BS: Canadian Submarines

Subject: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 06:33 PM

So..any global thoughts about the Canadian Navy Submarines newly purchased by the Royal Navy, in a "new to you" manner? They've all had their problems and this peaked this week when the latest, HMCS Chicoutimi had a fire off the coast of Sligo on its maiden voyage to Canada from Britain. One Canadian Sailor, 32 yr old Lt. Saunders (with whom I once sailed) has parished due to complications following smoke inhaliation, and 2 more Sailors remain hospitalized in Sligo.

Should Canada be looking into some sort of reimbursement from the Royal Navy for these Subs, none of which have yet fulfilled their duty, and now have caused an unnecessary death to a fine Canadian Sailor? Should Britain be held partially responsible? I knwo if I by somehting at the market and I'm not 100% satisfied, I take it back. If I buy a car, and there is a malfunction that is not operator related, and it cuases the death of a Son, I'm not going t obe a happy chap. So Catters..what say you?.....Slàinte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Charmion at work
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 07:03 PM

The CHICOUTIMI incident reminds me unpleasantly of the engine-room fire aboard the Restigouche-class destroyer HMCS KOOTENAY (23 October 1969), which killed nine sailors and injured 53. That disaster was caused by an explosion in the starboard gearcase, the result of friction on a component that was installed incorrectly (backwards, if I remember correctly) during maintenance at HM Dockyard Portsmouth.

The unpleasant fact is that warships are complicated and dangerous equipment, and submarines are the most complicated and dangerous of warships. It's not for nothing submariners are the highest-paid sailors in the navy, sharing a tax-bracket with aircrew and the folks who do explosive ordnance disposal. The good part of this story is that the casualty list isn't longer and the boat itself is still rolling around on top of the oggin.

Lt(N) Saunders will be missed. I just hope CHICOUTIMI doesn't become a hard-luck boat.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 07:04 PM

West Edmonton Mall's submarine is doin' JUST fine. However, when you buy second-hand subs, ya get what ya pay for. The state of the Canadian military is a friggin' disgrace. That alone pisses me off so much I'd like to see these political bastards in Ottawa needing the services of our SAR people when the fuckin' choppers can't even take off. FUCK OTTAWA. Bastards. Every fuckin' one of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 07:04 PM

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 07:21 PM

well fuckin' put Brucie..haha..

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,peedeecee
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 07:25 PM

I agree with Brucie 100%. Our military people put themselves in dangerous enough situations without being put in danger by a cheap government that buys used junk. I wonder if anyone ever asked why Britain was getting rid of those subs? It's also not the first time that second-hand subs from Britain have had problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 07:35 PM

I saw a BBC interview last night and the Brit Commodore being interviewed was asked about hte seaworth of the submarines. He sated 3 times that "the ships were reliable and trustworthy serving their purpose to Her Majesty during the COld War"...never once admitting they were junk, mind you, never once suggesting they were good purchases.....Slàinte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 07:40 PM

These subs were regarded as the best diesel-electric subs in the world when they were built. The Royal Navy decicded to have only nuclear subs and so they were laid up looking for a buyer. They must have been laid up for quite a while. I think that we should wait uintil somebody finds out exactly went wrong before we start blaming either the Canandian Navy or the Royal Navy or their respective governments.

Deep symapathy to Lt Saunders' family and friends, and hopes that the other two crewmen make a full recovery.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 08:33 PM

ReelBrew: Sorry about the rant. I did not read your post closely enough. I am sorry for the loss of your boatmate.

The condition of our military has been disgraceful for years. I do understand about sovereignty and the projection of power in Canadian territorial waters. However, here's a bit of a read that speaks loudly and poorly of our people in Ottawa--both military and civilian, and loudly and eloquently about the courage and fortitude of our soldiers, sailors and airforce personnel.




Victoria Class Submarines
By Peter Haydon

According to some, the Canadian Navy has a serious submarine problem. For instance, Scott Taylor wrote in the Halifax Herald on Monday 9 December, 2002 thought it was "Time to cancel purchase of sub-par subs". His article is worth repeating in full because it shows very clearly how a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.

    Ever since the Canadian government announced in 1998 that it was entering into a lease-to-own contract for four used British submarines, mishaps and delays have plagued the project.

    After only three years in service with the Royal Navy, the Upholder-class diesel-electric submarines were mothballed by the British in 1994. Although the leasing arrangement had been negotiated around this time, it took another four years for Prime Minister Jean Chretien's cabinet to approve the purchase.

    Everyone in Canadian naval planning circles realized that some refurbishment would be required to make the Upholders seaworthy again. But no one foresaw the magnitude of the work that would actually be involved.

    Although the Upholders are newer than the 40-year-old Oberon-class boats that our sailors used to operate, the British subs had never been on the navy's wish list as a replacement. It was common knowledge that the Brits were having a lot of teething trouble with their Upholder design. Meanwhile, the Dutch, German, French, Swedish and Australian navies were all developing superior submarines.

    But the Liberal government decided it would be far cheaper to buy used, unreliable subs as opposed to new efficient ones, and the deal was done.

    It was only when our submariners began to take possession of the British subs that things really began to unravel. Numerous embarrassing media reports surfaced about the project: all the hulls needed extensive re-welding, the British had sealed up torpedo tubes to prevent leaking, and it was discovered that at least one of the Upholders had a bent frame (indicating the sub had been involved in an undisclosed collision).



The above is the shit we bought.

Read the rest at

www.naval.ca/article/haydon/ Victoria_Class_Submarines.html

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 08:43 PM

Again, I say, "Bastards!" REMFs.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 09:34 PM

The submariners aboard the Chicoutimi should be applauded for their bravery in such an emergency. In such a situation, it must be very difficult not to panic. I'm sorry someone died because our government is so CHEAP! I'm also disgusted at the Brits who sold us this crap!

diana

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 09:56 PM

It is indeed too bad to have lost a fine man. I first wish my sympathy to go to his family.
I also share brucie's outrage at our government, especially in the way that initial reports were handled. The lying bastards made announcements that damage was minor and all the crew were fine. These subs were a political hot potato and the seriousness of the situation was downplayed to give the minister of defence time to get his shit together. He even defended the purchase of this junk while he was doing so. Only after they did an airlift rescue of three crewmembers was it admitted that the fire was much more serious.
   Thank God that they were able to get back to the surface!
The Honourable Bill Graham , minister of defence , should without delay, submit his resignation if there is a shred of honour in the title of HONOURABLE!
          Obie

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 12:11 AM

As an ex-submariner I know that a fire on a submarine when dived or surfaced is a terrifying thing to experience. You cannot simply evacuate a submarine particularly when at sea even on the surface.

I was still serving when these Upholder Class boats were designed and built to replace the older Oberon Class submarines. The Oberon Class proved there worth throughout their long service as did the Porpoise Class boats which looked and were almost identical.

I knew of incidents on these newer boats when they were going through sea trials of sudden flexing of some of the internal tanks, particulary the diesal tank. Obvioulsy a hazard on any boat. There was a case of one boat venting its diesal into an inhabited space.

There were also problems I heard of regarding some of the control systems operated by air and hydraulics.

The boats were mothballed as the RN decided it did not need conventional submarines any more. Buyer were sought and Canada decided to buy.

A submarine is a very complex beast internally and my own thinking of taking a submarine out of mothballs and recommissioning it is that it would not be easy. They had a number of years that though mothballed corrosion and age would set in. I did read that some hull valves were found to be cracked. A cracked hull valve would be a disaster and should one have gone completely it could mean the total loss of a boat and its crew.

I hate to hear of any submariners dying under any circumstance at sea and my sympathy is certainly with the family of the young officer who died. However it is a tribute to the crew and their commander that it was brought under control and that further loss of life was avoided.

Submarines are fitted with what is called EBS, emergancy breathing systems. face masks can be plugged into lines with spigots to take the face mask hose and connector that run throughout the boat allowing one to breath normaly. But it does take time to get them on even if it is just 10-20 seconds as the masks are held in lockers. No reason yet has been given for the cause of the fire but it sounds as though it was in a machinery space, possibly the switchboard area. If that was the case then smoke rapidly fills compartments and inhalation is unavoidable.

At least Canada is an open country and a board of inquiry will establish the cause, unlike here in China where last year an entire crew on a submarine perished and no reason has yet been given though I suspect a lack of training and diesal exhaust getting back into the boat whilst snorting as she was found with the snort masts up on the sea bed and no water inside.

I now only wish that they can get the rest of the crew to safety and then establish a cause.

BTW the new Australian boats the Collins Class were of Swedish design and they too have had many problems but mostly due to noise, not a good thing in the 'Silent Service'.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 03:09 AM

shanghaiceltic:

A Canadian board of inquiry will find that a person is to blame and he will then receive a government pension and an early retirement. Fact is that the boats should never have been purchased in the first place. Our military people have been shafted for so long I am surprised anyone even considers joining anymore. We are using Sea King helos for SAR and troop transfer. It was one of them that couldn't lift off to assault a Russian ship many years back, so only half an assault team took the ship. If there had been armed resistance, our kids would have been cut up big time. We still have the damned things in service, and these brave people are risking their lives by the very nature of the work they do are also being given short shrift ny our government. It is a national disgrace. Lt Saunders' death is short of being murder, but not by much. The Canadian House of Commons had better take a good hard look at itself. Bastards. Through neglect, kids are losing their lives. The neglect is two-fold: it comes from the civilians of this country who do NOT give a damn for those we ask to go in harm's way on our behalf, and from high-ranking military personnel who do not have the honour or balls to stand up for the men and women who take their orders.

I fear that indeed a board of inquiry will find someone at fault; I also fear it will be the wrong poor bugger who is left standing when the music stops.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Mr Red
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 07:09 AM

just a thought - but was it re-named whilst in the water?

Not that I am superstitious - I think it is unlucky to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 02:16 PM

Our Navy and Marines used Sea Kings for years

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 02:33 PM

Keith:

"used" is the operative word there.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: grumpy al
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 02:35 PM

has anyone wondered why the Canadians didn't test the damn things before they bought them from our cheapskate, underhand, coniving bastard government??

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 02:40 PM

That is a damned good question.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: grumpy al
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 02:47 PM

thanks brucie I just hope someone can answer it before the U.K. press have the Royal Navy tarred and feathered as cheating scumbags.The real cause of the problem lies within various defence ministry departments. Who actually believes they tell the truth???

