Canada Submarine Fleet: Paul Maddison, Royal Canadian Navy Head, Will Stay Until 2030

Hmcs Victoria

First Posted: 02/27/2012 5:35 pm Updated: 02/29/2012 10:39 am

OTTAWA - Canada's glitch-prone, second-hand submarines will be with the navy until at least 2030, but defence planners will begin drawing up a replacement program within the next four years.

Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, head of the Royal Canadian Navy, told a Senate committee Monday that losing the capability of underwater surveillance and attack would be a "dire day for Canada."

With the federal government in deficit-slashing mode, Ottawa has been awash in rumours about the future of submarine program and that the navy might be asked to give up one — or more — of the boats.

"In terms of surveillance of our ocean approaches and the protection of our own sovereignty, I would consider a submarine capability critical and so to lose that for a G8 nation, a NATO country like Canada, a country that continues to lead internationally, and aspires to lead more, I would consider that a critical loss," Maddison said.

Since they were purchased from the British in the late 1990s, the four Victoria-class submarines have faced a series of costly and spectacular setbacks to the point where even Defence Minister Peter MacKay recently acknowledged they have "spotty" history.

The navy is currently conducting a submarine life-extension analysis to see what it would take to keep the current boats operating.

"Assuming that Canadians will continue to see a submarine capability as a critical capability for our Canadian Forces," he said, "I would envision initiating a next generation submarine discussion within the next three or four years in order to go through the various procurement and project planning, approval and funding gates to ensure there is no gap in submarine capability, which is what we faced in the 1990s."

Maddison's comments build on a public relations exercise last week that saw him and the country's top military commander, Gen. Walt Natynczyk, take a group of reporters aboard HMCS Victoria for an undersea diving exercise off Esquimalt, B.C. to demonstrate its capability.

The military has felt tremendous pressure since the CBC broadcast photos of a damaged HMCS Corner Brook, which smacked into the Pacific Ocean bottom last June. The images raised questions for the operational future of the boat, which Maddison says was never in question.

Yet, technical hurdles converting British systems, a fatal fire aboard one boat, and accidents have meant that the country currently has no combat-ready submarines, almost 15 years after they were purchased.

Maddison says HMCS Victoria will complete the test firing of its first torpedoes next week and be followed by HMCS Windsor in the fall — meaning by early next year there will be operational boats on two coasts.

HMCS Chicouitimi, which was ravaged by a 2004 fire on its maiden voyage to Canada, is expected to return to the fleet in 2013, he said.

In addition to being fixed, the Corner Brook has entered a refit which will keep the boat in the water for another 15 years.

The Chretien government bought the submarines from Britain in 1998 at a cost of $750 million, but since then National Defence has pumped over $1 billion into repairing and converting them to Canadian use.

To justify the purchase, former defence minister Art Eggleton said they would be updated with an air independent propulsion system to allow the boats to operate under Arctic ice — something that hasn't panned out.

Nuclear-powered submarines are considered the best for Arctic operations.

Maddison suggested, in considering replacements, the nuclear option would be off-the-table, but that planners would look at technology that's out there — mostly German and Swedish — that allows conventional subs to remain submerged for extended periods of time.

During his testimony, Maddison also revived the idea that the navy should possess an amphibious assault ship, a proposal christened by former chief of defence staff, retired general Rick Hillier, as the "Big Honkin' Ship."

Such a vessel would allow the navy, army and air force to quickly deliver humanitarian aid in future disasters.

Maddison says it's one of the lessons that came out of the 2010 earthquake relief mission to Haiti.

That operation saw the military use a rented supply ship to move vehicles to the Dominican Republic, where they had to be off-loaded and flown by C-130 Hercules into the disaster zone because the ports in Haiti had been destroyed.

With a landing ship, that could have been avoided.

