Canadian Submarine Force: Victoria-Class Submarines 

ok you pay for them besides the Victoria class are considered good H/K boats except for the politically motivated. Janes has a far better opinion

How? UK doesn't produce diesel electric subs

@@goodputin4324 The Swedes, the Germans, the Japanese, the South Koreans, Amazon Prime ...

Who is “We”???

@@leeday6458 Those of us who pay taxes in Canada and support our Navy Who is "You"???

@@abrahamdozer6273 You got him good.

Ahahahhahahahaha moral??? There is nobody joining our shitty military lol

Hahahahahhha boost moral ?!??!? Nobody is joining the Canadian military it’s a joke. I mean you borrow sleeping bags ffs. Have you seen our third world equipment lol

We're glad to hear it!

Nah enjoy your shit weapon systems lol

got 40 billion you don't need ?

Ouch! Better see a physician.

@@luschu5487 no, but like an actual mouse died

@@canadaball9777 That's too bad that it could've squeaked by.

Agreed, but hopefully for less than Australia's paying ($89 BILLION for 12 boats! Makes the CSC look like a bargain). I'd love to see us acquire something like Japan's Sōryū class subs.

Australia got fleeced on their sub purchases just like Canada is with its new frigate purchases. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-g2vnciriE_Q.html

adding more capable submarines seems essential to defending our northern coasts from Russian, Chinese, and even American stakes of ownership.

@Michael Tillmann Double that:))

The welds are fine. Checked, checked again and then re-checked.

Nope

Perhaps 2050 if we’re lucky. Foot dragging is a trademark of Canadian Government military procurement programs.

@@leeday6458 I just so happen to have just read this article by CBCnews that the royal Canadian navy is launching a push to replace the 4 subs, it was published last July 14th

@@kimjongsquarepants4209 bet it's gonna be more UK subs being sold to them maybe the Trafalgar class

Tredeau hates the Canadian military that's why

Very different operational requirements and reasons for needing the subs between Canada and Australia.

Aus are buying a diesel/electric version of french Suffren class.

@@Caesar316 what operational requirements would that be?

@@tomnewham1269 well one that was explained was much colder water and the need to operate independently for longer periods.

Spoilers, massively over budget, massively behind schedule and obsolete by the time it enters service in too few numbers to protect the second largest country on the planet

@@sierravortec2494 not necessarily we have zero info on anything in the program for all we know they could sole source them from Germany or Japan at 1 billion a boat and if we pick Japan or Germany we could possibly have them in a very timely manner

@@realwm there’s a better chance Kim Jong-Un wins a gold medal in a triathlon than our government getting this project done in a effective and timely manner lol

@@sierravortec2494 hey we can hope

@@sierravortec2494 If Kim Jong-Un enters a triathlon in N. Korea then he will definitely win the gold medal. So there is hope. But if it is like the normal dysfunctional, bizarre, corrupt model that is normal for military procurement in this country, then there is no hope.

That good deal got sailors injured and killed

@@billestew7535 that is tragic. He died because of a small fire, which happens more than you know. The reason though is they could not get him to fresh air. The British removed all their life-saving equipment and the Canadians loaded their own. The trouble was that the litters the Canadians have did not fit through the conning tower. The British ones did. It was not the subs fault. It was the fault that (1) the Brits removed their gear and (2) the Canadians did not test to see if their gear fit through the conning tower. This information was never reported by the news.

They will probably never all be to sea at once. One or two will always be in dry dock

@@blowinkk9396 that's just a reality of subs though. They require a ton of maintenance.

We dont. We have 4 pierside training vessels, that require constant refit. There are locally known as cupholder class, as its coffee drinking posting

@@blowinkk9396 They have more air time then sea time.

@@ariesrcn didnt a Victoria Class do a 180 day deployment to the Pacific last year?

Procurement process was started yesterday.

@@Caesar316 We should possibly see new boats around 2055-2060! Same life cycle as Sea King Helicopters…50+ years! Military equipment Procurement in this country is a joke

We will never have new boats…just so you know. Enjoy the pieces of shit we have

@@leeday6458 hmm US and most Nato nations still use Sea Kings ????

Lololol a carrier or two lolol

Those are not subs. Who wants to join an army whos equipment their grandfathers use

Aircraft carrier bahahahhahahahhaha we don’t even have sleeping bags…get a grip man lol aircraft carriers lolol dumbest comment this year already

@@conrad5985 huh get informed

Canada needs nuclear powered submarines, UK has retired 2 of their nuclear subs recently would be better to get those. Refueling in the artic would be hard against Russia and North Korea, even harder if China joins in sometime in the future.