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 03:01 PM

Not I.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: grumpy al
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 03:04 PM

Nor me!
HEEEEEEEELP

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 03:32 PM

We could go on all day about the "tools" given to the Cdn military. Fact is, those signing the cheques are also "tools". Our Sea Kings have a3 hr flying period, our griffons crash in cold weather, our F 18's have a 20% working ratio...on it goes. TO quote Bruce, "basards". I challenge every MP to spend a week working with the Cdn military. We are some of hte best trained soldiers in the world, with NO equipment. I comptemplated moving South to join the US miltary. My rank would have been advanced at LEAST 2 scales based on my training as a flight medic and that given to USAF members of the same trade. Do I have faith in my leaders, do I trust them?..Hell no!...Hence me trying to get out of hte medical world and go elsewhere (still within the military, however)...thanks for the rant folks..I need it.

ps. Lt(N) Chris Saunders, 32, of Quispamsis and Kingston Peninsula, New Brunswick leaves behind his wife, and 2 sons, aged 2 yrs old, and 7 wks old.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 04:36 PM

Did you ever see Jean Cretien or Paul Martin fly in a Sea King? Ever wonder "why not ?"
G.W. Bush may be an arsehole of the first magnitude, but at least he is brave enough to fly in his military choppers.
Remember when our troops went to Afghanistan? They had no camouflage battle dress so the military issued them blankets to hide under. Then, I believe they stripped the camoufrage uniforms off the backs of the troops in Bosnia to issue to those in Afghanistan.
These sick subs are only another chapter in a sad story. To twist Jimmie Driftwood's words in The Battle Of New Orleans:
"The British seen us comming.........."
The biggest disgrace of all is that our troops continue to bravely serve ,using shoddy equipment while the military "brass" and political
arseholes in Ottawa spin the truth to their lying advantage. These bastards are the ones drawing the high salaries, so far from the line of fire.
       Obie

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 04:44 PM

It's always the old
Who lead us to the wars,
It's always the young who fall,
Look at what we've won
With a sabre and a gun
And tell me is it worth it all?

With thanks to Buffy.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 04:55 PM

www.parl.gc.ca/

[e-mail]

I will post the text of my letter to our Prime Minister, and I will post his reply when I get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 05:11 PM

MAJOR-GENERAL (ret'd) LEWIS
MACKENZIE
Considered the most experienced peacekeeper in the world, Major-General (ret'd) Lewis MacKenzie encapsulates what being a leader truly is.

"General MacKenzie speaks from experience. He has commanded ground troops in some of the world's most dangerous places: the Gaza strip, Cyprus, Vietnam, Cairo, Central America and Sarajevo. It was in Sarajevo that his superior leadership skills and courage came to the fore. At the start of the Bosnian Civil War he created and assumed command of Sector Sarajevo and, in the midst of a brutal civil war, with a contingent of troops from 31 nations, and under fire from all sides, managed to open the Sarajevo airport for the delivery of humanitarian aid. During that period, Martin Bell of the BBC said MacKenzie was interviewed more that any other human being in the history of television over a thirty day period."



He was a man with fortitude, and he took no crap from anyone--and that included the UN leadership, Ottawa or commanders from any other outfit of any other army. His troops loved him, and if this shit had happened on his watch, he would have resigned, no question. Where are the people who came after he left military life? And why are we not hearing from them?

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 06:13 PM

Just saw an interview with Bill Graham (Minister of Defence) in which he (without saying the words) admits that the US played a role in Canada's idea to purchase the subs. Seems that the US got it in their heads that if a great friend with whom "war games" are often played (ie Canada) was to buy good ole fashioned but capable diesel subs much like those used by North Korea, China, etc. it would make training on combating these subs more effective...enter Canada!...Graham said it was for the purpose of Counter-Drugs, surveilance, and sovernty...the reporter pointed out that these were the reasons for creating the Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels, keeping the Sea Kings, and refitting the Halifax Class Frigates. Soooooooo.....make up our minds Mr. Graham...do we really need these subs in the CDN Navy? I mean..its been over 60 yrs since an enemy sub has crept into the Bay of Fundy, or the Gulf of St. Lawrence......Slainte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 06:32 PM

The Right Honourable Paul Martin,
Prime Minister of Canada

Sir:

The death of Lt (N) Chris Saunders, 32 years old, is the result of negligence on the part of the Canadian people and its elected representatives in the Cabinet and the House of Commons. You are aware that he died as a result of smoke inhalation from a fire aboard the HMCS Chicoutimi. Now, Lt Saunders will never see his wife or sons again, nor they him. His children are two-year-old Ben and seven-week-old Luke. Gwen will face the responsibility of raising these children by herself.

Our continued under-funding of the military has led to a senseless death aboard a Canadian submarine, and collectively, we are to blame. What kind of country outfits its military men and women with second-hand equipment and second-rate materiel? Is it not enough that our military goes in harm's way on our behalf without them having to do so with little else but their courage and sense of duty?

Recall when you were Finance Minister in the Chretien government that we had an embarrassing and potentially-lethal set of circumstances presented to our military personnel when one of two Sea King helicopters that was to participate in the August 4, 2000 assault of an American-owned ship (captained and crewed by Russians, and carrying millions of dollars worth of tanks and peace-keeping materiel being returned from Kosovo) was unable to lift off due to mechanical problems. The damned helicopters were untrustworthy then. We still have them in use today. This is just another in a list of debacles that make me so angry I can't even find the words to explain myself. Add to that the lack of uniforms for the kids going into Afghanistan, and the lack of transport to get them there--does this present an ugly picture to you?

We have turned our backs on the military, and we are now killing our own children because of our irresponsible behaviour to do with proper funding.

I have never once in fifty-seven years been ashamed to say I am Canadian. I am ashamed today, and I am of the opinion that you and your Cabinet should feel the same. I hope you will, but I think maybe you won't. How many more of our children will pay this price for the rest of us? And why?

Bruce Murdoch
(address attached)

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 06:41 PM

Well-put Bruce. My only concern is that you will receive a page or 2 full of verbal diarrhea. Secondly, Mr. Martin will notice your address, and decide how many of his votes came from your riding to determine how polite the reply will be, if you get one. As a Member of the Canadian Forces thanks. We take alot of verbal abuse from fellow Canadians and are blamed for situations byond our control such as funding and equipment. I am far from a "war-monger". I take pride in being a member of the CF due to our great history and hope to maintain our National Identity and Sovernty.

Thanks again Bruce. .....Slainte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 06:49 PM

Hey, buddy. Least I could do. When we talked months ago I mentioned that I am a firefighter, and I work about one incident every five days or so each year. I hate to say this, but doing a simple house entry I am wearing about $2000 worth of gear. The truck we take to the scene--and we have six of them--has an average cost of $200,000. After 20 years the trucks are replaced. I know what you do for a living, and your danger zone is one heckuva lot larger than mine. Keep safe. I'll post whatever answer I get--if any.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 09:07 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 09:51 PM

Obie,

I remember seeing pictures of Canadian troops dressed in jungle fatigues when they went into Afghanistan! Can you imagine how dangerous (never mind humiliating) that must have been for them? I am not a war monger but I do appreciate the role Canadian forces have played on the international scene. I do not believe the purchase of these subs can be justified. Its a disgrace.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:29 PM

We are about a month away from Rememberance Day. When we watch the ceremonies from the National Cenotaph in Ottawa these bastards will be all standing in the limelight wearing medals that they never earned. They will pay lip service to the sacrifices made by our veterans, and then they will go back to trying to screw these same veterans out of the pensions and benefits that they so richly deserve.
I watched our Governor General read the throne speech the other day. She was wearing about a half dozen military medals. Maybe she bought them in a pawn shop but I doubt like hell that she earned them on the battlefield. She takes herself and her friends on junkets around the world at our expense , while second world war veterans are often living in poverty.
If serving members of our forces survive in spite of the crap that they are given for equipment, this is what they have to look forward to.
On the other hand members of parliament are given a fat pension after only six years of service. When you grease your own wheels you can take care of #1.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 11:33 PM

What is it DO-ing going to SLIGO, IRELAND?

Obviously, they will be examining IRA flatuance, rather than USA ineptiance.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 12:29 AM

Probably the nearest bit of land and given the conditions of board would you want to be towed for up to four days or more to get back to a naval port in Scotland or southern England?

A submarine on the surface is not a comfortable thing to be on. No stabalizers, round hull etc all allow it to roll horribly. Added to which they are probably without power and have just suffered a major fire which killed one and injured others which will be on the crews minds as they are brought back.

BTW what's the US got to do with a Canadian boat that was built in the UK? Methinks you are a bit of an 'oil tanker'

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 03:11 AM

See reel brews post regarding U.S. involvement.

What a joke! If its true it just goes to show you what good neighbors the U.S. really are!

Tony to Bush, "Hey George, maybe you can get yer neighbor to buy this rusty old shit in my backyard."

...but lets not blame the U.S. or the Brits on this one.

Why do we need old subs anyway?
Meanwhile, our troops do not have decent equipment or clothing.
Out of touch or what? Duped or what?
Martin better dump his Minister of Defense and lets hope the new guy tells Martin that the weaponization of space is a very bad idea.

So much for the U.S. "lookin' after us". Get over it Canada, the U.S. does not have our best interests at heart.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Big Mick
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 08:42 AM

There you go again, dianavan. If I were to suggest to you that the Canadians were pawns of the Yanks, you would have a fit. Yet when Canadians buy old junk, it must be the fault of the US. Not that I don't believe it is possible for the US to have been involved, but ultimately it is the Canadians responsible for this as they wrote the checks. We have enough problems of our own with this idiot who sends our young men and women off without proper equipment, without being responsible for bad calls on the part of the Canadian Government.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 12:34 PM

Re your Gov Gens medals, if worn on the right they may be her father's.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 01:29 PM

Mick I totally agree with you. Read my post again, '...but lets not blame the U.S. or the Brits on this one.' I meant that! I was commenting on Reel Brew's post which I'm not even sure is true.

Canadians are too complacent when it comes to national security and their own military. There is a tendancy by Canadians to think that our neighbors to the south are so all-powerful that they will protect us. I'm saying its time to re-think this position. Especially since they want to test their space weapons over our country!

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 05:26 PM

To answers the "Guest's" question...the CDN Sub wasnt going t oSligo..she was enroute across the Atlantic back to Halifax from the UK after she was "re-commissioned" into the Canadian Navy. They didnt give a fidller's fart abouthte IRA..hell..from my time working around the Canadian Navy most of them (us) support the IRA more then we would the Crown anyway..haha.....and..it wasnt a Canadian Sub built in the UK..read the freakin msg's......Slainte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 07:25 PM

I resent the e-mail letter to Martin's address today. Maybe I'll get two answers. Wonder if they'll be the same?

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: CET
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 10:54 PM

Where shall I start? How about with Remembrance Day? No, contrary to Obie's ranting, the only people wearing medals will be people who are entitled to wear them, that is, serving or retired military personnel.

It is entirely proper for the Governor General to wear medals. She obviously didn't earn them personally. She wears them in her capacity as the Commander in Chief and the Queen's representative. It was a witless and silly insult to suggest she got them in a pawn shop.

I am a serving officer, and I have heard enough uninformed attacks on Mrs. Clarkson. She has earned more respect from real soldiers, serving and retired, than any GG I can remember. I am a bit too young to remember General Vanier well. I marched in last year's Remembrance Parade with the UN Veteran's contingent (by virtue of my heroic six month tour in Haiti) and one veteran said to me after Mrs. Clarkson took the salute "Isn't she lovely?". I was not a big fan of Mrs. Clarkson in her previous career as a "media personality", but she obviously has respect for the men and women in uniform. That's not something you could say about many politicians. Oh, yes. She does not "take her friends on junkets" around the world. Her trip to various polar countries was done as a matter of government policy, at the request of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, in order to promote Canada abroad, and was not paid for out of the Governor General's budget. Whether it was a good idea is open to question. It's dirty pool to blame it all on the Governor General.

