henric
02-15-2012, 08:20 PM
15/02/2012 8:30:00 AM
by Nevil Hunt
Defence Minister Peter MacKay says our submarine fleet has a "spotty" history. Given that not one of our four subs is capable of firing a torpedo, the word useless might be more apt.
A trip to the beach may be as close as Canada's submariners get to an ocean.
We have four Victoria class submarines and none are currently capable of firing a torpedo.
Where once Canadian jetfighters were an international laughing stock, so go our submarines. The old joke went like this: How do you get a Starfighter? Answer: Buy a field and wait.
Today you'd have to hang around dry docks in our port cities to catch a glimpse of a Canadian submarine. There's no point looking in the oceans.
We purchased four used Victoria class submarines from England in 1998 for $780 million. The deal was considered a good one, but the four vessels have been a nightmare, spending too much time being refitted, fixed or otherwise maintained. The cost of the continuing work has been more than $1 billion.
It sounds like we've purchased lemons and – like a used car buyer who refuses to throw in towel – we're willing to spend an ocean of money trying to turn a bad deal into a good one. In the end, someone in National Defence department will realize that even if we get all four subs up and running, they may already be obsolete.
The subs are in the news today because the CBC acquired photos of HMCS Corner Brook. The navy reported last June that the sub hit the ocean floor off British Columbia, but never explained the extent of the damage.
The photos show a scar that the former head of the Senate defence committee called "horrific." A rear admiral speaking to the CBC brushed it off, comparing it to a "fender bender."
In question period on Tuesday, MacKay answered inquiries about the out-of-action submarines, and he suggested opposition critics don't want Canadian soldiers and sailors to have the best equipment. The irony was obvious.
If the Conservative government wanted our submariners to have the best equipment, they'd buy something better than old Victoria class boats.
We would never send an air force pilot into the skies above Libya in a plane with sputtering engines. So why would we send Canadian submariners under the waves in boats that have been anything but reliable? And the pilots and submariners have this in common: it's a long way down when something goes wrong.
If we are going to claim that we support our troops, we should show our support by putting them in the safest possible equipment.
National Defence should pull the plug on the used subs, admit defeat and stop sending our people into harm's way. If we can't afford safe submarines, we shouldn't have any at all.
In the past Canadian Forces patrolled our coastlines in airplanes. Big, slow, safe airplanes.
Year after year, satellite photography and passive, underwater listening technologies are improved. If we can listen or watch for intrusions in our territorial waters, and can then send a patrol aircraft – a tad faster than any sub – to check out what's happening, maybe we don't need submarines at all.
Should we keep spending money on the used submarines? Given the incredible length of our coastlines, can we ever hope to patrol every inch?
by Nevil Hunt
Defence Minister Peter MacKay says our submarine fleet has a "spotty" history. Given that not one of our four subs is capable of firing a torpedo, the word useless might be more apt.
A trip to the beach may be as close as Canada's submariners get to an ocean.
We have four Victoria class submarines and none are currently capable of firing a torpedo.
Where once Canadian jetfighters were an international laughing stock, so go our submarines. The old joke went like this: How do you get a Starfighter? Answer: Buy a field and wait.
Today you'd have to hang around dry docks in our port cities to catch a glimpse of a Canadian submarine. There's no point looking in the oceans.
We purchased four used Victoria class submarines from England in 1998 for $780 million. The deal was considered a good one, but the four vessels have been a nightmare, spending too much time being refitted, fixed or otherwise maintained. The cost of the continuing work has been more than $1 billion.
It sounds like we've purchased lemons and – like a used car buyer who refuses to throw in towel – we're willing to spend an ocean of money trying to turn a bad deal into a good one. In the end, someone in National Defence department will realize that even if we get all four subs up and running, they may already be obsolete.
The subs are in the news today because the CBC acquired photos of HMCS Corner Brook. The navy reported last June that the sub hit the ocean floor off British Columbia, but never explained the extent of the damage.
The photos show a scar that the former head of the Senate defence committee called "horrific." A rear admiral speaking to the CBC brushed it off, comparing it to a "fender bender."
In question period on Tuesday, MacKay answered inquiries about the out-of-action submarines, and he suggested opposition critics don't want Canadian soldiers and sailors to have the best equipment. The irony was obvious.
If the Conservative government wanted our submariners to have the best equipment, they'd buy something better than old Victoria class boats.
We would never send an air force pilot into the skies above Libya in a plane with sputtering engines. So why would we send Canadian submariners under the waves in boats that have been anything but reliable? And the pilots and submariners have this in common: it's a long way down when something goes wrong.
If we are going to claim that we support our troops, we should show our support by putting them in the safest possible equipment.
National Defence should pull the plug on the used subs, admit defeat and stop sending our people into harm's way. If we can't afford safe submarines, we shouldn't have any at all.
In the past Canadian Forces patrolled our coastlines in airplanes. Big, slow, safe airplanes.
Year after year, satellite photography and passive, underwater listening technologies are improved. If we can listen or watch for intrusions in our territorial waters, and can then send a patrol aircraft – a tad faster than any sub – to check out what's happening, maybe we don't need submarines at all.
Should we keep spending money on the used submarines? Given the incredible length of our coastlines, can we ever hope to patrol every inch?