Navy pumps up fuel budget

Good job Conservatives in getting extra funding for fuel.

I don't think people realized just HOW fast the cost has risen for fuel.

you feel it in your pocket book for a 110L tank. Imagine a 110000L tank(S)!!!

That goes from a few dollars to the mini van to an EXTRA $33000

multiply buy everything in the CF and it is huge costs.

Hawaii? Yep I can see why you would want to have sea trials in Hawaii, and I bet all the top brass just HAVE to go and watch the trials, shame Canada hasn't got any water nearer to themselves, but if you have to suffer.....
When we do run out of fuel and they have to row out to the trials I wonder if they will be in Hawaii?

Worlds mad

Just a couple of points.

We can't go and shoot missiles off anywhere we like. It has to be done in a training range. They are situated off of the southern US. Hawaii and Virginia being one on each coast.

Also, a frigate holds about 600,000 litres of fuel. Double the cost of that and you go from paying 300,000 dollars to fill a boat to 600,000. And then factor in how much gets burned. Our cruise engine burns 1100 litres an hour. One of our turbines burns 5500 litres and hour and then consider that when we're maneuvering, we're usually running two turbines, that burn rate then goes to 11,000 litres and hour of fuel. That doesn't count how much equipment is running at any given time, most mahinery burns from 40litres an hour upwards of 400litres an hour.

It takes a lot of fuel to keep a naval vessel running. I've heard of boats burning the entire load of fuel in 3 days. Which was warranted since they were going to rescue the Chicoutimi..

But, what I don't agree with is taking dignitaries and friends out on "day sails". It costs the taxpayers every salary on that boat as well as thousands of dollars worth of fuel to go and show off for a day for a few people in our community. That's a horrific waste of money. If you factor in salaries for 250ppl who average about 200-250 dollars a day as well as the money allotted to feed them and the guests, I would say the average day sail costs the taxpayers about $60,000 in man power alone and about $60,000 in fuel..

With fuel costs rising, this a perfect time to upgrade to a nuclear fleet. I can't imagine anyone being against this because it increases Canada's security and reduces carbon emissions.

Actually there are. I recall Wullu posting about the difficulties (almost insurmoutable) with Canada acquiring nuclear subs let alone nuclear warships. As I recall he mentioned our complete lack of nuclear trained sailors and the cost associated with retraining the enough naval personel. He mentione NIMBY, which I think is "Not In My BackYard" but I'm not sure about that.

Suffice to say its not as simple as buying a hybrid instead of a regular car.

IMO, a good solution would be for the federal gov't to step in and simply force oil companies to sell them gas at a very reduced rate for military uses and if they bitch about it kindly remind them of all the generous gov't help they have received and the fact that the navy is part and parcel to protecting the very land and country that they are getting their resource from.

I'd love to see Canada get nucs but I also want to remain grounded in reality and that means the cost associated with converting the entire fleet to nuclear capabaility is beyond our capacity without sacrifices the citzenry will not support.

Actually there are. I recall Wullu posting about the difficulties (almost insurmoutable) with Canada acquiring nuclear subs let alone nuclear warships. As I recall he mentioned our complete lack of nuclear trained sailors and the cost associated with retraining the enough naval personel. He mentione NIMBY, which I think is "Not In My BackYard" but I'm not sure about that.

Suffice to say its not as simple as buying a hybrid instead of a regular car.

IMO, a good solution would be for the federal gov't to step in and simply force oil companies to sell them gas at a very reduced rate for military uses and if they bitch about it kindly remind them of all the generous gov't help they have received and the fact that the navy is part and parcel to protecting the very land and country that they are getting their resource from.

I'd love to see Canada get nucs but I also want to remain grounded in reality and that means the cost associated with converting the entire fleet to nuclear capabaility is beyond our capacity without sacrifices the citzenry will not support.

Taxes goto defense, which they already pay.

The initial training would be expensive, but then it becomes a regular thing. I would think the US wouldn't mind selling older nuclear ships such as destroyers to Canada.

If taxes were enough to cover it there wouldn't be a problem. They should provide enough at cost fuel for it not to be a concern for the navy. Given the massive profits they are getting and tiny amount of fuel the navy would need compared to the volume produced I doubt they would balk.

As for the whole training issue I have little first hand knowledge and am only presenting the argument that Wullu, a current sailor, posted about.

As for getting surplus US naval vessels I have always thought that an ideal solution for them complaining we aren't pulling our weight would be for them to sell us surplus equipment but its not that simple. Why hasn't it happened already?

In fact it would cost the US very very little to sell Canada enough equipment to double or even triple our army, navy and airforce yet it hasn't happened. We built our own vessels and bought UK subs, German tanks, and US aircraft.

Obviously its more complicated then that.

I'm quite sure that alot of people have had this very thought for the last 50 years or so.

from 5 bucks to ten?

The problem with a nuclear powered fleet is that most USN ships that are are huge, like carriers and cruisers (I've never heard of a nuclear-powered frigate). Canada has neither the personnel or need for such vessels. Operating one of the USN's older carrier would swallow up every sailor we have and leave no one to sail anything else.

Nuclear submarines would be very effective for year round ops in the Arctic, but with their price tag and the reluctance of either party to spend the money and the US not wanting us to have the technology, I doubt we'll ever get them.

The USN had frigate sized nuclear powered ships during the Cold War, but they deemed them not cost effective and gave up on the idea.

If we really wanted Nuke subs we could always hit up the French, they'll sell to damn near anyone.

Seriously though, what's wrong with sharks that have laser beam weapons strapped to their heads? Maybe we should get the folks at Alliant working on that little beauty!

The USN had frigate sized nuclear powered ships during the Cold War, but they deemed them not cost effective and gave up on the idea.

If we really wanted Nuke subs we could always hit up the French, they'll sell to damn near anyone.

Well, the USN commissioned ships called nuclear frigates, but they were much larger than any frigate in any navy in the world. The Bainbridge, for example, was 8500 tons, more than double a Tribal DDH or Halifax FFH. Even compared to USN frigates, they were much larger. All of the so-called nuclear frigates were called cruisers (CGN) by the mid-70s.

I agree we could have bought Rubis subs. France was willing to sell them Mulroney back in the 80s. The only problem is that they are older and noiser than comparable US/UK boats. Still, IMHO, they would be far better than what we have now.