It's also too easy to blame "bastards in Ottawa". Governments know where their political capital is and they don't see any in defence policy. I think they feel it in their bones that most Canadians think vaguely positive thoughts about their fellow citizens in uniform, and get upset when they die on submarines or in Afghanistan, but that's about where their commitment to the defence of their nation ends. Mick got it right. We have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Reel Brew: I have been wondering for some time if there any other Catters in uniform. It's good to know I'm not the only one! If your travels should ever bring you to Ottawa, drop me a line.

Edmund

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 09 Oct 04 - 11:57 PM

"I resent the e-mail letter to Martin's address today. Maybe I'll get two answers. Wonder if they'll be the same?"

Sorry about that. I re-sent the letter; he'll resent the letter.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 10 Oct 04 - 01:32 AM

The one and only duty of the Governor General is to represent the Queen in Canada during the Queens absence (most of the time) When the Queen is on Canadian soil we have no Governor General as she needs no representative. Likewise, when the Governor General leaves the boundaries of Canada she is no longer representing the Queen in Canada. She automatically becomes a private citizen at that point in time and her trip sure as hell is a junket if I am paying the fare as a taxpayer. I don't give a damn if it is her budget, the military's , or external Affairs' it is all from the same pot and such waste is a bloody shame. Wherever she got her medals she did not earn them, but I suppose the same could be said of much of the military brass.
The disgrace remains that those on the front lines have shitty equipment and you can't put a positive spin on that.
When we see Paul Martin fly in a Sea King we will have a bit more faith in what the lying bastards in Ottawa (politions and military brass) keep telling us about how good our equipment is and what a great deal we got purchasing it. Pure crap!
          Obie

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,John Gray in Oz
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 12:02 AM

Yes Shanghaiceltic, our Collins class subs are real lemons. I think the Swedes should give sub design a miss and stick with frilly underwear.
Most of the 6 subs have been in commission from 2 to 6 years and its doubtful if they're operational. They are continually docked for re-work.
The first combat system installed didn't function. That had to be thrown away and a new one from the USA installed. That was a couple of extra $billion on top of the $5 billion and 12 years to construct them. The sonar was only 25% effective, the periscopes and propellers were faulty and the hull was too noisy. An American team was called in to investigate the noise problems. When interviewed, the team leader said it was like listening to an underwater rock concert!!! It might be a new weapon, you generate so much noise that it blows the crap out of the super sensitive surface listening instruments.
Okay, they all had to have their hulls re-shaped, another $266 million each. Then they had to be taken out of service with dodgy underwater valves. All up, the additional mods come to around $5.5 billion.
And now the navy is having trouble finding crews for them, only 45 per sub. No wonder, the sailors, and their families, are starting to feel very chary about these boats. I was a sailor and my son is a serving sailor. I told him not to bother volunteering for submarine service as I would choke him first, at least that way I get something to bury.

JG/FME.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 04:15 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 04:28 PM

The point that has to be made clearly is this: They should have been checked out before the damned purchase agreement was signed. BEFORE.

Ottawa is to blame for this: Ottawa and only Ottawa. Period.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 04:46 PM

If by Ottawa you mean politicans, brucie, I won't disagree, but.. Be fair. You can't check out mothballed equipment before the necessary money is spent on bringing it up to operational status. Neither can you expect someone to spend the millions that are always necessary to bring mothballed equipment up to operational standards, without the committment to purchase being in place.

I would hope that the procurement process consisted of {Canada} "Yep, that looks good, but we need A-C & J through Q sorted before we pay you the money"; {UK} "OK, we've done A-C & J-Q, here's the boat, where's the money?". How the purchase was evaluated I do not know, & that is the province of the civil servants & the politicians.

All I know is that Canada accepted delivery & put their own crew on the sub. Who is to blame (if anyone) for the 'accident', I don't know. How thorough the procurement process was, how thorough the checking process was, I have no idea.

If a genuinely independent evalution ever happens, I suspect the findings will be that the UK wasn't entirely honest about what they were selling, & that Canada knew, but weren't admitting to, what they knew they were buying.

Whose fault is which??

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 04:54 PM

I am sorry because any reference to the Governor General is a bit of a tangent and does not relate directly to this thread. Her extravigance since taking office is well known to Canadian taxpayers, and she (her office) serves no useful purpose. She has little to do with our subs however.
My main rant is directed toward the Ministry of Defence and the military "old boy's club" of arm chair generals in Ottawa. Submarines are of questionable use to Canada unless they can patrol under the polar ice cap for extended periods. The Arctic coastline is where our soverighty is constantly challenged by Russia, USA , and Britain. The subs are just not capable of doing that job. They are too damn expensive to be used to protect either the Atlantic or Pacific coasts , so their main role will be to play NATO war games. Conventional subs are quieter than atomic powered ones because they can be shut down to almost total silence.
   I find it strange that anyone feels that these subs are a priority when the Navy lacks troopships to move our forces and equipment to the world's trouble spots.
In any event the fine young people who stand in our defence deserve to at least have good equipment.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 04:58 PM

Raedwulf, I am not in disagreement with you. However, I don't think they did their homework. Jaysus, when I buy a second-hand car I get it checked BEFORE i agree to purchase. The subs had been mothballed anyway, so it's not like there was a hurry.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 05:05 PM

brucie - I have a nasty suspicion (I have a nasty mind, truth be told) that you are right about the lack of homework. The really cynical part of my mind says they didn't care, rather than they didn't think to...

Either way, Lt Saunders has, unasked, paid for someone else's stupidity or negligence. And who will pay back Lt Saunders...




Betcha no one ever does?

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Raedwulf
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 05:10 PM

Obie - re troopships vs subs. I would have thought that your forces would be more quickly & economically moved by air than sea? And, given general circumstances, I would have thought that the hire of air transport (from the Yanks presumably) would have been the most cost effective method?

I can't see where troopships would be a higher priority than fighting ships of any description, surface or otherwise?

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 05:12 PM

Well I am not holding my breath awaiting an answer from Martin, but I expect to get one. IMO, this issue is sufficient to topple the government. I will suggest to my MP that that be given consideration. I know you are aware of the dangers involved with military life. Reel Brew is one of those people who puts it on the line. It would be good if at least he could do it in safe equipment. The tragedy aboard the sub is indicative of more far-reaching problems, and it bloody well time for things to cahnge, one way or the other.

I expect to hear about the pittance that has been budgeted for the military--gee, we spend a whole 1.1% of our GDP on the military. It's almost like we have no consciences left.

This is not the first time I have written to MPs on the subject, but by God it damned well better be the last.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 09:01 PM

I listened to the news on the BBC this morning (broadband connection) and from what they were saying the fire broke out in an electrical panel causing not only loss of life but very heavy damage. One crew member said they only had seconds to get on their EBS masks before smoke spread throughout the boat.

The sheer professionalism shown by these submariners got them through even though there was loss of life. They are very lucky to be alive. Had the fire knocked out the blowing system control and hydaulics that control the planes and rudders as well as the hull valves the entire boat and crew could have been lost.

I also saw some newsreel of the boat on the surface and it was clear that they had no steerage as they were beam on to the very heavy sea.

Both snort and induction masts were raised so it would seem that they at one point tried to line up the ventilation system to help remove the fumes and smoke, that would be a normal procedure. Normally these are raised to run the diesals but can be lined up for ventilation too.

Re the comment about using them to move troops, I cannot see that they could use these for troop transports. Room inside a submarine even a modern one is very tight. During the Falklands war Conqueror carried a small group of SBS south. To do that Part III crew (unqualified submariners) were put ashore to make room for the extra people. Conquerors qualiifed crew was usually 100 plus up to 20 Part III's under training.

A group of 10 SBS was carried. At most they would only be used for insertion operations of special forces.

A conventional boat is very quiet but the life of the battery limits its dived capability time to about 4-5 days before snort-diesaling is needed to charged the battery, a noisy operation and potentially hazardous if you are where you should not be, as a snort induction mast has to be raised above the surface and the exhaust mast raised so it is just below the surface. Depending on sea state the induction can be pooped and it shuts off causing a rather nasty ear popping as a partial vacuum is drawn as the diesals are still running and will suck air in from inside the boat. As an apprectice tiffy I did a number of patrols on the older O class boats operated by the RN. Tight, smelly and uncomfortable, but it was home!

Nuclear powered boats do not need this. The reactor provides both propulsion power and steam power to turbine generators. Yes they are noisier but modern one are covered with anechoic tiles to absorb hull noise.

In tight situations where noise must be kept to a minimum then the reactor coolant pumps are reduced in speed as well as the number operating.

Non essential systems are shut down to reduce load and therefore noise, movement in the boat is reduced and the galley shut down, cold food only. If we knew we were going on what was called a 'sneaky' then we would also have elsan chemical toilets carried on board so that the main heads would not be used and flushed again a potential source of noise.

This could last for several weeks.

Why do people volunteer for submarines well that is a question that is hard to answer. I was volunteered (read pressed) to nuclear boats as they were suffering from a shortage of marine engineers due to the long patrols abd the fact we were always first on and last off because the reactor need to be baby sat even in a shut down state.

I did not want to quite and return to skimmers (surface ships AKA targets) because I belonged to a group of very professional people in an elite service.

No doubt most of the crew of the Canadian boat will go back to sea in submarines. It is just the way submariners are.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Oct 04 - 09:36 PM

Although I wasn't one, I know several submariners. They are dedicated people, and brave enough to go down in the sea in ships.

The only politician I ever heard of who did so on a regular basis was Jimmy Carter, ex-President of the US.

If the comments about the Canadian military's equipment and equipage is even half true (and I don't doubt what has been said for a moment), it's a piss-poor reflection on Canada.

It's also a helluva comment on the Canadian military, who are dedicated enough to risk their lives on the low-level crap they are given to work with. When I was in the National Guard we were armed with M-1 rifles and carbines, leftovers from WW2 and Korea, but still very servicable; trucks that weren't the latest models in the military inventory, and tanks that had seen better days. We knew that they weren't the latest and best and they weren't held out to be.

Failure to replace that equipment before we were deployed (to Chu Lai, South Vietnam, actually) would have been criminal. To ask the military of Canada to deploy to Afghanistan and combat without the best available uniforms and equipment is the same -- as it would be with every country.

I don't want to see a Canadian die because s/he was issued cheapshit equipment by some bean-counting bureaucrat than I'd want to see an American or a Brit or a Russian or an Aussie die for that reason.

An ex-Infantryman salutes the Canadian military, past and present.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 12:57 AM

Why do we need these subs?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Dave Bryant
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 04:52 AM

Perhaps a song from a well known ex-submariner would be appropriate here - Diesel & Shale - Cyril Tawney.

