Now that the RCN has the Upholder/Victorias Up and running, they are proving to be very effective boats.

Lol, so Canadian...laid back yet professional.

@jackmehoff2312

5 жыл бұрын

OceanBlue so you're implying they aren't professional? If you are... you are an ill-informed moron!

@donkeyslayer4661

3 жыл бұрын

Canuk = Soyboy Supreme.

@scottbuckley6578

2 жыл бұрын

@@donkeyslayer4661 supprem lips

I remember when first received the UPHOLDER CLASS SUBMARINE and I can remember all issues they were having with the vessel and its great to see the Victoria Class Submarines DOING A GREAT JOB on their mission

Japan, Germany, Italy and Australia has more advanced subs than we Canadians do, and none of them operate nuclear attack subs. Canada has a much greater coastal regions to cover than all of the countries listed and we don't even have a single decent air-defense destroyer in service anymore (after the commissioning of the Iroquois destroyers). Our military is in a sad state for such a big & prosperous country.

@tz4217

4 жыл бұрын

What do you need advanced subs and air defense for when you have the American army like seriously we aren't fighting anyone

@LanielPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

@@tz4217 - Carry a big stick and no one attacks you. We can't afford a really big stick so at least let's make it as hard as possible for anyone who thinks of attacking (even the Yanks!)

@DurkosTheGamer

3 жыл бұрын

I thought of a different idea. Instead of increasing military funding and such, why not grow a stronger reputation with our allies? We need more countries willing to protect us! The 3 countries willing to protect us are England, France, and The U.S.A. Sure, the U.S is a literal superpower and can definitely help us, and with the aid of the English and French, We’ll definitely be ok. But what if our European friends can’t help us?! We would still have a great chance, but we should still build a stronger relationship with our current allies, or make some new ones. Perhaps like countries like Norway, Australia, Japan, Denmark, and especially Switzerland. Reason why we should build up a strong alliance with Switzerland is because they have SERIOUSLY good training. Reason why is because if another world war breaks out in Europe, they’re fucked. Especially with all this new advanced weapons, they need good military training, just in case someone gets a little angry at Switzerland. Having countries like these examples willing to protect us would definitely help us greatly! But still, we should think about funding the marines more, as well as border security. If we don’t have good border security, it’s over. We need more anti aircraft guns and artillery. That’s what I think we should do.

@ajaxmaintenance5104

3 жыл бұрын

We had the opportunity to buy the Swedish Gotland-class subs which are far superior and would have been cheaper in the long run, but as usual the Canadian Military Procurement system shat the bed and bought the mothballed British Upholder subs that even Pakistan turned down.

@DJones476

3 жыл бұрын

@@DurkosTheGamer _Profound sigh..._ Don't bet on the British. They don't give a wet shart in a tin bucket about Canada. Trust me on this; I know from boots-on-the-ground experience. The United States is our closest friend. Yes, you read that correctly. However, they do get very frustrated with Canadianism, (which I define as a combination of strategic naivety and _willing_ acceptance of mediocrity). Remember that Americans love a winner AND WILL NOT TOLERATE a loser. This is why the more gung ho western Canadians befriend Americans more readily than most eastern Canadians. Of course, I'm not saying that eastern Canadians are losers. What I AM saying is that the American _perception_ of western Canadians is far more favorable.

everybody gangsta until they go under water and forget to close the hatch!

These sub's have a sad history. I hope their future is better. I'm a Aussie and have noticed there is a lot of talent in Canada so I am sure your navy can get these boats functional and effective.

@DJones476

3 жыл бұрын

All Navies have submarine incidents. The difference is that Canada can't help but _publish_ the fuck-ups instead of classifying them! Canadianism is a horrible disease. We brought it on ourselves, and we're lying in the bed we made, but it does need to be cured once and for all! If we don't start taking ourselves seriously, no one else will, either. The United States actually gets extremely frustrated with this Canadian don't-give-a-shit attitude. It pisses me off, too.