@@niweshlekhak9646 naive

@@alpearson9158 That's not the problem being a country bordering US and UK as head of state chance of getting disel subs from France or Germany is 0. Just like how they made Australia cancel contract with the French.

We need to develop a viable ship building industry. Next generation subs should be built here.

ro be fair its mostly about the quality of the crew in several naval exercises the canadians have managed to land hits and sink U.S aircraft Carriers in War game exercises and escape without detection. I do agree though we need more and newer subs as these are just becoming to costly to keep sea worthy.

No you haven’t lol stop lying you barely train with the U.S anymore lol what a joke

we have never built boats and the cost to do so you couldn't cope with

@@alpearson9158 The Halifax class frigates were designed and built in Canada

The Victoria class submarine is absolutely shit

@@thwalesproductions This based on what?

No it’s junk lol three fires on the subs our ships are rusted out pieces of shit and our land armour systems are a joke. Nobody wants to join a woke, broke army

@@jimparker3323 He is right. It's old, the Navy should get at least 6 brand new submarines. Canada is a NATO country, it should work with other countries to construct good subs. Whenever I compare the RCN to RAN(Australia), I feel disappointed at times

@@thwalesproductions well according to Janes they are good H/K boats but then what would Jane's knw ?

Let's be honest, the real deterrent is our neighbour down south. :)

2! on each coast hahah

It would be great to have an enormous fleet of submarines, but who would crew them? The RCN already has a shortage of officers. Would you also support tax increases to support a larger fleet, knowing that an invasion of the US' neighbour is extremely unlikely anyway? What Canada needs is a small but capable military that can provide minimal defence at home while supporting our allies with operational requirements abroad. We aren't a superpower.

@@endeavourist5287 Who said I was advocating for a huge fleet of subs? People who think the US will necessarily come to our aid are delusional. In a major war, the US may not have the physical ability to deploy forces deep into Canadian territory.

When are you Americans ever going to figure out that having alot of equipment isn't always better, the vic class uses mk 48 mod7 with the same fire control system as the sea wolf, It is supremely quit in the fact that it can go silent, Having anechoic can deaden a subs footprint and acts like a lining increasing the life of the hull. Nuclear subs cant be turned off, and the reactors are loud, going to war id rather be in a quit sub than a fast one.

Early 2030s, there's no plan on replacing them.

@@codecreator879 Yeah so we can be in the same boat when we bought these...buying hand me downs that required so much work wed have been better off buying new ones from Japan, Germany or Sweden. Or at least the tech and plans to build our own like the Aussies did. Honestly I don't think the gov wants to talk about considering what a money pit and time sink restoring and upgrading these subs has been. Hell its only taken 20 years to do it too. 🤮

@@loganholmberg2295 every sailor I've heard from has said these are great platforms.

@@Caesar316 LMFAO. No one says that. They’re a ticking time bomb

@@AL-31 RCN sailor literally told me that yesterday. Said the biggest problem with the Canadian military is every civilian thinks they're an expert critic.

I don't think it's what we want for submarines it's a case of what the US, and England says what we can have they dicate to us all the time in everything we are a bunch of yes people

We have garbage forces lol

Golf courses in Ottawa.

@@eanerickson8915 enter the idiot

Define “soon” please. I figure maybe 2050 or so… much like Sea King choppers that were in excess of 50 years old when they finally retired them…

@@leeday6458 likely the early 30's as that's when they will be coming due. Don't tell anyone but the US and the UK and many others still use Sea Kings sh!

now almost 20 years so time to plan for the next

nuke subs just don't make sense as our boats are quiet diesel H/K unlike very noisy nuke boats. AP boats would be a better decision

@@alpearson9158 Probably. Still need to find someway to upgrade our current sub fleet with something that can stay under ice for long periods of time. I also like the idea of a midget sub fleet. They are cheaper and can provide defence, infiltration and attack roles.

subs were bought for a song then rebuilt for far less than a build and are well thought of by allies. The f18 purchase as requested by the RCAF was simply to keep our responsibility coverd . Never considered a replacement. Canada flies her aircraft far more than our allies do so our airframes had to be replaced as they reached their full hours and the Aussie ones were only half time

@@alpearson9158 my point is why do we always buy lesser than the best. Either we bring the best to the table or else stay home.