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA POLITICS

OTTAWA - Canada's glitch-prone, second-hand submarines will be with the navy until at least 2030, but defence planners will begin drawing up a replacement program within the next four years.Vice-Admir...
OTTAWA - Canada's glitch-prone, second-hand submarines will be with the navy until at least 2030, but defence planners will begin drawing up a replacement program within the next four years.Vice-Admir...
Filed by Christian Cotroneo  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 27
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rob Vann
Hope for the best,Plan for the worst,Take what cms
12:05 PM on 02/28/2012
Holes in the water into which Canadians will be forced to throw their tax dollars.
11:26 AM on 02/28/2012
Why Canada design and build our own subs? Are the Sweds that much more smarter than we are? Sheesh.
10:14 AM on 02/28/2012
Why the heck is the Canadian government spending money to fix our tin can submarines? Talk about government priorities. There are people in Canada that are in poverty or without jobs and the government just throws money at stupid things.
05:00 AM on 02/28/2012
The right wing listen to the military too much. They always have wet dreams over hot military equipment, regardless of the effectiveness of same.
SamEasy
You really don`t want to know.
11:21 AM on 02/28/2012
The right wing-nuts love wars and conflict, plain and simple. This comes from their hollier-than-thou attitude towards others.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Transitteer
and another thing . . .
04:22 AM on 02/28/2012
We refuse to consider nuclear, which is all the U.S. and the U.K. have, so we're left with diesel. Of the diesels available at the time, these were considered the next-best-thing-to-nuclear and our allies wanted us to have them for their stealth. It just didn't work out that way for a bunch of reasons.
But now the Germans have a 214 Type submarine that is conventional (non-nuclear) and can stay underwater for up to 2 weeks. This sounds like a potential replacement - more modern, gives us undersea capability in the Arctic (it makes it's own oxygen), and would probably cost less than repairing these luckless subs. That said, if these Upholder Class subs can be made right, they'd probably serve us well for the life they have left. Fingers crossed. We do need a submarine fleet - 3 major coastlines and too many unfriendlies with subs of their own.
03:57 AM on 02/28/2012
What happened to the robocalls? That is a little more important than this no? I guess the cons win. Evil will engulf this Country like it did the United States. Democracy is dead. or does it exist at all? I hope you are ready for hell people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piceaglauca
The picture says it all....
01:34 AM on 02/28/2012
Pride goeith before a fall.
Rantibus
Cogito, Ergo Rant
01:30 AM on 02/28/2012
Should have understood when the Australian Navy rejected them. Does a screen door really belong on the conning tower?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:24 AM on 02/28/2012
It was Liberals who bought them.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Warpde
Badges? We don't need no stinking Badges.
12:45 AM on 02/28/2012
So, guess it's a good time to tell the kid to stay above water and get into the Air Force after all.
photo
MA
progressive not obsessive
12:06 AM on 02/28/2012
Just stick some cameras on dolphin and some frickin lasers on sharks.
photo
pleblian
One smart as meɪtər futūtor
11:39 PM on 02/27/2012
I was in the US Navy, I've since moved back to Canada, and I couldn't believe it when I found out that our subs were still using diesel engines...

But our military does treat the troops allot better than they do in US
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Allan Tanny
democracy not anarchy
10:08 PM on 02/27/2012
I know that the old Liberal government is being blamed for this, but I doubt that they had the expertise to make the decision. Undoubtedly it was mostly made by the resident geniuses of the Dept of Defence. I have no idea why they keep referring to these subs in a way that indicates that they are in use. We've spent a fortune on them and probably in 2030 they will still be suitable for use as anchors only.
Not doesn't it make you feel better that the same crew is responsible for spending a fortune on our next fighter aircraft. Anyone believe they are making the right decision?
photo
Felix99
Born to be mild!!!!
11:12 PM on 02/27/2012
Well said, Allan. We are absolutely buying the F-35 because no one else will!! And, are paying a fortune for what appears to be a piece of junk!!!
11:22 PM on 02/27/2012
Much like the Liberal helicopter debacle that killed Canadian soldiers... Boo.
Rantibus
Cogito, Ergo Rant
01:33 AM on 02/28/2012
The "defense minister" was asked what would happen if the single engine on the F-35 were to fail - his answer was, and I quote from someone who is neither a pilot or worn a uniform a day in his life, "It won't."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
geminivoyager
11:48 PM on 02/27/2012
Liberal govts will ROYALLY screw up military purchases.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Allan Tanny
democracy not anarchy
12:22 AM on 02/28/2012
Well they bought the F18 the last time and it seemed to be ok. Most importantly it had two engines, the F35 at 75+ million only has one-- not too good for those long flights over the territories.
photo
john frodo
armchair expert
07:40 PM on 02/27/2012
These subs are third world tribute to the USA. They were bought to drop off Navy Seals in shallow water where the big US subs could not go. That is the only reason we sink money into these lead floats.
06:43 PM on 02/27/2012
The Liberal government that bought these underwater lemons was the same outfit that cancelled the replacement of the obsolete Sea King helicopters, at a cost of $500 million in cancellation fees. Almost 20 years later, the Sea Kings, now approaching 50 years in service, are still in use, and the submarines have proven to be a complete bust.

Sooner or later, if we are going to be able to patrol our own borders and maintain even minimal military capability, Canada will have to spend money on modern equipment. Relying on patched up helicopters from the Kennedy era and used submarines that can't be made to function after 15 years is nothing but an expensive joke.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
freddychef
Tue,4 Nov '14 Dems take House! & Majority Senate!!
03:28 AM on 02/28/2012
f18 have been a great a/c & conservative diefenbaker destroyed canadas a/c industry by following the usa direction to cancel the avro arrow.
basicly, all through canadian history, both the libs and the cons have bought usless military equipment for political reasons.
06:30 PM on 02/27/2012
I have had the priveledge of going under in one of the submarines that these 4 POS's replaced. Its hard to believe that anyone would think that the utilization of SUB-standard boats makes any sense and I would love for Peter and his staff to go under for 1 day in a Submarine knowing that they have severe mechanical problems. I don't think it would take too long for them to either be replaced or mothballed once Peter and his Craker Jack team cleaned their shorts.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:49 PM on 02/27/2012
Jesus christ, I can't even imagine.....