This is very nice, though! - Very nice footage! :) Thx x uploading! :)

@Gung_Ho_Vids

10 жыл бұрын

:)

GREAT TO SEE you new we where coming as cleaned the PLACE up....only in Canada

Thank you all for your service

Heh heh! The trainees sleep in the ammunition storage locker!

The diesel Victoria class submarines we purchased from the UK were Royal Navy cast-offs -- not because of obsolescence (they were only 10 or so years old) but ostensibly surplus to Britain's needs. In reality, they were let go for a song because they had severe maintenance issues -- proven beyond a doubt by the number of serious breakdowns after they were acquired by Canada's Liberal government. Even the hull welding is sub-par on at least two of the subs. Proper inspection by Canadian experts prior to purchase would have concluded that these subs were unseaworthy and naval craft not to be considered for purchase. You get exactly what you pay for...

@r.crompton2286

8 жыл бұрын

The 4 Upholder/Victoria class subs sold by the U.K. MoD to Canada were left "in storage" for several years (from approx. 1996 to 2000) awaiting interested buyer(s). Canada wasn't the only country interested. Portugal and Chile were also seriously considering purchasing, but changed their minds. As Canada had abandoned its proposed nuclear sub program due to high costs, they became interested in diesel subs for the right price. The first three subs acquired : HMS Unseen (Victoria) , Ursula (Cornerbrook) and Unicorn (Windsor) required major refitting -- the extent of which turned out to be far more serious and expensive than what was expected to make them fully seaworthy. The Reform Party/Canadian Alliance Opposition attacked the Chretien Gov't for spending so foolishly because of costs that kept skyrocketing . Beyond the faulty welding, I have Googled several links relating to these subs but there are only general historical references to extensive refitting/maintenance issues rather than specifics.

@r.crompton2286

8 жыл бұрын

Pablo Jay I never suggested in anything I wrote that the design of these subs was faulty. But the record shows that there was an abnormally high level of required repairs/maintenance for vessels that only served for a few years following commissioning, suggesting that either the workmanship was faulty or the vessels were not undergoing regular maintenance/repair prior to final decommissioning by the British. In the past day I've found some new websites/links that mention all 4 vessels needed extensive welding repairs. But in addition, HMS Upholder (Chicoutimi) had internal steel-work that was badly corroded which made deep diving impossible; ditto HMS Unicorn (Windsor). HMS Ursula (Cornerbrook) and HMS Unseen needed extensive repairs but not nearly so expensive as the other two. Chicoutimi also had cracked hull valves, defective air turbine pumps, and essential operating equipment was missing. Windsor had broken torpedo tubes, a faulty rudder, tiles on the outside that continually fell off. More money was spent on repairs (for issues unrelated to accidents after Canada acquired the vessels) on Windsor than the other subs -- $ 45 million alone in just one year 2010. When challenged by Canadian authorities as to seaworthiness of the 4 subs, then British Secretary of State for Defence responded, "...buyer must beware..." indicating that the Royal Navy was almost certainly aware of fairly serious problems. If it were otherwise, he would certainly have dismissed the Canadian accusation giving evidence that showed otherwise. But he didn't, and so we should rightly conclude that Canada was offered at least two "lemons" and two others that were not maintained by the British to an optimum level prior to their sale to Canada. That's why they were let go so cheaply. We should have known better. The old adage applies her, " You get what you pay for."

