Below is Scott Taylor's column in todays Halifax Herald. Scott is often regarded as the voice of the enlisted man who is not permitted a political voice of his own. He is held in high regard by the troops , but not by the brass or the government. He has just returned from Iraq where he was taken hostage. He now has the dubious distinction of being on of the few released with his head still on his shoulders.

            
Monday, October 18, 2004
                                          
The Halifax Herald Limited

    Stop kidding about capability

       By SCOTT TAYLOR / On Target
THE TRAGEDY aboard HMCS Chicoutimi has reopened the debate about
whether the Canadian government should proceed with the entire submarine acquisition program.
After a few initial comments that the much-plagued and long-delayed sub project would proceed despite this most recent setback, Defence Minister Bill Graham suddenly reversed course. Last Monday, after a quick inspection of the smoke-blackened interior of the disabled Chicoutimi, Graham announced that all options remained open - including the cancellation of the entire lease-to-own deal and even the possibility of lawsuits against the British government.
True to form, senior naval types immediately described Graham's position as "unnecessary" and they once again launched into their tired old tirade about Canada keeping "an underwater capability."
While some submariners may have been scared witless by the Chicoutimi
incident, and certainly the tragic death of Lieut. Chris Saunders has given the entire squadron cause for reflection, this elite community of sailors fears even more that they will soon be left without employment.
Many of them realize that the bargain-basement purchase of used British submarines is indicative of the Liberal government's lack of commitment to retaining "an underwater capability." The fact is that at a cost fast approaching $1 billion, the acquisition of four 18-year-old diesel-electric submarines can hardly be considered a worthwhile investment, let alone a bargain. Contrary to what the navy brass will try to tell a gullible public, submarines are not well-suited to enforce sovereignty (the flags are difficult to see underwater) and are even less useful as fishery enforcement vessels
(submarines and fishing nets are not a good mix).
There is modern technology available in the field of air-independent propulsion that would allow diesel-electric submarines a limited patrol range beneath the Arctic ice cap. However, by deciding to purchase these older British designs, there is no remote possibility of converting our "new" subs to take advantage of such developments.
So for the cost of $1 billion, not to mention the already escalating cost to operate these vessels, Canada would be able to mount limited underwater operations off two of our three ocean coastlines.
Both the U.S. and British navies were reportedly keen that Canada chose to purchase these used subs and to continue maintaining our "underwater capability." The reason for this is that our submariners have earned themselves a first-class reputation as skilled operators of diesel-electric submarines. Neither the British nor the Americans operate this type of sub anymore, as they have long since chosen to convert to the much more capable, strategic resource provided by nuclear submarines. The one drawback with this is that although nuclear subs are far more advanced in every aspect - speed, range, armament, etc. - they are also far noisier than diesel-electric boats.
While it is often noted by naval analysts that many so-called rogue nations maintain submarine fleets, none of these potential threats include subs with nuclear propulsion. Therefore it is imperative for British and U.S. warships to be able to detect and destroy diesel-electric subs. Having Canada provide an "underwater capability" that amounts to little more than a first-class training aid may seem like a godsend to our British and American allies, but it should raise a lot of serious questions among Canadian taxpayers.
Now that the life of Lieut. Chris Saunders has been added to the price tag, the truth about Canada's "underwater capability" should spark outrage. Our submariners should not have to make do with bargain-basement used junk that at the very best allows them to hone their skills while testing those of allied sailors. Canada does not have to worry about losing its "underwater capability" because it has long since become nothing more than a charade.   Are our sub crews top-notch professionals? Absolutely. But four diesel-electric subs on two coasts is neither a strategic resource nor a tactical deterrent. If the Canadian government is serious about protecting all three of our country's coastlines, it will dust off the old 1987 white paper that called for a 10-boatnuclear submarine squadron. Surprisingly, at the time the nuclear purchase was being debated, it was the U.S. - our ally that always insists we invest more on defence - that protested the loudest.
For once, Canada was going to have a strategic naval asset that would be capable of patrolling under the Arctic ice cap - and the U.S. was not pleased. It seems that as long as Canada pretends to have an "underwater capability," then everyone can simply go back to sleep.
Keep this in mind as the naval tub thumpers trumpet about in the weeks to come trying to save their controversial sub program: There is a big difference between keeping four old defective used submarines on the navy's active duty list and actually possessing an "underwater capability."
Our sailors deserve the latter.