Ouch! HMCS Corner Brook Damage

[Randomizer]

Looks like the Navy kept the extent of the damage pretty much in house.

CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/02/13/ns-hmcs-corner-brook-damage.html)

[sidmo001]

Next to he Sea King fiasco, the purchase of these Victoria class Subs has to be one of the biggest debacles in Canadian military history.

[CCIP]

At the very least, the boats have had about the worst luck possible!

[magicstix]

Guess the Canadians didn't learn anything from USS San Francisco...

[CaptainHaplo]

Its really sad since these (originally Upholder class) were well designed boats. However, the design never really translated into the build. The boats really never got the full "Royal Navy" treatment upon commissioning - literally - the bugs never got worked out. Then they get decommissioned, sit in mothballs and finally get "recommissioned" many years later...

Within 3 years - Ursula - now Corner Brook - needed a refit. Still a design with "bugs" - and no offense to our Northern allies - but Canada doesn't have quite the naval tradition or know-how that the British do - so a lot of problems never got found and fixed.

4 boats - one catches fire due to a hatch being left open (not a bright move by our Canuck friends), Windsor is undergoing a refit that looks to be taking 6 yrs (as of now). Victoria suffered massive damage when Canadian naval personnel hooked up a generator they shouldn't have. And now Corner Brook is out of action due to an avoidable accident.

I have to say the Canadians seriously need to reconsider their desire to operate subs.... As of this point it doesn't look like the Canadians are properly trained to move on from the old Oberon Class - even though they are no longer in service.

[sidmo001]

Its really sad since these (originally Upholder class) were well designed boats. However, the design never really translated into the build. The boats really never got the full "Royal Navy" treatment upon commissioning - literally - the bugs never got worked out. Then they get decommissioned, sit in mothballs and finally get "recommissioned" many years later...

Within 3 years - Ursula - now Corner Brook - needed a refit. Still a design with "bugs" - and no offense to our Northern allies - but Canada doesn't have quite the naval tradition or know-how that the British do - so a lot of problems never got found and fixed.

4 boats - one catches fire due to a hatch being left open (not a bright move by our Canuck friends), Windsor is undergoing a refit that looks to be taking 6 yrs (as of now). Victoria suffered massive damage when Canadian naval personnel hooked up a generator they shouldn't have. And now Corner Brook is out of action due to an avoidable accident.

I have to say the Canadians seriously need to reconsider their desire to operate subs.... As of this point it doesn't look like the Canadians are properly trained to move on from the old Oberon Class - even though they are no longer in service.

I've always been a proponent of the Canadian Navy going after an LHD or LPD fleet. With the amount of money the DND has sunk in to these 4 subs, we could of purchased a couple of Wasp Class LHD's, or a San Antonio LPD.

[magicstix]

I've always been a proponent of the Canadian Navy going after an LHD or LPD fleet. With the amount of money the DND has sunk in to these 4 subs, we could of purchased a couple of Wasp Class LHD's, or a San Antonio LPD.

LHD and LPD = submarine bait. That's probably why they didn't get them over subs.

[sidmo001]

LHD and LPD = submarine bait. That's probably why they didn't get them over subs.

Canada has the United States Navy and the Royal Navy as allies when it comes to having Subs and screening ships.

Canada on the other hand does not have an ability to transport Expeditionary Forces on it's own. LHD's and LPD's would be perfect for this role.

As it stands right now the DND is renting services from the Russians to get men and material in and out of Afghanistan via An's and Tu services.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Canada has the United States Navy and the Royal Navy as allies when it comes to having Subs and screening ships.I wouldn't count to Americans and Britons having enough vessels for helping you in time of need. Ofcourse it can be questionable if British Royal Navy even have missiles onboard their vessels then.

Canada on the other hand does not have an ability to transport Expeditionary Forces on it's own. LHD's and LPD's would be perfect for this role.And for what it needs that capability? With couple of LHDs and/or LPDs you are not going to do forced entry to anywhere without someone elses protection. Without escort they are just high price torpedo practice targets.