Sadly of course, Six Feet of Mud would also be appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:43 AM

I never suggested that troops be carried in subs. My point was that troop carriers should have been purchased by the navy instead of subs.
Yes, we can move troops faster by air, and we do that. The trouble is that they arrive at the destination without the equipment that they need. In the past military equipment shipped in private bottoms has been held hostage while international companies fight over shipping rates.
Canada's place in the world since WW2 has been as a peacekeeper in the worlds hotspots. In this we operate, not unilaterally, but under the U.N. Canadians take great pride in their "blue berets". It is to move them and their equipment that these ships are needed. The other great task that we ask of our navy and air force is search and rescue. If they are to put their life on the line to save others they should have the finest equipment available.
Canada considers itself a nation of peace and subs are for the most part a weapon of offense. We have no great desire to sink enemy shipping or to sneak undetected into the waters of other nations, or to launch missles at another nation.
Under NATO our navy has undertaken a sub detection role and the main purpose of these boats is to play the fox in the hunt, for training. I am not saying that this is not important to do, but to put a priority on limited resources.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Rapparee
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:45 AM

Sorry for the length.

"During the summer of 1942 Admiral Nimitz decided to employ Carlson's battalion ["Marine Raiders"] for its designated purpose. Planners selected Makin Atoll in the Gilbert Islands as the target. They made available two large mine-laying submarines, the Nautilus and the Argonaut. Each one could carry a company of raiders. The force would make a predawn landing on Butaritari Island, destroy the garrison (estimated at 45 men), withdraw that evening, and land the next day on Little Makin Island. The scheduled D-day was 17 August, 10 days after the lst Marine Division and the lst Raiders assaulted the lower Solomons. The objectives of the operation were diverse: to destroy installations, take prisoners, gain intelligence on the area, and divert Japanese attention and reinforcements from Guadalcanal and Tulagi. Companies A and B drew the mission and boarded the submarines on 8 August. Once in the objective area, things began to go badly. The subs surfaced in heavy rain and high seas. Due to the poor conditions, Carlson altered his plan at the last minute. Instead of each company landing on widely separated beaches, they would go ashore together. Lieutenant Oscar F. Peatross, a platoon commander, did not get the word; he and the squad in his boat ended up landing alone in what became the enemy rear. The main body reached shore in some confusion due to engine malfunctions and weather, then the accidental discharge of a weapon ruined any hope of surprise.

First Lieutenant Merwyn C. Plumley's Company A quickly crossed the narrow island and turned southwest toward the known enemy positions. Company B, commanded by Captain Ralph H. Coyt, followed in trace as the reserve. Soon thereafter the raiders were engaged in a firefight with the Japanese. Sergeant Clyde Thomason died in this initial action while courageously exposing himself in order to direct the fire of his platoon. He later was awarded the Medal of Honor, the first enlisted Marine so decorated in World War II. The raiders made little headway against Japanese machine guns and snipers. Then the enemy launched two banzai attacks, each announced with a bugle call. Marine fire easily dispatched both groups of charging enemy soldiers. Unbeknownst to the Americans, they had nearly wipeout the Japanese garrison at that point in the battle.

At 1130 two enemy aircraft appeared over the island and scouted the scene of action. Carlson had trained his men to remain motionless and not fire at planes. With no troops in sight and no contact from their own ground force, the planes finally dropped their bombs, though none landed within Marine lines. Two hours later 12 planes arrived on the scene, several of them seaplanes. Two of the larger flying boats landed in the lagoon. Raider machine guns and Boys antitank rifles fired at them. One burst into flame and the other crashed on takeoff after receiving numerous hits. The remaining aircraft bombed and strafed the island for an hour, again with most of the ordnance hitting enemy-occupied territory.   Another air attack came late in the afternoon.

The natives on the island willingly assisted the Americans throughout the day. They carried ammunition and provided intelligence. The latter reports suggested that enemy reinforcements had come ashore from the seaplanes and from two small ships in the lagoon. (The submarines later took the boats under indirect fire with their deck guns and miraculously sunk both.) Based on this information, Carlson was certain there was still a sizable Japanese force on the island. At 1700 he called several individuals together and contemplated his options. Roosevelt and the battalion operations officer argued for a withdrawal as planned in preparation for the next day's landing on Little Makin. Concerned that he might become too heavily engaged if he tried to advance, Carlson decided to follow their recommendation.

This part of the operation went smoothly for a time. The force broke contact in good order and a group of 20 men covered the rest of the raiders as they readied their rubber boats and shoved off. Carlson, however, forgot about the covering force and thought his craft contained the last men on the island when it entered the water at 1930. Disaster then struck in the form of heavy surf. The outboard engines did not work and the men soon grew exhausted trying to paddle against the breakers. Boats capsized and equipment disappeared. After repeated attempts several boat-loads made it to the rendezvous with the submarines, but Carlson and 120 men ended up stranded on the shore. Only the covering force and a handful of others had weapons. In the middle of the night a small Japanese patrol approached the perimeter. They wounded a sentry, but not before he killed three of them.

With the enemy apparently still full of fight and his raiders disorganized and weakened, Carlson called another council of war. Without much input from the others, he decided to surrender. His stated reasons were concern for the wounded, and for the possible fate of the president's son (who was not present at the meeting). At 0330 Carlson sent his operations officer and another Marine out to contact the enemy. They found one Japanese soldier and eventually succeeded in giving him a note offering surrender. Carlson also authorized every man to fend for himself -those who wished could make another attempt to reach the submarines. By the next morning several more boatloads made it through the surf, including one with Major Roosevelt.   In the meantime, a few exploring raiders killed several Japanese, one of them probably the man with the surrender note.

With dawn the situation appeared dramatically better. The two-man surrender party reported that there appeared to be no organized enemy force left on the island. There were about 70 raiders still ashore, and the able-bodied armed themselves with weapons lying about the battlefield. Carlson organized patrols to search for food and the enemy. They killed two more Japanese soldiers and confirmed the lack of opposition. The raider commander himself led a patrol to survey the scene and carry out the demolition of military stores and installations. He counted 83 dead Japanese and 14 of his own killed in action. Based on native reports, Carlson thought his force had accounted for more than 160 Japanese. Enemy aircraft made four separate attack during the day, but they inflicted no losses on the raider force ashore.

The Marines contacted the submarines during the day and arranged an evening rendezvous off the entrance to the lagoon, where there was no surf to hinder an evacuation. The men hauled four rubber boats across the island and arranged for the use of a native outrigger. By 2300 the remainder of the landing force was back on board the Nautilus and Argonaut. Since the entire withdrawal had been so disorganized, the two companies were intermingled on the submarines and it was not until they returned to Pearl Harbor that they could make an accurate accounting of their losses. The official tally was 18 dead and 12 missing.

Only after the war would the Marine Corps discover that nine of the missing raiders had been left alive on the island. These men had become separated from the main body at one point or another during the operation. With the assistance of the natives the group evaded capture for a time, but finally surrendered on 30 August. A few weeks later the Japanese beheaded them on the island of Kwajalein.

The raid itself had mixed results. Reports painted it as a great victory and it boosted morale on the home front. Many believed it achieved its original goal of diverting forces from Guadalcanal, but the Japanese had immediately guessed the size and purpose of the operation and had not let it alter their plans for the Solomons. However, it did cause the enemy to worry about the potential for other such raids on rear area installations. On the negative side, that threat may have played a part in the subsequent Japanese decision to fortify heavily places like Tarawa Atoll, the scene of a costly amphibious assault later in the war . At the tactical level, the 2d Raiders had proven themselves in direct combat with the enemy. Their greatest difficulties had involved rough seas and poor equipment; bravery could not fix those limitations. Despite the trumpeted success of the operation, the Navy never again attempted to use submarines to conduct raids behind enemy lines."

The Navy currently used subs to infiltrate SEALS and other special operations units.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 10:29 AM

Well, it's 10:30 AM in Ottawa and I ain't heard jack-shit from my Prime Minister. I am thinking maybe his office has a few other letters to deal with, huh? Later.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 12:49 PM

hey Bruce, maybe Paul is wearing a costume and marching with hte Strikers..haha.....Slàinte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:47 PM

Seems they have taken the other subs out of commission and are now wondering if the Brits did, in fact, f*** us around. I tend to think our Minister of Defense is just stupid. Paul Martin, however, is a business man and I think he will investigate this tragedy quite thoroughly. I don't think he will take it kindly, if we were sold junk.

To Martin's credit - at least he showed up for the funeral. How many funerals has Bush attended?

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:18 PM

Sold (good Lords forbidding) to the Irish

They probably would have reached a score, ten-fold.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 11:22 AM

The ONLY bit of credit I can give to Bill Graham is he's technically only flushing someone else's shite down the drain. I think this Sub contract was Mr. Eggleton's work, wasn't it?...I'm sure he was Minister when the contract started....Yet another great idea..with our National state at the top of his priority of course!!

I dont think Martin went to the Funeral. He was in Halifax when Lt.(N)Saunder came home but he was in Europe meeting with Russians and Hungarians yesterday....Slainte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:31 PM

Surely they needed some sort of certificate of sea worthiness? The buyer would be responsible for that. Looks like the 'Buyer Beware' addage has a reason.

Sounds an awful way to die. Sympathies to the family and big shame on the cheap skate who ok'd these subs.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 12:38 PM

The 'ultimate' cheapskate that OKed these subs was the Canadian people.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 02:26 PM

Shang - Neither I nor Obie suggested using using subs to move troops & equipment. Obie was complaining that surface transport was more important than subs. I queried whether hiring air transport (given the capacity of military air transport these days) would not be more cost effective in the long run than buying troopships.

Obie - I'm still puzzled. Peacekeeping troops don't normally take in ultra-heavy equipment i.e. MBT's & heavy artillery. Anything short of an MBT certainly fits inside the likes of a Lockheed Galaxy, & surely the US would jump at the PR of transporting peace keeping troops, alongside the more muted PR of not ripping off their 'brothers', the Canucks, the way a commercial carrier (sea or otherwise) would...

I've got no figures, mind, I'm just going on gut instinct here. Either why, my sympathies still lie with the unfortunate Lt Saunders! :(

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 02:41 PM

Wulfie...Canada continues to transport troops and equipment via commercial freight. Trains from central Canada to the Port Cities and then freighters across the pond...yep..expensive..yep we get ripped off....good deals for everyone..haha..

Definately a "Byer Beware" situation all. I still just sit and shake my head...makes no sense still..no matter hwo they twist it or who they point the finger at...

Bruce...still no word from Martin I am assuming?

Slainte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Raedwulf
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:04 PM

RB - I won't say I'm surprised. Maybe someone's got shares in (or is after a complementary directorship of) one of the carriers. But I'll stubbornly persist in asking my question - what's the cheapest option?

Commercial carriers will always rip you off, it's their business. Buy the ships & you have to maintain them even when you've no real use for them (which, in this scenario, must be often). Buy the carriage when you need it, air is waaaaaay faster than sea, & there are any number of reasons why the US might reasonably be more accomadating than businessmen. Surely it's got to be more cost effective than the alternatives. Or have your politicians got their heads stuffed up thei....

