had not existed for years since the Princess Marguerite was withdrawn from service. The other main problem was that the engines (not sure but German built?) were subject to problems with the waterjet intakes getting clogged up with logging debris on a regular basis - possibly a minor design change would have fixed. 
Regarding the German ferries, they are more of a failure - diesel exhaust harmonics causing vibration problems in dwellings close to the ferry docks (that has since been fixed), the only carry minimally more vehicles that the regular "C" class ferries, have an extra passenger deck which is rarely used as Canada Transport regs would require more crew (more expense) and they also use more fuel that the "C" class ferries. The "C" class ferries were built on the West Coast of Canada and are used solely in local ferry service. Bottom line is some bright sparks (no offense meant to our radio operator fraternity) tried to re-invent the wheel and came up with a hexagon. "C" class design was already on the books, and build capacity available.


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

"Never built to Canada's spec but the pre-transfer refit to Canada's spec"

Absolutely correct..........the pre-transfer refit was to Canada's spec, my apologies for the loose phrasing.


" typical of the quality of work in British yards"

Not really worthy of a response.
When a Canadian yard builds as many submarines (nuclear or otherwise) as the one in question............please feel free to comment.


" the Canadian navy's superintendence of the refit was an equal disgrace"

Possibly...........I couldn't comment..........Their pre-transfer refit specs are often commented on in the build yard though.


" living in 5 star hotels getting their leg over"

If you can find a 5 star hotel within 25 miles of the build yard,please don't hesitate to let me know.

Just a final point ............ don't believe everything that was written on this matter.


----------



## Hawkeye (Dec 7, 2005)

Klaatu83 said:


> As I recall, the Canadians tried to negotiate to buy new-built subs from the U.S. but, for reasons that defy understanding, the U.S. Government refused to allow any U.S. shipyards to build submarines for export.
> 
> In fact, the U.S. sold a lot of WW-II surplus subs to various NATO and South American nations. When it came time to replace them, none were made available from the U.S., so most of those countries replaced them with new-built German U-Boats. As a result, the German shipyard industry is making money building subs for export, profits that the U.S. yards are missing out on.


Including two for Canada.


----------



## Derek Roger (Feb 19, 2005)

Canada should have built their own subs 25 years ago . Design was there for small "slow poke " nucs . Stealth was the thing .
Arctic patrol ; easy .


----------



## Keltic Star (Jan 21, 2006)

sparkie2182 said:


> "Never built to Canada's spec but the pre-transfer refit to Canada's spec"
> 
> Absolutely correct..........the pre-transfer refit was to Canada's spec, my apologies for the loose phrasing.
> 
> ...


_Agreed, but I tend to put more faith in those directly in the know within the military and government departments directly involved._


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

" I tend to put more faith in those directly in the know within the military and government"

That would explain it.


----------



## Klaatu83 (Jan 22, 2009)

Hamish Mackintosh said:


> I do not think that is correct! You are implying that Canada ORDERED these subs whiich is not the case Canada was in the market for a sub fleet and as I see it would have bought from Russia or the States had they had any for sale,but opted instead forthese "Used" gems


Canada did not ORDER these submarines. As I recall the sequence of events, these subs were originally laid down for the Royal Navy, as replacements for their long-lived Oberon class diesel-electric patrol subs. For some reason (probably budgetary, knowing the track record of British Government) they were put up for sale when either brand-new, or still incomplete.


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

Correct.

I believe the "Vanguard" Class budget was bolstered by this discontinuation.

Doubtless, another example of British "Shoddy Work".


----------



## FG86 (Jan 10, 2011)

The 4 Upholder class were all orded for and expected to serve in the RN for many years, the original plan was for 19 vessels. however with the the so called Coldwar peace dividend this was cut to 4. All four were built, completed and commissioned into the RN. Yes there were initial technical problems with the torpedo doors, this was overcome. Unfortunaltely during the early 90's the UK government put MOD under pressure to decide between keeping a Nuclear SSN fleet or reducing the SSN level sharing the workload with the Upholders (SSK), very reluctantly MOD decided to take the SSN route as their capabilities were far superiour in MOST areas of operation, but not all! The Upholders were put on the international open market, there was interest from Chile, Canada and India, the first two wishing to replace their own Oberon boats, as it was Canada ended up the purchaser. The prblems did in did start after the reactivation from a long layup at Barrow, nothing to do with the UK MOD , the problems were between the Canadian contractor and Barrow, maybe the Canadians did not do their homework, maybe Barrow cut corners, however they would only have done what they were told.


----------



## sparkie2182 (May 12, 2007)

"they would only have done what they were told"

In a nutshell.

Thank you.


----------



## Keltic Star (Jan 21, 2006)

sparkie2182 said:


> "they would only have done what they were told"
> 
> In a nutshell.
> 
> Thank you.


In a nutshell, it was found that the builder had failed to construct watertight tweendecks which permitted seawater to drain down into the electrical systems below causing a fire with toxic smoke that killed an Officer. A death solely attributable to the gross negligence of the builders. 

Why was the conning tower hatch open at sea permitting such water ingress? Because the crew were repairing a builders malfunction in the hatch.

Considering they cost us virtually nothing in the first place we should have sold them all off for scrap or to some banana republic and made a buck or two. To this date, none of the subs are seaworthy, the latest guestimate is that one will be operational in 2013.


----------