As it stands right now the DND is renting services from the Russians to get men and material in and out of Afghanistan via An's and Tu services.That is unlikely to change with ship purchase. Unless you buy some own heavy transport aircraft you are still going to need Russians in future.

[sidmo001]

I wouldn't count to Americans and Britons having enough vessels for helping you in time of need. Ofcourse it can be questionable if British Royal Navy even have missiles onboard their vessels then.

The only possible enemies of Canada in any type of armed conflict are likely Russia and China. Russia and China don't have the navies (even combined) to mount any type of serious threat to the East or Western North American coasts.

It's almost a guarantee that in any armed conflict with either of these nations that the US would guarantee the sovereignty and defence of Canada's coasts.

And for what it needs that capability? With couple of LHDs and/or LPDs you are not going to do forced entry to anywhere without someone elses protection. Without escort they are just high price torpedo practice targets.

Canada doesn't need to do any forced entries, nor would we have any capability to do so anyway.

The Wasps or San Antonio's I speak of would be to transport our troops and equipment to and fro from 'x' region when need be.

That is unlikely to change with ship purchase. Unless you buy some own heavy transport aircraft you are still going to need Russians in future.

LPD's and LHD's would cut a significant amount of need for Russia's air transport services moving forward.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

The only possible enemies of Canada in any type of armed conflict are likely Russia and China. Russia and China don't have the navies (even combined) to mount any type of serious threat to the East or Western North American coasts.

It's almost a guarantee that in any armed conflict with either of these nations that the US would guarantee the sovereignty and defence of Canada's coasts.With current U.S. Navy and British Royal Navy (in lesser extent) I don't doubt that. However with U.S. somewhat "challenging" economical situation I wouldn't count on that to be true in future.

Regardless I don't see such war happening unless Washington decides to wage one. That is ofcourse just my opinion.

Canada doesn't need to do any forced entries, nor would we have any capability to do so anyway.

The Wasps or San Antonio's I speak of would be to transport our troops and equipment to and fro from 'x' region when need be.

LPD's and LHD's would cut a significant amount of need for Russia's air transport services moving forward.Then I would buy some Ro-Ro ferries for that purpose. LHD and LPD are (in my opinion) unnecessarily expensive to act as simple transports. If flight deck is absolutely necessary then installing hangar and helipad shouldn't be too expensive.

[u crank]

Original cost for four used diesel subs: 750 million.

Repair bill since purchase: 1 billion.

Total estimated cost by 2016: 3 billion.

Total number of boats currently in service: 0.

Age of boats when all back in service in 2016: 30 years.

As a Canadian tax payer I can only say this is one heck of a deal. What a country. :har:

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

Original cost for four used diesel subs: 750 million.

Repair bill since purchase: 1 billion.

Total estimated cost by 2016: 3 billion.

Total number of boats currently in service: 0.

Age of boats when all back in service in 2016: 30 years.

As a Canadian tax payer I can only say this is one heck of a deal. What a country. :har:Well, its not dumb who asks, but who pays. :D

[u crank]

Well, its not dumb who asks, but who pays. :D

Roger that. It's best not to think about it. Is it to early for a drink? :yep:

[Kapitan]

For that price they could have bought a couple of type 212's which would have suited them better.

Canada should has a good size fleet but it relys on the USA and UK to aid its defence weaknesses.

A good fleet for canada imho would be.

2 x LPD much like the ocean or albion of the UK
6 x DDG nothing too brash or expencive along the lines of the Type 45
12 x FFG again the size and cost of british type 23's
10 x other units such as mine warfare and costal patrol craft
4 x SSK submarines like the type 212 as it would give atleast 25 years of service before needing replacement

i didnt put a carrier down because theres no real need for canada to have one.

[Jimbuna]

Those ex-Oberon have certainly been unlucky for them :hmmm:

[Oberon]

Those ex-Oberon have certainly been unlucky for them :hmmm:

:hmmm:


Upholder/Victoria class
http://www.military-today.com/navy/upholder.jpg

Oberon class
http://naval-museum.mb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/ojibwa.jpg


Canadas Oberons were quite reliable, more so than the Upholders, sadly, but that's more to do with the fact that the Upholders were decommissioned virtually as soon as they were commissioned, and spent a good few years in mothballs.