Ah! That's the point isn't it? I forgot for a moment that it's pollys making the decisions. Silly me! Forget I asked... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:31 PM

RB: Zip as yet. I will re-send tomorrow. Have sent twice so far. Saturday, I will send to the opposition. Maybe it can be addressed in the House. Have to see. Hurry up and wait--but we have both been there and done that. Hope you're well.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 04:11 PM

Wulf..well..interesting you mentioned that...alot of our equipt. is transported by Canadian NAtional Railway..yep..Gov't owned and operated..the ships used when sent across the Atlantic are owned by the Irving Family which is very strong in tied with the powering Gov't. The Irvings also own 3 of the ports used and owns rights to one ofthe major rail lines used once the equip. gets to Atlantic Canada. Definately not the cheapest option..but...back scratching works. The Irvings flew Martin and afew colligues to the Atlantic region and wined and dined them so well that the Opposition complained about it when wind got out about the trip...go figure...

Bruce...on the other hand...Martin is "on business" in France today apparently...busy guy, dont ya know!..;)

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 06:41 PM

Using commercial freighters for troop transport is not unusual.

Designing, building and maintaining ships specific to a task such as troop transport would be more expensive than leasing them as required.

During the Falklands War a good number of ships were ships taken up from trade, so called STUFT.

The British Army does however keep a number of vessels which are designed for use as tank and heavy weapon transport but these are much fewer in number and again they offer a cost benefit as leasing a merchant ship, and then cutting shipping routes into the hull and inside the ship itself would be prohibitively expensive.

About 8 years before the Falklands War the MOD decided that as a cost cutting exercise the blue naval working rig, called No.8's, and the overalls that were made of pure cotton would be replaced by a material that contained a high percentage of synthetic fibre.

During the war a good number of surface ships were hit and set on fire, the flash burns were made worse as the synthetic fibres melted into peoples skins. Another cock up by MOD bean counters.

Boots issued to the marines and army were the so called 'boot DMS', Boot direct moulded sole. These were of poor quality and led to many cases of trenchfoot in the boggy conditions. Some defence contractor was making money and probably providing funds to one of the political parties.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Metchosin
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:28 PM

CN was sold off to private interests in 1995, ReelBrew, Canada no longer has a public rail company.

"The CN Commercialization Act was enacted into law on July 13, 1995 and by November 28, 1995, the federal government had
completed an initial public offering (IPO) and transferred all of its shares to private investors. Two key prohibitions in this legislation
include, 1) that no individual or corporate shareholder may own more than 15% of CN, and 2) that the company's headquarters must
remain in Montreal, thus maintaining CN as a Canadian corporation."

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:49 PM

Re in France on business: Wonder if he's using a Sea King in his travels?

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:25 PM

ReelBrew - Maybe it was trick photography, but I'm sure they showed Martin at the airport when the body came home to Canada. On second thought I guess thats not the funeral. He did, however, show some respect by meeting the plane.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:53 PM

I just sent a copy of the letter to Rob Merrifield. He's my MP. Conservative.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 16 Oct 04 - 11:22 PM

Still no word from either my MP or my PM.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: RichM
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 01:38 PM

There has been a question in this thread, about the role and responsibilities of the Governor General of Canada.

"The Governor General's role is built on six major themes:

Representing the Crown in Canada
Promoting Canadian Sovereignty
Celebrating Excellence
Encouraging National Identity, National Unity and Moral Leadership "

source: role of the Governor General of Canada

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 17 Oct 04 - 02:01 PM

I can think of no better person for this role than our present Governor General of Canada, Adrienne Clarkson.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 12:26 PM

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 12:33 PM

Still no word from our leaders. Glad I wasn't holding my breath.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:25 PM

Just saw an article on Canoe News today suggesting the Brits are now doing up the bill for helping us out last week...nice guys that they are...God bless big brothers...suppose we should send them the bills for our debts from WWI and II?..I dare say the figure would be much greater then an Airmed Evac and a tow to port...Slàinte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 01:41 PM

Buying secondhand goods is often a false economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 10:51 PM

I read that too, ReelBrew. I am disgusted! How dare they charge us for a recovery mission when it was the crappy junk they sold us. How arrogant can you be?

Seems that now that Blair and Bush are good buddies, Canada is just a poor relative. Maybe we always have been but this is going too far. I hope Canada continues to keep a safe distance away from both the U.S. and Britain. Obviously, neither can be trusted and they certainly aren't our friends.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 18 Oct 04 - 11:02 PM

To quote Kissinger, "Countries do not have friends; countries have interests."

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 07:43 AM

One possible answer to your question regarding why Canada may feel the need for a submarine capability, and a convential capability at that would be that diesel-electric boats, particularly in coastal waters, are probably the best submarine hunters and killers going.

The Canadian Government bought four - more than enough to look after the entrance to the St.Lawrance seaway.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:20 AM

Teribus, thats a very good and valid point..however..the term "Sub Hunter" is also used on our City Class Destroyers, Sea King Helicopter, and Aurora Aircraft. They do their job flawlessly with the exception of the Sea King. The Govt also says the Subs are needed for coastal defence, security, and for the Depts. of Oceans and Fisheries, as well as Customs and the RCMP. Also shared purpose as the Maritime Coastal Defence Vessel (MCDV) and again, the Sea King and Aurora....Slàinte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 09:26 AM

If you're going to send people to fight, you have the obligation of outfit, train and support them as best you can. No expense is too great. You should give them the same things you yourselve would want.

It's been known for years that synthetic fibers are a disaster in burns. To use them in general-issue combat clothing simply to save money borders on the criminal.

Brucie, I doubt that you'll hear back. Politicians have too much else to do to listen to constituents.

I can understand why Canada might need submarines; I'd suggest four in the west, four in the east, and two in the north. I could even see deploying one of the eastern boats in the Great Lakes, but other than that I can't see deploying any others in the south. But again, to supply anything but the best is...well....

Years back I read in The Toronto Star an editorial piece about an invasion of the US by USSR special forces troops. Part of the response by the US was to send a force to Canada to "mop up" the parachutists who'd landed there because the Canadian forces couldn't do the job. I remember the line "The US says that its forces will be withdrawn when the danger of invasion is past."

I have also been in Quebec during one of its secessionsist spasms and discussing it with a Quebecois. He had never considered that neither US nor the rest of Canada would never permit the St. Lawrence Seaway to be under any control other than theirs and that they would send troops to insure such control. (He also had never considered that the Western Provinces would no longer have to subsidize oil products for Quebec, but that's another story.)

Big Brother Britain? Do you seriously believe that if the US invaded Canada that Britain would come to Canada's aid? I don't, not with Blair and Bush joined at the hip.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 10:10 AM

I dont think Quebec or the US is really an issue when it comes to the Security of the Country...Canada is "fan favoured" enough throughout the World that if in fact the US invaded Canada, the Global response would be great. And I do still think the UK would hepl us if need be, even despite my couple of weeks worth of rant. Recall if you will the Cod War in the early '90's. The UK voted in strong support of sending Royal Navy vessels to Canadian waters to support our mission in turning back the Spanish ships. I think the support would be the same if it mattered this day in age with an opposing force stronger the Spain.

Not sure what use a Sub in the Great Lakes would do but thats fine.

The Canadian Forces doesn't try to save money on Uniforms. In fact we spend more money and have among the most technically advance Combat uniforms in the World - Heat maintained to minimize infra-red and fire resistance, and computer generated patterns to break body formation. Even our plain old olives were pretty good Combats...Slàinte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 12:44 PM

Still heard nothing.

I love my government.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 01:26 PM

he's probably too busy trying to make a deal to sell Flu vaccines to G Dubbya.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 02:59 PM

Oh, yes, the Canadian drugs that don't meet American standards. Right. Gotta love it.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 19 Oct 04 - 05:32 PM

I would suggest that because of the limited time a convetional submarine can remain dived they would only be used for coastal operations and not for under ice work.

Working under an ice cap is extremely dangerous in any submarine. In order to surface in an emergancy an area of thin ice needs to be found, a polnya.

Further it often takes several days to get into position under the ice. Submarines that do go under the ice go in quite long distances.

The SSK (conventional boats) would need to snort diesal every 4 days, and SSN can remain dived for weeks.

However an SSK is very quiet and can operate very effectivley against other submarines in its hunter killer role or to be used for tracking surface units of a 'hostile' nation without them being aware they are under observation.

Submarines are rarely used for flag waving, however back in the 60's when the Argentinians were contemplating an earlier invasion of the Falklands the first of the RN nuclear powered boats, HMS Dreadnought was sent down there and when it was in position it surfaced and allowed its presence to be known, the Argentinians backed off.

The Swedish company Kockums which designed the Collins class boats for the Aussie Navy have an option that allows an extra section containing a Stirling engine to be fitted into the boats. These are a type of closed cycle engine that can operate of fuel and air when dived and allow the boat to be propelled in a combination of both main battery propulsion and engine propulsion. They are very quiet too.

I do not understand why the Canadian Navy ended up with 18 year old boats when there are better option available.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 09:50 PM

Still no word. I feel so enfranchised.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Rapparee
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:12 PM

My mother once wrote our Representative about an issue she cared deeply about, voicing her concerns in a rational manner.

Her response was a pamphlet about why she would re-elect the guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 24 Oct 04 - 10:27 PM

Well, at least she got a pamphlet. I didn't even get a "Dear Occupant" or a "KFO". (The K stands for Kindly.)

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: grumpy al
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 02:33 PM

just been reading through some of the entries, I thought our armed forces got a rough deal but you Canadians sure have us beat! i am finding it really difficult to believe that another government could equal the ineptitude of the U.K. but from what has been written you got us beat again. I can only offer my condolences for what your nation is suffering.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 06:13 PM

well folks..its happened again..another POlitician using LT(N) Saunders as a political stab...I think its about cooth, respect...and this time it was an article written by non-other then MY PM!...Sad thing is..I voted for him..I respect him..I give his party money every month!...so...time for me to be the bad guy..really..can Politicians not find something better to bicker about? If Chris hadn't died no one would have batted an eye...it would have been "Canadian Military this...Canadian Navy that...Liberals blahblahblah.."..but now..the first words out are .."blame the liberals...oh...and..yeah..sorry about your loss Gwen"....grrrr....well thats my rant for the day...Slainte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Rapparee
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 06:22 PM

At least, RB, he's acknowledging the fact that someone has died.

Here in the US, all grieving is local and there is a lot of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 06:22 PM

And a fine rant it is, ReelBrew. I hope that fire continues. It defines you as a caring, thinking person.

All the best,

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 25 Oct 04 - 11:35 PM

Reel Brew,

Hang in. Over the years I have sent about seven letters to Ottawa about the disgraceful state of our military. I seldom receive answers. I am going to re-send tomorrow AM.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 04:50 PM

hmm...that was a good rant yesterday...so much so that I didnt realize I was battering the PMnot the MP..ah well...all y'all knew what I meant I guess becasue no one came back saying they didnt hear Martin saying that...it was actually Conservative MP Dave Batters. New kid in town..trying to make a name I guess...I spose someone has to replace Elsie Wayne...GO Dave!..haha......Slainte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 06:00 PM

"and it was discovered that at least one of the Upholders had a bent frame (indicating the sub had been involved in an undisclosed collision)."