@r.crompton2286

8 жыл бұрын

"...claiming they were lemons by design is a claim made by people who have never been anywhere near a submarine." Nowhere have I intimated that the 4 subs were lemons by design. But perhaps by faulty workmanship/lack of proper maintenance - - and by the way, I have been on board 4 different submarines. " Assumption, a poor one at best, you have no idea why the British decided to divest themselves of conventional boats..." You're right. I have no idea what the true reason(s) are. Frankly nobody can know for sure what another's true motives are. " The boats are 25 years or older what are you expecting factory fresh Cadillacs?" Canada purchased the subs in 1998 when they were 9 years old -- not 25 yrs old. The major problems cited were evident from the time we took delivery -- not just last year as you seem to imply. I'm not at all blaming the Brits for selling us subs in dire need of major repairs. Your MoD secretary was right. We didn't do our home work. Canadian reaction to this sale is mixed. Most blame the Canadian Gov't for trying to buy everything related to national defence " on the cheap." In the long run we probably would have done better by reviving our own nuclear sub industry and not risking spending good money after bad. I agree with you that the 4 Upholder Class subs are working just fine now -- but at crippling repair costs. Again, your MoD was less than forthright about the condition of the the HMS Upholder and HMS Unicorn. Had these 2 vessels needed only the equivalent repairs of the Unseen and the Ursula, the ill feeling in Canada would have in no way reached the level that it did.

@gfkeenan4

7 жыл бұрын

Bit late to the party on this one. But some more info: The the UK MOD put the boats alongside they paid (VSEL/BAE can't remember which) to maintain the submarines in a state ready to go to sea (in effect still in service but maintained purely by a contractor). When the sale came and an inspection was carried out - many maintenance items hadn't been carried out (for example a hull valve that hadn't been maintained so the welding had started to fail etc) and in one a dent was found in the hull that could not be explained. The boats were a good design and in service proved them selves to be very good. But the UK maintains a defence industry strategy and spends vast amounts of money to keep their Submarines going. The Canadian government didn't consider obsolescence when purchasing the boats. The huge defence industrial network in the UK was not engaged with to keep the boats going and therefore you have knowledge fade etc. I.e. a Design Authority on a certain item is let go from a company because the company is no longer required to maintain that item. So when the Canadians found issues who do they call? Allot of items had to be reverse engineered or replace which is why it is taken so long to get into service (properly). You can see the Canadian governments reasons which was to continue with the success of the O-Boats. But those boats were operated by the UK, Australia and the Canadians and had all the industrial machine of UK defence industry behind them. It was just poor procurement and BAE (or who ever it was) not maintaining them as contracted to do so before sale. But at least the Canadians are making a success of them now!

@udayanpaul8042

7 жыл бұрын

+Pablo Jay u ve replied it very nicely

If Canada's procurement of these few old subs was so great the comments wouldn't be disabled on so many KZread videos. You have to search far and wide to find one accepting comments so here goes: Canada's military personnel are second to none in their training and capabilities....I know this first hand as a CF veteran myself. Having said that, they are suffering a grave disservice at the hands of Canadian politicians AND Canadian voters who quietly acquiesce to the the pathetically small funding given the CF. Canada on average spends slightly more than 1% of it's GDP on the military which lags far behind the world's average of 2.2% and in this era of a resurgent Russia and China pushing its hegemony far beyond its shores isn't enough. The true measure of a country's military might is to sortie and sustain forces sufficient to repel or deter an enemy. Canada can't do that and unlikely never will. Some of you are content to rely on America to defend Canadian soil, I for one am not.

@TomHill665

4 жыл бұрын

Canadians Make do. Its commendable yet sad. The work to keep things working must be nearly impossible though they keep grinding.

@TomHill665

4 жыл бұрын

I dont Blame you Derek. I live in Buffalo NY. I Know how you feel. My state is controlled by New York City and it sucks. For Canadians applied on a national level by cities must suck for your nation's Forces. I Dont expect that the Canadian Military is loaded with people from the cities but from the suburbs and rural areas much like in the US.

@hockeyrulz100

3 жыл бұрын

@@TomHill665 Nah I am from the city and joined the Military, not really a fair representation of CF Members

@TomHill665

3 жыл бұрын

@@hockeyrulz100 Good point i should not have generalized that City folk didnt join their respective countries Military. I do however stand by my other statement regarding urban areas controlling policy.

@Meowface.

3 жыл бұрын

Kind of feel like it's time canada considered purchasing it's military vehicles aircraft and equipment from other allied nations... Seems unreasonable to reward the usa with large military purchases after they continue to screw canada with trade, tarrifs , canceled projects...year after year time and time again

Canadian torpedoes have "We're Sorry" painted on the side....

