Obie - if the GG is sent by her government, don't blame her for the 'junket'! Remember, she acts as a representative of the government, & the UK monarch has essentially done what they're told for a century & more. Their (UK monarch) only retained rights (as far as I know) are the right to be informed, the right to advise, & the right to warn. None of which are worth tissue paper if the Politician-in-Chief wants to push a policy through... Don't shoot the messenger, as the saying goes.

As to assorted comments about dodgy military hardware, lets see... The UK, for reasons still less than clear, canned the TSR II (20 years ahead of its time) & bought the F-111 (inferior, unreliable, ultimately more expensive, etc) from the Yanks. The SA-80 infantry rifle (not sold anywhere else, AFAIK) has been an expensive cock-up. The fire control on the Chieftain & Challenger MBT's was never all that it was cracked up to be (despite the claims for it, it was regularly outshot by the German Leopard & American Abrams). We haven't enough body armour to equip our frontline troops, etcetera...

Canada does not have an exclusive on military procurement mistakes! Nor do the Swedes (I believe the Saab Viggen has a very good rep as an interceptor, frex). Modern defence equipment is an incredibly complex arena. Every nation, in some area, gets it horribly wrong on a seemingly regular basis (the American Patriot anti-missile systems are still not what the makers claim them to be, frex!).

If the Upholder class subs are proving problematical to Canada... The UK dropped the Upholder class subs because they dropped non-nuclear subs, as someone has already pointed out. Not because they were inherently flawed. It's unfortunate that they have so far proved poor buys for Canada, but a submarine is as complex a weapons system as you could ask for, & the problems do not seem to be consistent (hence mitigating against an inherent design error). There is no reason to suppose that a home designed sub would have given better value for money.