No CarFax? LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 26 Oct 04 - 10:12 PM

A number of our (RN) boats had close encounters of the Russian kind particularly during the period 1970-1985.

Luckily no boat was lost as both British and US boats were playing where they shouldn't and the pesky Russians took umbrage when they thought they had found us.

But that is what boats are for, gathering intelligence.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 27 Oct 04 - 10:54 PM

Bastards still haven't e-mailed me back.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Charmion at work
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 12:55 PM

Brucie, why are you holding your breath?

Surely you realize by now that each and every cabinet minister has a "correspondence unit" specifically charged with holding your letter or e-mail in limbo for a very long time before doing anything with it, and then sending you a reply that begins "So sorry it took us so long to answer your letter / e-mail [strike out where applicable], goes on to say nothing much of anything, and closes with effusive thanks for writing.

Why do I know this?

Because I am an editor in the Public Affairs branch at the Department of National Defence!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 02:07 PM

LOL

Will I get an answer if I send the letter to the Public Affairs branch?

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Rapparee
Date: 28 Oct 04 - 06:55 PM

I'll respond, brucie. No problem, even though I'm in the US. The formula is universal.

Dear Sir,

We're so sorry that it took so long to answer your letter/email (choose one), but as you can imagine we are quite busy this time of year.

The Prime Minister/President/Dictator/Emperor/Overlord (choose one) appreciates your concern regarding ________________________. Please be assured the she or he is actively investigating the situation and will do everything possible.

Thank you for your concern.

Sincerely yours,
(sign name here)

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 01:20 AM

Glad to take a breath at last. Thanks, Rapaire.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Metchosin
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 01:48 AM

Oddly enough brucie, I got a response from Chrétien's office a while back, when I wrote about my concern regarding the possibility of Canada joining the US "coalition of the willing". To be sure, it was a form letter, but I did appreciate the acknowledgemnet of my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: TS
Date: 29 Oct 04 - 07:41 PM

wow Rapaire..well done...you got what it takes...I'd vote for you any day!...Slainte!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 12:22 AM

brucie - Do not despair! I'm not sure if Ottawa will ever reply but when I wrote the mayor protesting the possible closure of our little, street front library; he wrote back and assured me that it would not be closing. Its still open!

I'm delighted.

As to the submarines (or the state of the military)- Since they are investigating, they probably can't respond. I'm sure your letter was one of many that set the ball in motion. Lets hope the media doesn't let this die.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 12:29 AM

I should have said inquiry, not investigation.

Oh well - I just heard that the subs were partially paid for with Britains debt to Canada.

Nice way to repay an old friend.
(Hey, maybe they're not our friends, after all!)

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 06:45 AM

dianavan. What debt? you dont speak German do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 01:53 PM

From the Ottawa citizen: Navy wanted to buy subs by forgiving Britain's war debt. The navy proposed using hundreds of millions of dollars that Britain still owed Canada from the Second World War as a means to partly finance the submarine deal, according to a Defence Department report.

...and yes, I do speak German, bitte.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 02:03 PM

Well, well, well,

Check this out:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/10/28/sub_purchase041028.html

and this from the Globe and Mail:

More than a decade ago, the British navy knew of insulation problems on the main power lines in submarines subsequently bought by Canada. But it didn't upgrade the insulation on all four submarines, only partly documented the repairs and never explicitly told the Canadian navy, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Eventually both navies independently devised more durable and watertight upgrades for one water-prone location, but neither regarded it as important to use the upgraded insulation on connections where the high-voltage lines pass through a bulkhead underneath the captain's cabin.

That location is where arcing caused a catastrophic electrical fire earlier this month aboard HMCS Chicoutimi, leaving the newly refurbished submarine crippled and without power, and an officer dying of smoke inhalation.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 09:28 PM

Thanks for posting that Dianavan. The diary on that link relating to a trip on the HMCS Windsor is an intersting one as it does talk about continous problems during the trip. Hydraulic leaks, water seal leaks.


I just hope that the enquiry is not whitewash.

With regards the insulation problem it would be very difficult to upgrade the insulation. Cable insulation is an integral part of the cable. The solution would have been to re-cable. But that is almost impossible to do in a completed submarine. Normally the cable goes in as they build the boat, then followed by the heavy equipment it will be used to power. The cables would run through watertight bulkhead glands. These boats were built in sectional rings and there are miles of cable inside a boat. I am not making excuses but just pointing out how difficult it is to re-wire.

As I said in an ealrier post when these boats were first commissioned into the RN we were hearing of problems with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 21 Dec 04 - 10:59 AM

And you think governments aren't responsive to their citizens.

December 20, 2004

I sent you an e-mail in early October. This is a copy of the second
sending. That makes this the third time I have sent this e-mail and I
have yet to hear back from your office.

Below is the e-original e-mail and
then below that is the answer I received today, December 21, 2004.

ORIGINAL E-MAIL

The Right Honourable Paul Martin,
Prime Minister of Canada

Sir:

The death of Lt (N) Chris Saunders, 32 years old, is the result of
negligence on the part of the Canadian people and its elected
representatives in the Cabinet and the House of Commons. As you are
aware, he died as a result of smoke inhalation from a fire aboard the HMCS
Chicoutimi. Now, Lt Saunders will never see his wife or sons again, nor
they him. His children are two-year-old Ben and seven-week-old Luke.
Gwen will face the responsibility of raising these children by herself.

Our continued under funding of the military has led to a senseless death
aboard a Canadian submarine, and collectively, we are to blame. What
kind of country outfits its military men and women with second-hand equipment
and second-rate materiel? Is it not enough that our military goes in
harm's way on our behalf without them having to do so with little else
but their courage and sense of duty?

Recall when you were Finance Minister in the Chretien government that we
had an embarrassing and potentially-lethal set of circumstances
presented to our military personnel when one of two Sea King helicopters that was
to participate in the August 4, 2000 assault of an American-owned ship
(captained and crewed by Russians, and carrying millions of dollars
worth of tanks and peace-keeping materiel being returned from Kosovo) was
unable to lift off due to mechanical problems. The damned helicopters were
untrustworthy then. We still have them in use today. This is just
another in a list of debacles that make me so angry I can't even find the words
to explain myself. Add to that the lack of uniforms for the kids going into
Afghanistan, and the lack of transport to get them there--does this
present an ugly picture to you?

We have turned our backs on the military, and we are now killing our own
children because of our irresponsible behaviour to do with proper
funding.

I have NEVER before been ashamed to say I am Canadian. I am ashamed
today, and I am of the personal opinion that you and your Cabinet should feel
the same. I hope you do, but I think maybe you won't. How many more of our
children will pay this price for the rest of us? And why?

Bruce Murdoch

PS This was sent on October 9, 2004. I haven't heard anything back. BM


THE ANSWER

Please know that your e-mail message has been received in the Prime
Minister's Office and that your comments have been noted. Our office
always welcomes hearing from correspondents and being made aware of
their views.

Thank you for writing.

Sachez que le Cabinet du Premier ministre a bien reçu votre courriel et que nous avons pris bonne note de vos commentaires. Nous aimons être bien informés de l'opinion des correspondants.

Je vous remercie d'avoir écrit au Premier ministre.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Dec 04 - 12:44 PM

See? I gave you pretty much the same answer over a month ago, only I only did it in English.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 21 Dec 04 - 12:53 PM

Ain't that the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 30 Dec 04 - 10:39 PM

BBC Radio 4 have just run a programme on HMCS Chicoutimi. It is available on archive for about a week. Go to this link and click on 'It's my story'

It's my Story-HMCS Chicoutimi

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: gnu
Date: 31 Dec 04 - 05:57 AM

What do you need to open a .ram file ? (Haven't read this thread yet, but I would like to see Jean and his merry band embark on a round-the-world tour involving the subs, choppers, APC's, jeeps.... and PAY we give to our military.)

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 11 Apr 05 - 07:36 PM

In case anyone has been holding his or her breath, I haven't yet heard from either the Prime Minister or my Member of Parliament.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:07 PM

There are still some aspects of the incident under review at a meeting in Scotland, and until they are concluded there will be no public statement issued. The wheels of government roll slowly in such matters.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 06:34 PM

Gotcha. But I haven't even received a PFO letter from Ottawa. Dopesn't surprise me, tell ya the truth. But thanks for that, Dave.

BM

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Obie
Date: 12 Apr 05 - 09:20 PM

Them bastards only pretend to give a shit when they want your vote!
       Obie

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 02:03 AM

Too bloody true.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: dianavan
Date: 13 Apr 05 - 11:58 PM

brucie - I think they are too busy trying to cover their asses to deal with a plebe.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 05 May 05 - 07:59 AM

The results of the investigation will be made public today.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 05 - 09:35 AM

For a completely unbiased media report on the findings be sure to watch CBC news eh!

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 05 May 05 - 11:00 AM

About time. Want to bet it's couched in vague terms?

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: gnu
Date: 05 May 05 - 12:36 PM

Frome the report, paraphrased, a lot: A rogue wave washed over the tower and entered two open hatches. The following events led to the death. No one at fault. Sub was safe.

A rogue wave and open hatches? I ain't no tar so I just don't get the concept of open hatches. Anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Dave (the ancient mariner)
Date: 05 May 05 - 02:06 PM

The conning tower is the highest point of a submarine. The hatches through the tower(there are more than one) were left open, this allows fresh air to circulate below which is refreshing for the crew. A rogue wave is a wave higher than the average waves experienced during any given sea condition; water ingress down the tower inside the submarine caused an intense electrical fire in an exposed electrical panel.

The open hatches at sea are not unusual on a diesel submarine, but in rough weather it is policy to have one watertight tower hatch closed. Since these investigations are highly self critical, and very detailed, you can be assured that the sub was not expecting abnormal sea conditions. The root cause of the fire leaves us guessing at the possibility of a design error, some water will always find its way through the tower. Perhaps inexperience was a factor, because they had no time for extensive sea trials before bringing the sub home.

Design is an issue because one should always expect some water to ingress through the tower. An exposed electrical panel should not be so placed, and definately should be protected. Inexperience may also be a factor due to limited sea trials prior to the voyage. Perhaps it is another example of how we progress in time and technology, but with little wisdom. Any way you view this, the officers and crew are not to blame for the wave. Having been identified as a problem, It is unlikely this will happen again.

Yours, Aye. Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: robomatic
Date: 05 May 05 - 02:22 PM

I was just reviewing submarine information on the web, being interested in subs all my life. Seems back in WWII the Germans and Americans both had advanced subs but many design differences based on size of the oceans they inhabited and long term mission. The Germans apparently had smaller boats with twin diesel drives linked to the screws mechanically. The Americans needed bigger boats to get across the Pacific so copied the design of diesel train engines and only used electric motors, 2 to a screw. They often had as many as four diesel drives which were used to turn generators. They thus had generators which the Germans didn't need because the German drive motors doubled as generators, but the Americans didn't have to utilize 4 big clutches to sort out what powered what.

Where I'm going with this is - aren't submarines cool? Getting on with it, if you ever watched Das Boot you'll see that in the confines of the subs everything attracted condensed water. The American boats of the time had more electronics, hence they had air conditioning to keep 'em dry.

