[Newsbot]

Title: Fire damaged submarine returns to Canadian navy after nearly a decade
Category: Military
Posted By: DrCaleb
Date: 2014-01-06 13:25:20
Canadian

[DrCaleb]

Just a thought - it takes less than 10 years to build a Sub from scratch, doesn't it?

[saturn_656]

Unbelievable. Sometimes I think the brass is drinking the same koolaid the politicians are. You want to roll with the major players and do big jobs you need the big toys (read SSN).

[martin14]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Just a thought - it takes less than 10 years to build a Sub from scratch, doesn't it?

Probably for less money, too.

125 million for some fire damage...

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Just a thought - it takes less than 10 years to build a Sub from scratch, doesn't it?

But the shipyard workers' union got ten years of salary and pension benefits out of it this way.

[saturn_656]

I don't believe for a second that those repairs had to take that long, and I doubt the reason they did lies with the shipyard.

[BartSimpson]

saturn_656 saturn_656:

I don't believe for a second that those repairs had to take that long, and I doubt the reason they did lies with the shipyard.

I don't blame the shipyard, either. But I do suspect that a union and some politicians are the likely culprits of the problem.

[Vamp018]

From reading that article, I am not satisfied with the Canadian Navy and there Submarine crew and training protocols. Seems brass to bottom need a cleaning and purge and the Sub Program needs a major redraw and training proper.

[llama66]

Didn't another Sub collide with the bottom of Arctic Sea?

[Regina]

llama66 llama66:

Didn't another Sub collide with the bottom of Arctic Sea?

Pacific

[Benn]

And the one that has been working, since 2004(?) only just fired it's first real torpedo? WTF?

Sad state.

[Jabberwalker]

martin14 martin14:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Just a thought - it takes less than 10 years to build a Sub from scratch, doesn't it?

Probably for less money, too.

125 million for some fire damage...

It would cost us well over a billion dollars each (more like two) to build one of those subs from scratch. The problem all along seems to be that we bought them "off the rack", in "slightly used" condition and that they didn't meet spec. in the first place. It was all that was left to the Navy after the real submarine purchase was cancelled. We bought them an old (but low mileage) Vauxhall instead of the promised F-150.

[Jabberwalker]

Benn Benn:

And the one that has been working, since 2004(?) only just fired it's first real torpedo? WTF?

Sad state.

The taxpayers of Canada let the Navy down.

[DrCaleb]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Benn Benn:

And the one that has been working, since 2004(?) only just fired it's first real torpedo? WTF?

Sad state.

The taxpayers of Canada let the Navy down.

Like we sign the procurement documents?

[Jabberwalker]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Benn Benn:

And the one that has been working, since 2004(?) only just fired it's first real torpedo? WTF?

Sad state.

The taxpayers of Canada let the Navy down.

Like we sign the procurement documents?

During the Chretien years, they took any crumb that was thrown their way.
"T-Jean" would have been very happy if the navy went "away", entirely, permanently. I believe that these four subs were all that was offered to the Navy and the transaction was a buddy-buddy thing with the British government.
"Sign or resign" was probably the situation at DND headquarters that day.