@@alpearson9158 well I am a retired Canadian aircraft technician and if I let my airframes time run out, I would be replaced

Ya keep trying to sell our disaster of a military the fuck&$g taliban would dominate us

Do you know exactly how the subs have and are being used 'in the water'?

funny you really should do some research

oh they are according to Jane's just don't listen to the political morons

get an education!!!!!!!!

you can't have 1 aircraft carrier, you need minimum two to ensure one remains functional all the time. So Canada would need to buy 4 carriers, 2 for Pacific and 2 for Atlantic. I would rather prefer Canada buys 20 semi-carriers/assault ships. 4 is beyond means for Canada.

no chance unless you wish to finance the required support , thought to be about 40 billion

Non. Mais oui ils ont couté chère en refit car les brits les ont mal entreposés. J'ai parlé à 2 marins qui ont servit à bord, leurs commentaires étaient positif sur le sous-marin en général. Apart que les sous-marins restaient souvent sur les docks

Agreed. Should have bought German Type 214 submarines

What was the Canadian government thinking, if anything, buying some Brit-rejected subs under a Caveat Emptor agreement. Maybe they didn't know that Caveat Emptor meant "Buyer Beware", lol!

As a Canadian, I can tell you that most Canadians who opine about submarines haven't got a clue what they're talking about and simply repeat the ignorant opinions of others as if they are their own.

@@fumblerooskie this is pretty true yeah, most think our subs can't dive or something ridiculous like that

suggest you look up these boats in Jane's then re pose your uneducated comment. Problem is far to many people base all their comments on a political belief rather than doing some actual research based on actual experience

please get an education

@@alpearson9158 lol waiting for these second hand turds to catch on fire again. Total waste of money

The US used some old treaty to stop the Canada class nuclear submarines from being built during the Cold War, they prevented us from importing the necessary reactors and nuclear materials from Britain and France. Since we can't import the necessary technology we either have to build it domestically which could cost hundreds of billions of dollars or we buy diesel electric submarines from the Swedish and call it a day. The navy recently requested $60B to buy 12 modern diesel electric submarines so that is likely the direction we will go, but if we insist on building these submarines in Canada like we did with the Type 26 Frigate then I expect that they won't be delivered until the mid to late 2030s at the earliest (around 7 years for design and 8 years to actually build them based on the history of past Canadian naval procurement projects).

We could get along with diesel/electric subs if we actually had more tankers. We need 2 support ships per coast.

The United States wouldn't allow us.

@@JV-mg3xp Actually, they _would_ allow us. I have the official U.S. Navy report. The Maclean's article on the procurement was just a pile of anti-American bullshit. Nuclear subs have their drawbacks, too, though. For one thing, nuclear submarines hate being operated in warm littoral areas because they overheat quite rapidly. Another disadvantage of nuclear submarines is their initial purchase price and ongoing maintenance costs. Brian Mulroney, who in my personal opinion was cut from the right cloth to become a _LITERAL_ professional con artist had he chosen a different path in life, estimated the cost of a fleet of 10-12 nuke boats to be eight billion Canadian dollars. This is just plain insulting to any shipbuilder who builds these subs; the B.C. Ferries cost more than that! At the time, a nuclear submarine procurement would have been a bad idea. It is still a bad idea due to the economic impact of COVID-19. Yes. They really are _that_ expensive!

@@DJones476 Interesting. My cousin, CPO, was involved with NSPS and he said that Americans wouldn't allow that.

@@JV-mg3xp Yep, they certainly would have, BUT... We approached the procurement (at the time) with the wrong mindset and with the wrong motives. The Canadian government was intent on driving 'those Americans' out of our Arctic waters. Remember that the Cold War was still in full swing, and the American (and Canadian) fear of the U.S.S.R. was real. The United States Navy operated its submarines in Canadian Arctic waters without permission, but all other vessels of any nationality do require permission from the Canadian government. U.S. subs can't get permission because the simple diplomatic act would betray their presence to potential enemies, eg. Russia and China. To this day, we rely on the United States Navy to operate its nuclear submarines where our conventionally-powered submarines cannot venture. Here's the other thing: Mulroney looked at the Rubis-class submarine and the Trafalgar-class submarine. He did not give even a cursory glance at the Los Angeles-class submarine, which at the time, was in full 688i configuration. Electric Boat and Newport News definitely felt left out of what they thought would be a competition. Had Canada approached the nuclear submarine procurement with different motives ie. "Put us in, Coach! We wanna play in the Big Leagues!" instead of "We gotta get those Americans outta here!", things may not _necessarily_ have gone differently. Brian Mulroney was jaw-droppingly naïve about the financial realities of a nuclear navy, and the government may very well have halted the procurement once they realized how expensive the damn things were going to be.