[Jimbuna]

:hmmm:

Canadas Oberons were quite reliable, more so than the Upholders, sadly, but that's more to do with the fact that the Upholders were decommissioned virtually as soon as they were commissioned, and spent a good few years in mothballs.

I thought I'd posted 'Upholder'....bloody dyslexic fingers :damn:



:oops: :DL

[TLAM Strike]

For that price they could have bought a couple of type 212's which would have suited them better.

Canada should has a good size fleet but it relys on the USA and UK to aid its defence weaknesses.

A good fleet for canada imho would be.

2 x LPD much like the ocean or albion of the UK
6 x DDG nothing too brash or expencive along the lines of the Type 45
12 x FFG again the size and cost of british type 23's
10 x other units such as mine warfare and costal patrol craft
4 x SSK submarines like the type 212 as it would give atleast 25 years of service before needing replacement

i didnt put a carrier down because theres no real need for canada to have one.

I think for a country like Canada the role of DDG and FFG should be one. Much like the Spanish Navy's mini-Aegis frigates.

Canada has a nice coastal patrol/MHC boat the Kingston class. Its multi-use and would be a nice base for a more advanced OPV.

For Submarines I would almost say they would need none, but if they were dead set on buying some a small scale coastal boat like the new KSS 500A would be what they should invest in.

Also since they are involved in lots of NATO support missions their Anphib capabilities should be more geared to delivering supplies to exiting ports not for landing on the beach (ships like the Lewis and Clark class would be ideal over a Albion) and they should procure more AORs.

[Kapitan]

i could agree with that but it does depend on the type of role they wish to play, do they really want to go back to the 1920's or become more of a player or even sit on the fence.

The reason why i think canada needs SSK's is simple:

The have a border which is on the artic ocean,it is known forign submarines transit canadian waters and in some places are inaccessible to FFG or DDG's so realy imho they do need atleast 4 subs to maintain a watch in that area atleast

[Jimbuna]

i could agree with that but it does depend on the type of role they wish to play, do they really want to go back to the 1920's or become more of a player or even sit on the fence.

The reason why i think canada needs SSK's is simple:

The have a border which is on the artic ocean,it is known forign submarines transit canadian waters and in some places are inaccessible to FFG or DDG's so realy imho they do need atleast 4 subs to maintain a watch in that area atleast

Your probably right and the history thus far of submarine purchaces probably confirms that strategy/thinking.

[magicstix]

i could agree with that but it does depend on the type of role they wish to play, do they really want to go back to the 1920's or become more of a player or even sit on the fence.

The reason why i think canada needs SSK's is simple:

The have a border which is on the artic ocean,it is known forign submarines transit canadian waters and in some places are inaccessible to FFG or DDG's so realy imho they do need atleast 4 subs to maintain a watch in that area atleast

SSKs don't have the endurance to go under the icecaps, so they don't really help with the accessibility issue.

[magicstix]

We have the largest navy in the world, bigger than the next 13 on the list combined -- no ones going to be picking on our brothers to the north :cool:

Yeah, picking on the Canadians is our job. :>

[CaptainHaplo]

Yeah, picking on the Canadians is our job. :>

Hey, they deserve it - they gave us celine dion after all....

Oh wait - she is kinda hot...

[u crank]

Yeah, picking on the Canadians is our job. :>

Thanks man, we appreciate it. :salute:

[Kapitan]

We have the largest navy in the world, bigger than the next 13 on the list combined -- no ones going to be picking on our brothers to the north :cool:

only by tonnage not by numbers if you want to include all reserve fleet the russians take it as they have more light craft in reserve then you have in the entire navy ok fair enough most of them cant be used but that statement isnt 100% correct.

also they would have it by tonnage as a nimitz carrier is what 100,00ton x 10 plus the enterprise that alone beats any navy.

The USN does have my favorite class of DDG though Burkes are the best :yeah: