Will the government sink the Navy's subs?

I think they should--here are a few quick reasons I noted in August 2006 :

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.

The latest:

A wide-ranging discussion about the future of Canada’s troubled submarine fleet is taking place at the highest levels of the Conservative government, say political and defence sources.

The Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s Office are examining whether to "scrap them altogether, upgrade the existing boats or buy new," said a political source.

The debate has been taking place largely above the heads of senior naval commanders and Defence Minister Peter MacKay, all of whom support the Victoria-class submarines.

"Everything is on the table as far as the PCO and PMO are concerned," said the source, who asked not to be identified.

The insiders told The Canadian Press that no decision has been made...

Defence insiders and observers say they are convinced MacKay supports the subs, despite delays, mounting costs and the perception the boats are "lemons," as some critics have said.

It’s not clear what’s driving the high-level political debate, but a retired senior officer said he believes the Conservative focus on Arctic sovereignty is likely at the heart of it.

The four diesel-electric Victoria-class boats are capable of only limited operations in the ice-choked northern waters and the government may be considering more extensive upgrades or the purchase of new subs that can operate under the ice for prolonged periods.

"There is something being discussed," said Eric Lerhe, a former commodore and Pacific fleet commander.

"I’m also getting it from sources second-hand and third-hand. Nobody knows precisely where it’s going, but it looks to be focused on the Arctic."..

...the former head of the navy, retired vice-admiral Bruce McLean, said the reasons may be more practical.

There are still significant upgrade costs to be borne before the submarines are fully operational, they’re expensive to maintain and many in the public don’t understand their usefulness.

"We’re at mile 23 of a 26-mile marathon with this Victoria-class," said McLean, a former submariner.

"It would be a shame if they scrapped them."

A shame yes, but a sensible decision. Though basing such a decision on Arctic relevance would be politics run mad. What would arctic-capable subs of our own actually do? No good for general surveillance. Torpedo underwater intruders in peacetime whose secret passages pose no legal threat to our sovereignty claims in northern waters?

Update: Those damned anonymous sources (more such sources):

MacKay says scrapping troubled sub program not on the table

I'm beginning (joke) to wonder about our journalists.