I think the victoria class are pretty decent for their age but Canada should buy some replacements. Astute class, 212 or Barracuda maybe.

@emilianoshort

4 жыл бұрын

Or just an original design. Surely the RCN could figure it out.

@paullomax4038

4 жыл бұрын

@@emilianoshort that would be amazing! The Sea Arrow.

@LanielPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

@@emilianoshort - Yeah - but expensive as heck!

Can’t make the west Edmonton mall joke anymore, they lost their subs.

@meteor5452

5 жыл бұрын

where do you think the navy got these?

I truly feel sorry for our Armed Forces who are routinely called upon to defend this land and aid abroad with substandard equipment. Yet the Gov't spends $127,000 on crystal glassware, $32,000 on 86 seat cushions, and on and on. Absolutely disgusting. Maybe our politicians should work with limited resources.

@bw2442

3 жыл бұрын

S. J. Hunter Maybe these issues should be heard thruout the land and train your country how to identify liberals from conservatives and vote accordingly.

Way too much analog to be a modern sub...designed in the 1970s. Good job politicians and procurement pros...

@kingjames7273

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed but deadly silent and the targeting is superior to most modern boats

@scottmccambley764

3 жыл бұрын

All the digital was hidden behind covers in all those shots. It does have a sea-wolf class fire control system

@happyface96

3 жыл бұрын

It doesn't matter if it's analog. What matters most is inclusion and politeness.

@DJones476

3 жыл бұрын

@@scottmccambley764 You happen to be correct, Scott. That's all I'm willing to say. The rest, as they say, is classified. Indeed, the Victoria-class is far from being the old junker that the ignorant masses believe them to be.

@louisdugas4067

2 жыл бұрын

Comme un vieux radio 1930

GO CANADA GO

Why didn't the CO salute the quarterdeck?

@TheCjcoon

3 жыл бұрын

When you live in a submarine for long periods after a while fresh food runs out, 12 hr day 7 a week of work, and stuck in a tube under water its easier to drop the I'm this rank attitude and just be buddy buddy ..fyi someone on reddit posted his military sub. life that's why I'm mentioning this cheers

@DJones476

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, submarine service tends to be a shitload more casual than say, destroyer service.

@jaideedave

3 жыл бұрын

@@DJones476 Yes D. you are correct.I was a Quartermaster aboard the old "Rainbow" from 1971-74.We were allowed a lot more perks than our surface sailors. In home port we usually only worked from 0800-1300. When we arrived in most ports the Supply Officer and Senior chief went ashore and got us paid hotel rooms. (2 sharing) Haircuts were not a big deal,civvy clothing at sea,great food,not to mention extra pay. I'd definitely do it all over again.Dave Conners LSBN.

@DJones476

3 жыл бұрын

@@jaideedave Holy shit! That's pretty awesome! Things are a _little_ tighter now, especially the booze.😒

Between 2000 and 2010 it was only in service for 115 days. Without a major refit, it's only good for another 5 years. The refit will cost about 3 billion dollars. Only slightly less than buying NEW submarines.

Is this some wire-guided MK 48 ADCAP?

@jimmygreen281

8 жыл бұрын

+Grunge LovR It could be either the MK 48 mod 5 or the MK 48 mod 7. The CDN navy got approval from Congress to buy the upgraded MK 48 mod 7 in 2014 I believe.

@grungelovr5798

8 жыл бұрын

Jimmy Green Thanks that's great to know. I didn't know this at all. I'm passionate of nuclear submarines. Or should I say Modern submarines because this one is a diesel one. They`re all extremely fascinating to me.

@johnwang9914

5 жыл бұрын

The torpedoes were the same ones used in the Oberon fleet but the Canadians paid $1.5 million each to upgrade them to the latest standards however had they just bought new ones, it would've cost a million each and they would still have their stock of old torpedoes. Also, had they just kept the British system and bought British torpedoes, they would've retained the ability to launch anti-ship missiles.