The accident to the Canadian sub was tragic, but hopefully you got good equipment and a few splash guards or changed procedures will see you out.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 05 May 05 - 08:10 PM

Dave is correct there are two watertight hatches in the fin (in the RN it is always called a fin not a conning tower). If the weather was really rough then one of the hatches would be shut. The snort ventilation system could then be lined up to provide ventilation and air into the pressure hull as well as to run diesals.

Shutting one of the fin hatches was a decision to be made by the skipper. If the boat had to perform a crash dive then it would take time (valuable seconds) to open the hatch, drop through and secure it.

If a freak wave did poop the fin then the deluge down below would be such that no splashguards would fully protect the panels in the control room below.

One of our Superb class boats was knocked sideways by a freak wave whilst on the surface in the Atlantic in the late 70's, one crewman was lost and the boat nearly did not right itself. By all accounts it was a terrifying experience.

An added danger would be if sea water had reached the main battery compartment. The sea water pouring over the battery would cause an electolytic reaction generating chlorine. Thankfully this did not happen or else the entire crew could have been gassed.

There are also other hatches on the Upholder class. Two forward, the torpedo loading hatch and fwd escape tower, also a main access hatch, aft there would be the aft escape hatch. Once the boat leaves harbour these would be shut and clipped as the casing would be awash most of the time. Up until the casing is secured for sea the surface speed would be kept down to prevent the casing being overwashed.

Any links to the enquiry results?

While I was in boats I knew people who were serving on the Upholder class and they often spoke of design problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 05 - 08:14 PM

Here, Shanghaiceltic

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 05 May 05 - 09:42 PM

Thanks for that Brucie.

For those of you who have not been on board a boat you cannot imagine the runs of piping and cables that run through the whole submarine, interspersed with valves of all kinds, connection boxes, emergancy breathing systems etc etc. plus all the control panels used to steer, operate the blowing and diving systems, and main propulsion.

High power cables carrying power from the main battery to the electric motor-generators, twin HP hydraulic mains that are used to operate the rudders, fore and afterplanes as well as the masts (persicopes, radar, snort induction and exhaust)and hull valves. HP Air mains that provide blowing power. It is a complex and crowded weapon of war and when things go wrong they go wrong quickly. Fires generate massive amounts of smoke and poisonous fumes, inside a boat it is hard to clear the fumes quickly as all you have is the ventilation system to aid clearing it. Imagine having a fire in a basement and only having one small window to clear the fumes through, but you cannot get out yourself.

The freak wave which allowed water into the control room would have penetrated almost any control panel causing a chain reaction. I doubt splash guards would have prevented this happening.

I am glad the captain was cleared, he and his men showed incredible courage and fortitude in preventing even further loss of life and keeping the boat from sinking with all hands.

All these guys would have passed or be ready to pass what we called the Part III exam which is a written exam and a walk through the boat where you are expected to know and demonstrate knowledge of the systems and how to isolate them in emergancy sitations. Once that has been passed you are awarded the coveted 'Dolphins'

Such knowledge is what saved the crews lives.

It would be interesting to get a look at the entire report.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 05 May 05 - 10:46 PM

www.parl.gc.ca/infocomdoc/Documents/38/ 1/parlbus/commbus/house/reports/nddnrp01/nddnrp01-e.pdf

This is a Parliamentary Report dealing with procurement, etc. There is a section dealing with the accident, but it is not the 700-page report mentioned in the news article. I will keep an eye out for that and give a link/notify you if and when, Shanghaiceltic.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: gnu
Date: 06 May 05 - 07:01 AM

Thanks for the info.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,robomatic
Date: 06 May 05 - 08:55 AM

Thanks for the enlightenment, particularly Rapaire's history lesson and Shanhaiceltic's technical talk. I'm just talking out loud here, and due to my ignorance I'm not understanding all of what happened, though it seems clear if they had a nasty fire they sure could have lost the ship and are probably fortunate that, tragic as it was, they suffered no more than one fatality.

I'm wondering what 'era' these subs are from. They can't be too old, or they wouldn't be worth having. Military technology lags behind civilian in that it has to be proofed for wartime use, hence several times as rugged as what one would see in civilian life.

From the above referenced article:

During that repair work a rogue wave washed over the submarine, sending 2,000 litres of sea water cascading through the open hatchways into the control room, where it soaked high-voltage wires, causing the fire.

The fire knocked out power in the boat, leaving it adrift in heavy seas.


Most subs are powered by battery banks, as an example the American WWII sub I was mentioning above had two banks of 126 cells each, putting the service DC voltage at roughly 400 V. In order to power 1000 horsepower motors, you end up with currents in the 2000 Amp range, which is huge, and calls for big honkin' cables. The voltage, however, is not 'high' by electrical terms, and (in civilian life) doesn't require thick insulation. The technical side probably comes around the terminations, sealing them off, and in the case mentioned in the report, of control panels. Where electricity is concerned you've got to be sealed off 100% and that is hard to do against seawater and pressure. Over time all insulation degrades due to mechanical strains, plastic decomposition (very slow, though), and, depending on the voltage, electrical stress.

Since the 70's there might have been changes in design for utility and efficiency involving putting the DC through an invertor and generating AC onboard, in which case there could be all sorts of voltages, which electrically call for more elaborate insulating measures. This would be anything over 600 V. In theory it can still be insulated, but above 4000 V it gets to be much thicker, more expensive, and lifetime limited. The big saving, however, is that you can transmit power over much smaller cables, and with AC you have a lot more sophisticated control possibilities.

There should always be a sophisticated electrical circuitry protection system which 'trips' shorted cables. In each system there may be cables which are sacrosanct, such as fire protection power systems, which are not worth having if they can trip off, but in those cases those systems are heavily overbuilt.

The news article linked above, if I read it correctly, mentioned 2000 litres of seawater coming down the hatches, which amounts to about 500 US gallons, which is a few 'bathtubs' worth of water. It should go through drains in the floor to some sort of sump. In other words, 2000 litres doesn't sound like much.

Thank you for tolerating my words, written from lack of knowledge. I enjoy reading the more experienced posts to this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Raedwulf
Date: 06 May 05 - 12:54 PM

I'll second Robo's thank you to the more technically knowledgeable mermen here present! I'm assuming from the comments already passed that, regardless of any cynicism about the poltico's, we're accepting this as an accurate & objective inquiry on what happened?

A quick search for more info on the Upholder class produces this, which appears to be official Canadian Navy spiel.

This is rather less complimentary, but appears to be generally anti- military procurement, rather than "Don't buy Upholders, they're inherently crap" which was an early suggestion in this thread.

Here we have more what I was looking for in response to Robo's admission of ignorance (mea culpa, me too!), the relevant para being:

The UK's Upholder (Type 2400) class submarines were built by Vickers Shipbuilding and launched in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were withdrawn from service in the British Royal Navy in 1994, following a defence review by the UK government. Canada purchased the submarines and a suite of trainers in 1998 and BAE Systems (formerly Vickers Shipbuilding) at Barrow in UK were contracted to refit the submarines. The submarines are being transferred to Halifax in Canada for commissioning.

which suggests that the actual design & technology originates from the early 80's.

My sympathies still lie with Lt Saunders, but it does now look like it was something that amounts more to an 'industrial accident', than to anything blamable on anyone. To put it another way, we can (& have!) rowed endlessly about whether the Iraq war was justified, but some of those who have died were victims of traffic accidents. They might have been victims of traffic accidents without Iraq, & it looks like Lt Saunders was, if you see what I mean.

Sometimes bad luck just happens. :(

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 06 May 05 - 07:43 PM

Two of the Upholder class were built by Cammel Lairds in Birkenhead. They were the last boats to be built there.

Once water gets into a control room there are only small drains which lead down to the bilges to take the water away.

500 gallons/2000 liters does not sound much but is would come pouring down the hatches which are anly about a meter in diameter as a solid bore of water. It also equates to 2000 kgs of mass added to the boat, as the electrical power was knocked out they could not run the bilge and trim pumps to remove the water. Boats on the surface are in a fine state of trim.

The main battery on a boat does not have high voltages as was pointed out above, but it does have a high current.

All boats have a battery even nuclear powered ones. Should the reactor scram (shut down)the boat can then run on electric propulsion until the reactor is brought critical and self sustaining again. If the problem is going to be a long one and operational circumstances permit then the boat will come to periscope depth and snort deisal. If the boat is on a patrol in a sensative area then the captain will delay running deisals until the last possible moment. The snort induction mast poked above the surface would possibly give the boats position away even though they are covered with radar absorbany material. The exhaust mast is kept below the surface when dived at periscope depth.

Sometimes when in sensative areas a boat would reduce reactor power to a minimum, shut down nearly all of the air con' and domestic electrical services and proceed on battey power so that the boat was in an ultra quiet state. Use of the heads was also restricted and we used good old elsan chemical loos so that pumping of slop, drain and sewage tanks was reduce to a minimum

The batteries on a boat are huge. Over a meter tall and about half a meter wide and a third of a meter deep. The batteries on a boat like the Upholder class would be arranged in several groups that would allow them to be operated in series for short high speed operations or in parralell for more sustained but slower underwater speeds.

Snort deisaling would occur every few days to recharge the cells.

The Upholder class were designed in the 70's and built in the 80's. They were to replace the older (but excellent) Porpoise and Oberon class boats. I served on a coupl of P&O's as we called them as well as a marine engineer on nuclear powered boats. I never quite understood why we got rid of the conventional boats as they were much quieter than a nuclear boat at that time, plus they were of a shallower draft which permitted close in coastal operations.

The nuclear boats tended to be used for what were called 'sneakies', AKA intelligence gathering, particularly so during the Cold War through out the 70's and 80's.

Two good books on the cold war operations are;

'Blind Man's Buff' by Sherry Sontag and Christopher Drew. This covers US cold war work and while it is obvious it was not written by someone who served on boats it is still an excellent read and reveals some quite stunning operational patrols against the USSR.

'We Come Unseen' by Jim Ring. This covers the careers of 5 RN submarine captains from their time as Middy's to their Perishers course and command. One of my old skippers, Chris Wreford-Brown, features heavily. It is an excellent book and gives a good view of submarine operations and the personalities of the skippers but is a little more reserved in what it reveals.

'We Come Unseen' was the moto of the RN Submarine service. Those nasty buggers on surface ships changed it to 'We Come Unclean'.....can't think why ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: robomatic
Date: 06 May 05 - 09:28 PM

Shanghaiceltic:

Once again thanks for the informative and explanatary post which I really enjoyed reading. I read "Blind Man's Bluff" last summer, it turned out one of my neighbors had friends or relatives in the service and he leant it to me. I also really enjoyed reading and watching "Das Boot" and when I was last in Anchorage I came upon the memoirs of a U-Boat Captain who wrote a very interesting book about his service there, almost entirely against the Brits, which he was lucky to survive. I'm afraid I can't recall the title right now.

Thank you for tolerating my golly gee whiz initial post to this thread, and I will look for "We Come Unseen".

