Sub woes (cont.)
"Whyever did we buy these submarines (or any subs at all)? The saga continues with wondering about their future:
The retiring commander of Canada's East Coast fleet expressed frustration yesterday about the time it will take to return the fire-damaged HMCS Chicoutimi to service, and used his final speech to launch an impassioned defence of the often-maligned submarine service.
Repairs on the warship, which was ravaged by a fatal electrical fire on its maiden voyage from Scotland in October 2004, have been pushed back four years - raising questions about whether it will ever see active service...
The work to make Chicoutimi seaworthy again - pegged at $100 million - won't start until 2010, and that means the sub would not return to active duty until 2012. In April, the Defence Department said putting off the start of the costly, extensive repairs for four years would save millions of dollars that could be spent elsewhere...
The chairman of the Senate committee on national defence says navy brass is right to be worried about the future of Chicoutimi and the entire submarine program.
The costly deployment of soldiers to Afghanistan may force the Conservative government to cut funds for other military programs, said Senator Colin Kenny...
Kenny said he's worried that when the federal government's long-awaited defence-capability plan is released in September [my emphasis - MC; keep your eyes peeled in Sept.], submarines "won't be on the
list."
posted by Mark, Ottawa at 1:36 p.m.
3 Comments:
Whyever did we buy these submarines (or any subs at all)?
You don't think the country with the second-longest coastline in the world should have submarines in its navy?
Care to explain why?
babbling: Because:
1) We face no naval threat off our coasts for which subs are needed.
2) Surveillance and sovereignty protection are much better done by surface ships, aircraft, UAVs and satellite.
3) Subs are not suited for fisheries protection; our Navy is the only one in the world--as far as I know--that uses this truly silly justification.
4) Providing diesel-electric subs for the USN to train against is not a key Canadian defence interest, however much the Navy likes the link.
5) We seem to be getting along fine now--and have for several years--with no effective submarine fleet.
In any event, whatever may think of the need for subs, this acquisition has been a disaster and is sucking money that could be better used elsewhere--e.g. amphibious ships and vessels with real sea-going capabilities unlike the MCDVs.
By 2012 we might actually have all four subs in service. At which time all of them will already be at least twenty years old.
Mark
Ottawa
I would agree that we shouldn't have taken these subs, but the assessment of why do not need subs at all is fatally flawed and demonstrates a total lack of understanding of naval missions.
Post a Comment
<< Home