stokes stokes:
The problem isnt the subs themselves but more how the Brits wont share the plans with us so we can manufacture our own spares and their companies are dragging their feet getting us replacement parts...wish these reporters would actually do some proper research
You pretty much nailed that but there was also the dents below the waterline that had to be repaired as well and the asbestos was everywhere as well. I think it is somewhat fair to blame the UK contractors in the delays but really as a nation we should be looking to our on resources in this effort. We need the hulls but we don't need the sensors, weapons or propulsion even. All of that we can and should be making ourselves but we been submarining on the cheap since WWII. There is a whole industry built around their boats that we have to provide, not the Brits and we haven't invested and it shows up here. If we want Mark 48's to be fired down a tube any hull will do but if you want it done right then we have to be able to support our own military shipping and no other country is going to do that for us.
$1:
Footnote: The other question I ponder, as I paddle past the submarine repair shed into Esquimalt Harbour, is how the government can claim the boats were urgently needed when we have managed perfectly well over the past decade without them.
That's a PR problem more than anything. We have three wet boarders and subs have been very effective for us before and they will be again. We could looks to the
auzzies and the Collins class subs they built from scratch but this footnote is asking if we should have a dam sub program at all. It's like saying why have an army if the Yanks have one argument.
Forum Elite 
CKA Moderator 