They Entered service in the late 80's with the Royal Navy, 4 years later, they decided that they were too crappy and retired them.

@@shawa666 not the story at all, the British decided to move to an all nuclear fleet and these were left over, they aren't bad boats to be honest, they've been refitted significantly with modern technology

@@shawa666 Wrong

Lol no you couldn't

astounding how little people know about subs.

The frigates and supply ships are being built and the first batch should be delivered in early 2030, but don't expect submarines until the 2040s at the earliest.

If it wasn't so sad, this would be funny.

not funny but absolute horseshyte. shove the politics and do some research. I am sorry isn't such a big deal, you can try it

@@alpearson9158 Back at you! I served in the RCN and know all about these subs problems. I used to walk past Victoria everyday when she was in drydock and I was on duty when Corner Brook crashed. They were great SSKs when they were in service with the RN but they were tied up too long without proper servicing and now we have a bunch sub standard subs.

35 , with Canada( quietly) putting in another 70 million to the F 35 programme to keep Canada in tht if the F 35 is the winner and selected as the fighter for procurement , that being by next yr and Canada also buying the Type 26 figates along with the UK and Australia

@@mikeneufield2855 and should actually also purchase 45 Gripens as well as the f35's are too slow as interceptors

No way bro, a submarine can turn a entire fleet around. During the Falklands war a U.K sub sunk a battleship and turned a battle group around.

we just ordered 15 ships that will more than cover the surface element but subs are a necessity

Because they were moving to an all nuclear fleet

@@frankishe7317 Very true; I was being rhetorical. The RN has over 500 yrs of naval experience and knows when it's time to get rid of junk boats. Canada let itself be suckered.

@@christopherkingsland4604 I really don't get where people think that they are junk, they work fine

They are absolute garbage vessels I’ve seen inside and out absolute trash with decades behind in sensors

from a virtual youth

This remark is the most disrespectful ,short sighted, uneducated comment ever.

Canada is buying the new Type 26 frigates along with the UK and Austrslia , a world class ,Allied, design ..

Without question that was what should have happened . Still is the best op. if we stay all non nuclear

maybe the newer German boats as well. The Swedish boats were not an option at that time

Because it would cost far more to design and develop our own sub force for the so few we would ever sail. Yes it cost a huge amount of money to upgrade the 4 subs, but it would likely have been 5 X that to design and build 4 subs. If you can sell the design to other countries, you start to bring down the cost per ship. But buying only 4 or even 6 boats makes it too costly to do it in house. As far as ships go. We are. Harry Dewolf, CSC Type 26 and the new replenishment ships will all be built in Canada.

At the moment we don't have the ability to build our own subs. Very few nations can, but its something I think Canada should develop.

@@Caesar316 We could if we wanted, but the expense of creating a sub program from the ground up is too costly for the low number of boats we would get, it would never pay off.

@W L Spending a half trillion to build 4-6 subs would be so much better when you could buy them from a country with an established sub building program. Even a top of the line German Type 212 with all the bells and whistles would only run you just over $3billion for 6 boats. Cost a lot more to design, develop and build them ourselves. But hey, why stay on topic when you can hi-jack the thread and talk about how much was spent on a very REAL pandemic. Tell all of those families that had family members that died from it how "make believe" it was.

@W L Because you have to have a constant industry to make sub construction a viable industry in Canada. You don't just build everything and produce one generation of subs for us - you would have to be constantly producing subs otherwise the industries that build and provide materials will stagnate just like what happened to the ship building in Canada. Other nations deal with this because they export subs to other navies, just like we do with our Armored Personnel Carriers.

Considering these have the same sensor suites as US sea wolf class subs, I think you're mistaken.

@@Caesar316 but look at how old those submarines are. They are 90’s era submarines and are way past their used by date

@@NickyKDChaleunphone have you ever spoken to anyone who serves on a Victoria class? The reason they're always being worked on is because they're in a perpetual state of upgrade - not just maintenance. Plus, submarines require A LOT of maintenance and the RCN has ridiculously high performance standards to uphold.

@@NickyKDChaleunphone seems to hold up okay. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-O7aY3mC1sFg.html

@@NickyKDChaleunphone Who cares if they are old. When they were built, they were the best diesel electric sub on the planet, and today with the upgrades to electronics and such, they are still in the upper echelon of subs. Having the same sensor suite as the Seawolf class, is nothing to sneeze at.

Why don't you enlist, we could use your help.

Our poor soldiers….so well trained…such shitty weapon systems lol that’s why you have low enrolment because nobody wants to use the same weapons as their grandfather.