Weren't these about 50 years old at the time? The UK used them for about 30 years had them in mothballs for 15 and then Canada had to spend who knows how long fixing them up. Our military deserves better!

@BL-bg1fj

3 жыл бұрын

They were built in the 1990s meaning they aren’t actually that old

@alpearson9158

3 жыл бұрын

no please get informed before commenting

Does Canada have any current plans to to aquire more submarines. (haveing patrolled the Canadian atlantic cost). 4 submarines does not seem to be enough. And what about the Artic waters.

@Baseshocks

9 жыл бұрын

Not any time soon the surface fleet needs a overhaul.

@TONSBERG100

9 жыл бұрын

Baseshocks why not aquire nuclear powered attack submarines. Canada needs under the ice capability. relying on the USN for that task will only make the canadian waters of the artic, international waters.

@Baseshocks

9 жыл бұрын

ERIK SAGER Money, their is a budget and right now everything in the navy needs to be replaced. The majority of Canadian tax payers don't want to spend it. That can be debated, a larger icebreaker with sonar can do the same thing. The Victoria class can stay underwater for 2 weeks at a time, potentially longer with newer systems. U.S subs do not patrol Canadian territory as far as i know they travel through the Arctic.

@TONSBERG100

9 жыл бұрын

Baseshocks The victoria is of limited endurance. The icebreaker will be to noisy to hear anything. while breaking ice. "But I do understand the cost." Under the terms of NATO the US should be patroling. That was always my understanding. But anyway I have a strong impression that USN and the Russian navy are sneaking around the artic with contempt for Canadian maritime sovernity. Its less of a problem if the USN is there ,But the Russians, need anymore be said since they claim they own the artic. I think Canada has a good surface fleet. but lacking in a submarine force. That is just my opionion .I came to this site to lean more about this

@Baseshocks

9 жыл бұрын

ERIK SAGER Huge difference when the Russians go through the disputed land previously unclaimed and Canadian sovereign territory. Check out the forms 'army.ca', its pretty much the unofficial Canadian forces forms, military members are posting news and debating policy's on current/past events. I would take the posts of these lady's and gents over the media any day.

Maybe they should paint one white to blend in with their surrounding:) hehe

@johnwang9914

5 жыл бұрын

The conning tower (sail) is made of fiberglass so this sub can't surface through ice. No point in painting it white

What were the Brits thinking when they built these subs?

@summer20105707

6 жыл бұрын

They were likely thinking they needed diesels to match the Soviet Kilo's.

@mikemanners1069

4 жыл бұрын

@OceanBlue Yeah.....the Canadians got swindled.....

@bulletproofguy5112

3 жыл бұрын

@@mikemanners1069 no they didn’t, tney are good submarines no matter how bad they were treated by Canada, crashing, fire ect. They will prove effective just like they were designed to be. I’m glad britains currently building 11 new nuc,ear submarines..

@normanboyes4983

2 жыл бұрын

They were so rubbish the RN did not want to lose their unique operational capability but were essential forced into a corner by MOD and had to lay them up. Once that decision was made the RN had no further budgetary responsibility for them and they became the responsibility of the Defence Export Services Organisation who hawked them around and spent the minimum of money to provide ‘shipkeeping services’ every month that by those boats deteriorated and they were laid up for years. No one forced the Canadians to buy them, they were and are perfectly competent to carry out rigorous technical assessments. So not a case of U.K. sellling a pup but Canada buying a pup.

@boratb258

2 жыл бұрын

@@bulletproofguy5112 The fire started on the way back because the wiring was not shielded from salt water. Who the fuck builds a sub and does not shield the wiring from a little flooding. The subs had to be stripped and everything had to be replaced costing billions, would have been cheaper to buy 4 new subs.

