Military scrambled over foreign sub sighting

This is why we need subs capable of year-round Arctic operations.

We should order some British Astute SSN's.

Yep, prime reason for subs over icebreakers.

Sound's like some of the natives where fishing for beluga's with dynamite again.

As nice as that would be, it simply won't happen. They wouldn't sell us Trafalgars when we looked into nuke boats in the 80s, and they won't sell these either, mainly because they are afraid the US will cut off technology transfers to them.

No, if we're going to buy them, we have to build thme ourselves or buy French ones. This is one instance where I would never suggest Russian/Chinese equipment as they are way too unsafe. The last thing we need is a 'Kursk incident' of our own.

Either way we need equipmet to enforce our Arctic claims!

As nice as that would be, it simply won't happen. They wouldn't sell us Trafalgars when we looked into nuke boats in the 80s, and they won't sell these either, mainly because they are afraid the US will cut off technology transfers to them.

No, if we're going to buy them, we have to build thme ourselves or buy French ones. This is one instance where I would never suggest Russian/Chinese equipment as they are way too unsafe. The last thing we need is a 'Kursk incident' of our own.


I thought Canada had greater access to US tech than the UK did?

Any links to this?

As nice as that would be, it simply won't happen. They wouldn't sell us Trafalgars when we looked into nuke boats in the 80s, and they won't sell these either, mainly because they are afraid the US will cut off technology transfers to them.

No, if we're going to buy them, we have to build thme ourselves or buy French ones. This is one instance where I would never suggest Russian/Chinese equipment as they are way too unsafe. The last thing we need is a 'Kursk incident' of our own.


I thought Canada had greater access to US tech than the UK did?

Any links to this?

There are claims to both sides of the argument;

http://byers.typepad.com/arctic/2009/03 ... laims.html

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/04/28/world ... wanted=all

Frankly, the argument that the USN didn't want us poking our noses around up there is more credible to me. I can't imagine either the US or UK wanting us intruding on what they likely feel as their turf.

we are going to loose the arctic if our governments don't step up to the plate. EVERYONE has acknowledged we need more monitoring and armed ice breakers etc but no one is doing anything about it. It will be to late if we weight much longer.

PS there is no way we can afford nuke subs, get over it. The Brits only have a handful of them and it is costing so much it is breaking the Navy. They are down to under 22 operational surface ships.

Sounds funny but without their carriers and subs, the Canadian Navy is almost as big. Why? nuke subs are almost prohibitively expensive to operate.

Fascinating news.

Why is DND trying to bury it?

why? because then they would have to admit two things

1. their was a foreign military vessel in Canadian waters that they had ZERO knowledge of (so much for 'defending Canada')

2. they would have to admit there was FUCK ALL they could do about it.

They might also have to admit that they don't want to do anything about it.

If Harper promised to do what he was supposed to do during his election, we wouldn't have sub explosions everwhere. Deep water port, still waiting. Arctic vessals? I don't hear the 'cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war' yet.

I seriously doubt thats the case.