"So.. this is... Basically"

Would love to see the RCN design and build at least 10 new SSKs with AIP systems and stronger, deeper diving hulls. Along with VLS systems to enable RCN SSKs to fight a broader variety of threats. Along with the Mark48 ADCAP Block 111 torpedoes already carried, VLS allows the use of cruise missiles and antiship missiles that would allow the subs to track and target large surface ships and other sub from greater distances. The VLS tubes would also allow RCN subs to provide bombardment of onshore targets should an Army unit required fire support. Due to training and maintenance rotations, this would leave Canada with a formidable sub surface fleet that can actually give other nations, including those that illegal enter Canadian territory to poach fish and make false claims to Canadian territory.. Hello Russia!! With 10-12 subs this would allow Canada to project some naval power when required. It would also place the RCN back in the Blue Water Navy class of nations where it belongs. With 10-12 ultra quiet AIP/SSKs this would allow the RCN to have at least 8 boats in action while the other 2-4 are in for regular maintenance cycles and crew training. Leaving Canada with a high rate of readiness along with an expanded surface fleet. Go RCN Silent Service Go!!

@johnwang9914

5 жыл бұрын

The irony is that before retrofitting the upholder class with the Mark 48 weapon systems recovered from the decommisioned Oberon subs, the Upholder class could launch anti-ship missiles. After the retrofit, it could not. It also cost $1.5 million to upgrade each of the old mark 48 torpedoes to modern standards when brand new ones could've been purchased for a million each.

The only reason to command a sub would be to force your crew to refer to you as Herr Kaluen.

What a lovely and spacious submarine! Looks very comfortable. Upholder class is really good quality submarine. But I am not sure it is relevant to Canadian Navy though. That sub was design to close GIUK gap against Soviet Navy during in the event of WW 3.

@bambang303378

9 жыл бұрын

Brad 5605 Perhaps so. But Russian doctrine is quite different than Soviet one. But with the crash of oil price and Rubel. I doubt Russia would try anything funny now days. Too broke to do anything.

You mean a tube full of anxiety?

Reminds me of Das Boot.

sleeping next to torpedos n shit?! no problem

@joeturner1597

7 жыл бұрын

Been there done that.

This guy is what I imagine to be a typical canadian. He wanted to be a mounty but filled out the wrong form. nice sub though

@supremecmder6107

8 жыл бұрын

+Bernd Lauert He's a Commander within the Canadian Navy, which is second-in command of the boat. Its better the RCMP!

@tomlarocque4720

8 жыл бұрын

+Bernd Lauert Ya sure everyone wants to be a fucking meat head...shut up Bernd!

@LanielPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

@@tomlarocque4720 -Your potty mouth and foul language really impresses me......

@tomlarocque4720

4 жыл бұрын

@@LanielPhoto like i care what you think...

@LanielPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

@@tomlarocque4720 - Of course. Foul mouths never care what other people think. Or care about good manners. Or care about couth. Or care about even resembling a gentleman.

Lots of idiots here putting down these subs.. These subs are extremely quiet and hard to detect. Nuke subs make much more sound.

Ok

What do they use it for...? Seal Hunting ....? .....or to play with the dolphins.....

@meteor5452

5 жыл бұрын

cant use it for sub things. they where rusted out and fucked 20 years ago BEFORE canada bought them

@johnwang9914

5 жыл бұрын

The main purpose for a sub is stealth. The enemy does not know where it is so must assume it is in the vicinity. In actual war time, a lot of subs are needed to have an effect but in relative peace time use, a few subs covers a lot of territory and territory is something Canada has a lot of.

@LanielPhoto

4 жыл бұрын

AeroManiac - Better to keep one's mouth shut and have people think you are stupid rather than say it and have them know it! You really don't know what we do with our subs???

Huge difference from Iranian submarine

@nurashams4093

5 жыл бұрын

which one?

These subs reached the end of their operational life about a couple of years ago. The Trudeau government, true to form, decided to do an extensive upgrade instead of even considering moving to a new, safer sub. Last week, an ancient Tudor Jet of the Canadian Snowbirds crashed shortly after take off killing one pilot. That jet was built in the 1960s / 1970s and has been on a life extension program ever since the Trudeau government refused to honor a commitment to buy new BAE Hawk Trainer jets for the Snowbirds. The same life extension programs are now applied to the old Canadian CF-18 Hornets after the disaster of the Super Hornet and F-35 procurements. Canada has a very dysfunctional military procurement policy that is left to the whims of politicians who know nothing about defense and even less about the safety of our people in uniform. This is beyond embarrassing.

@undercoverhustler37

2 жыл бұрын

Spending more money on the armed forces is not popular among the voting class

@devilshadow5256

2 жыл бұрын

Sadly, I agree to this

@boratb258

2 жыл бұрын

Liberals don't give a shit about the military, i'm just happy they did not cancel the type 26 procurement.

Landlords

When I saw the thumbnail I thought it was the nautilus. Then I saw it was the Canadian navy. Smh

Canadian torpedos don't have explosives.

A complete messy submarine. This submarine cannot war.

Good sailers- bad politicians! Get some German class subs next and beware the rocket torpedo...200kph! or get some

@johnwang9914

5 жыл бұрын

Those supersonic torpedoes can't be steered so they're back to the WWII predictive shots and spread techniques. Besides, it's all about launching anti-ship missiles now rather than come in so close that you'll have difficulty escaping once they know you're there. The interesting thing is that by ripping out the British weapons system to install the US weapons system recovered from the old subs, Canada lost the ability to launch anti-ship missiles plus Canada paid $1.5 millions per torpedo to upgrade those old mark 48 torpedoes when they could've just bought new modern mark 48's for $1 million each and saved the old ones for target practice or when the used all the new ones if we're ever in combat.

Captain! We detected a russian sub... Understood! Now, let's charge the batteries. :D

Seriously, did it make sense to pay $1.5 million to upgrade each mark 48 torpedo when it costs $1 million each to buy new modern ones. Then there was retrofitting the weapon systems from the decommisioned Oberons to the subs rather than stay with the British system. At least with the British system, you could launch anti-ship missiles. Sure, I understand that you have US consultants on contract from the manufacturers for the US system but really does it take that much to get your own engineers trained appropriately rather than count on contractors from the manufacturer. Besides, despite the contract with the UK including all attachments he reference material, the subsequent sale of the subs manufacturer to a German company means Canada does not have access to the maintenance manuals and has had to reverse engineer all the procedures from scratch. Seriously, Canada could've designed and built their own subs for what it has cost to renovate these for operation.

You get to cuddle up with torpedo's...Hmm pillows mixed with ammunition , that's kinda scary. I guess that kinda danger comes with the territory but still. .. I'm sorry our government is to cheap to give you better equipment! Thank you for serving always! Government get these gentlemen some proper beds for christ sakes how do you expect them to save the country without proper sleep! Smh

We are in need of new subs. I'd rather spend a few billion then a few billion every 5 years to keep em going. Designed in the 80s and already failed in the 90s onward.

@murdrrr9677

4 жыл бұрын

@@doogleticker5183 so agree. Politicians and Canadians should bd ashamed.

Dude is goofy as hell.

Terrible design, British got rid of them for a reason.

Jesus Christ! What an embarrassment! I left the Canadian military after a wasted five years. Looks like I made the right move. Those Upholders were a joke on Canada. We got them for a song because Britain discovered their maintenance costs were exponential to their value. Seriously, look at this video and tell me if you feel intimidated by this boat!

@supremecmder6107

8 жыл бұрын

+ThePennyPincher .....

@risingpower3658

8 жыл бұрын

+ThePennyPincher I suggest you try and FIND this boat when it is on batteries. Not going to happen.

@aalpha3

8 жыл бұрын

Lol, it's very clear you were kicked out. Glad we're rid of you.

@nikolai3620

7 жыл бұрын

Dishonourable discharge, eh? Haha.

@Spaseebo

6 жыл бұрын

Why say "Jesus Christ" ?

Look how old this tub is get rid of it and build our own....stop wasting money on second hand garbage.

What a "make-work" project these junk submarines are...so Canadian!