I've not seen actual sub batteries, but I've done some work with industrial UPS systems and I have an idea of what they're about if I scale up the size of the cells. The American WWII sub I was reading about had 2 banks of 126 cells at 1500 lbs a cell. That's about 200 tons of batteries and likely several tons of copper for the cables. Electric drives of proportionate size would be something to see as well. The on-line history mentioned something I believe to be true, that while the Germans tried and failed to starve England, the Americans tried and succeeded in starving the Japanese military via submarine warfare, and in comparison to the aircraft carrier wars, gets almost no mention in the public history of the Pacific Theater. Supposedly the Japanese had some sizable submarines of their own and achieved some successes, notably the Indianapolis on her return after delivering Atomic weapons to the American assembly point.

And of course you are familiar with the submariners who define ships into two groups: Submarines and Targets.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Peace
Date: 07 May 05 - 02:36 PM

Incidental note: When the Indianapolis sunk, the men in the water were savaged by sharks. Due to radio silence, no one knew where they were. Hundreds died as a result.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:15 PM

I have a copy of Das Boot on DVD, probably one of the best films of it's genre.

I read Lother Gunter Blochiems book many years ago. I would liketo get hold of a copy for my library.

I also have in storage a book of his photo's which were discovered in an attic in Berlin about 20 odd years ago and republished. Some quite incredible photography. Those photos were never published in the book Das Boot.

A couple of years ago the film K-19 came out. A poor film but the book is worth getting hold of. Written by Peter Huchthausen a former USN Captain.

That book along with 'A Time to Die' by Peter Moore about the Kursk disaster give an insight into Russian submarine operations and how poor and unsafe design led to the loss of many Russian submariners lives.

The Kursk was a horrible distaster and from what I have read of it can be put down to lack of training as the 23 crew members in the aft section could have escaped. No one in the fwd sections would have survived the blast from the ignition of the torpedoes that were fueled by high test peroxide which leaked and cause a self sustaining fire on two dissimilar metals. HTP was the propellant.

In St Petersburg in Russia in the Admiraltskaya area next to the Neva River is an incredible navy museum dedicated to the Russian Navy with a particularly poignient section devoted to Russian submariners.

Since leaving the RN and working overseas I have met up with submariners of many navies and had a chance to talk with them about their experiences and there is a common brotherhood amongst submariners which I have not seen in other walks of lives, even though we were often on different sides of the line.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: robomatic
Date: 07 May 05 - 06:57 PM

I understand that the RN has a pretty good museum but I don't know if it's near London or Portsmouth. I became a fan of the Aubrey - Maturin series by Patrick O'Brian, of course, no submarines there but it was a world with technical demands all its own.

During the Kursk disaster I recall walking during the light we have at lunchtime, and looking at a point up a hill reckoning that if I were on the Kursk, that point would be where the water's surface lay. When I was a kid I read some adventure book where the hero and his buddies are trapped under several hundred feet of water, and he tells them to escape they must let the water in, understand they would be taking in pressurized air, so they must start exhaling as they leave the overturned ship, and exhale all the way up or they will explode. It seemed to make sense, but it was juvenile fiction.

The way their own officials and politicos handled the case was a national shame. Remember how a concerned relative was drugged into unconsciousness right at the press conference?

I saw K-19. Medium movie about men placed in a terrible situation. Similar to what happened at Chernobyl where men stepped up to do tasks that would lead them to the grave.

Most designers have an identity they forge with whatever they construct. There have been some very good shows analyzing what brought the Twin Towers down on 9/11. In one of them they interviewed the architect, and you couldn't help but want to give the guy a hug. His office looked out at what had been a design triumph (although frankly, I remember thinking they looked ugly and utilitarian from the outside, I didn't understand their structure until these programs). You could see how deeply responsible he felt, not that he did anything wrong, quite the contrary, but in retrospective analysis it can always be shown how something different might have been done. In fact, he and the design team had done an excellent job. He deserved no more blame than Boeing for the 757 and 767 that hit the Towers.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST
Date: 07 May 05 - 10:22 PM

The RN Submarine Museum is next door to HMS Dolphin in Gosport, Hants.

An excellent museum. The are a number of submarines on display which include HMSm Alliance, which you can walk through, an X-craft, a mini submarine of the type used against the Tirpitz in Norway and a Holland class submarine, a petrol-electric boat recovered from the Channel and of the first commercialy built ones used by the RN.

Inside the museum are many displays including exhibits from my last boat HMSm Conqueror.

If you ever get down there you can spend a day visiting HMS Victory, the Mary Rose (Henry VIII period ship) and HMS Warrior a lone surviving ironbuilt navy ship from the Vistorian period.

The book on K-19 covers not just the K-19 incident but others as well of the Russian K class which were a design disaster.

Sorry for high-jacking (shanghaiing even? this thread)

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Shangahaiceltic
Date: 07 May 05 - 10:23 PM

Sorry I was not logged in above.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Shanghaiceltic
Date: 08 May 05 - 03:08 AM

Thanks for the headsup on the report Brucie, it made some interesting reading and looks to be a fair report.

There are good recommendations for further training on both the submarines themselves and more realistic firefighting training.

Like aircraft pilots, submariners spend a lot of time on simulators. These could be attack training simulators, also simulators for running the diving and trim systems, propulsion simulators too. On these the crew under training can be thrown various exercises which would not be able to be practiced on board a real boat as the potential for something to go wrong would be very bad indeed.

Most naval personel in all navies attend firefighting training. Cant say I enjoyed mine as I found it dead scary. HMS Pheonix in Portsmouth is the RN firefighting school. There they had a firefighting tank where fires can be lit in compartments and the crews trained in donning and using breathing aparatus in confined conditions as well as fighting the fires. Crawling into a hot compartment which is smoke filled and all you can see is the glow of the fire is not a bundle of laughs, but it is essential.

We had no firefighting simulators for boats, all of ours were based on surface ship designs. I wonder if a special will be built for the Canadian Navy?

Training at sea consists of many drills involving HP hydraulic and airmain bursts, how to isolate them and still keep the boat operational. Simulated fires are often fought.

For the planesmen and control room crew they will carry out high speed underwater manouvering, we called them 'angles and dangles'. The point being to drive the boat to the limit of its manouveability, not only so that an underwater collison might be avoided but also to learn how to crash dive and to try to avoid an incoming torpedo by diving through the bathythermic layers. Layers of sea water which have different temperatures and salinity. The layers affect the ability of sonar to operate and the refraction of the sound beam being sent out from a homing torpedo, so it is possible to have a fighting chance to avoid them. Angles and dangles when you are on a boat carrying them out give no indication of speed but the boats do take on some alarming anlges, bit like a blind roller coaster but without anyone screaming or shoving their hands in the air.

The old Oberon class do need replacing. Grand old dames, reliable like a maiden aunt but long in the tooth. They are over 30 years old and have restricted diving depths. As a hull ages max diving depths become more restricted.

There was a comment on a website that Canada has sufficient aircraft, helicopters and surface ships to operate against a foreign navies boats. True but with many restrictions.

In the RN boats we regularly avoided anti-submarine aircraft fitted with magnetic anomoly detectors. Both our own and the Russians.

Surface ships when fitted with sonar have to slow down to lower their hull outfits and use sonar as the self generated water noise over the sonar farings at speed prevents effective listening or pinging.

Helicopters were more of a problem they could use dunking sonar, sonar sets on a cable, to triangulate a boats position. A weapon could then be dropped. We did not like choppers!

They could also move quickly from one spot to another, we could never work out where they would go next. In the 70's and 80's the Russians did not use them in their arctic circle bases so we had better opportunities to penetrate some of the fjords leading up to their bases.

Submarines rely on sonar, either in the passive mode using them as big ears and much more rarely actively. I can only recall us using active sonar on a handfull of occassions and none of them when we were where we should not have been.

Submarine sonar operators are heads above surface ship sonar operators as they use them 24/7. They can detect ships very early and even what type of ship. A submarine has only periscopes for a visual look and even that is very restricted.

Submarines are an essential part of a modern navy. They can go and do things that a surface ship just cannot do. Most submarines are involved 80% of their time tracking surface units and other submarines and gathering operational intelligence.

Yes there are SOSUS systems around the world which consist on sonar arrays on the seabed which can detect submarines coming into ones territorial water, but they too can be fooled. A submarine in an ultra quiet state can penetrate these. The Russians have been doing it for years globally equally the navies of the west have been penetrating theirs.

Sorry to be posting yet again.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 08 May 05 - 11:11 AM

Shanghaiceltic,

I love reading/hearing experts talk about their experiences, so please don't apologize for posting. I do have one issue to take up with you, however.

Firefighting isn't scary. It has a few dangers, but those risks can usually be managed.

But, I think the people who willingly get into a big box that has air in it and then sink beneath the surface of the sea are crazy as hell to begin with. I have never been a confined-space fan, and a submarine has to be the ultimate in confined space.

I have met two submariners in my life. They appeared normal, and I think they simulated sanity very well. In my heart, though, I know their wiring was quite different. Just thought I'd mention that to you.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,brucie
Date: 08 May 05 - 11:24 AM

"willingly get into a big box that has air in it"

should read

"willingly get into a big box that has a finite amount of air in it"

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 09 May 05 - 09:23 AM

Shanghai
Should you be admitting that
. In the 70's and 80's the Russians did not use them in their arctic circle bases so we had better opportunities to penetrate some of the fjords leading up to their bases.    ??

Re the museum. The site is the old HMS Dolphin as in Cyril Tawney's song Diesel And Shale, "The big man at dolphin he sent for me"
Be sure to take the guided tour of the sub. A grizzled old submariner takes you around and has a story to go with each section.
You will see a big tower which is where the submariners have to practice escaping, exhaling all the way up just as in your story Robomatic, or their lungs would indeed burst.

At Portsmouth, take a harbour tour boat. The museum is one of the stops and you can use your ticket to get on another boat later.

There's a smell in the air...
Keith.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 09 May 05 - 06:16 PM

Without going into too much detail our boats were regular 'visitors' This fact has been recorded in a number of publications. The USN were also committed to testing the Russian Navy defences and capabilities.

There has been a move by the Submarine Association to get a medal struck for those people who were on active duty in the Cold War on those submarine patrols. So far it has come to nought.

I preferred the submarine escape tower to the firefighting training.

The tower is 100 feet tall and about 20 feet across. Initially you do what are called compartment escapes where the whole compartment is flooded in a controled manner while you are breathing off the air that is left inside the compartment. There is always a bubble in the top of the hull even after the pressures equalise outside and inside after the flooding.

One deep breath, duck under the escape tower cowling and away to the surfcae breathing all the way out on the way up. Divers in the water are there to stop you if you are not breathing out. The last breath you took was at pressure so the air would expand in the lungs as you ascend, hence the risk of a burst lung. Another problem is that too long at depth and the last men out stand the risk of getting a bend as they have been at depth too long.

The final escape is an assisted one. You wear a rubber suit with a hood filled with air. You climb into the double hatched escape chamber, shut the lower lid and plug a pipe running down the arm of the suit into a connection inside the chamber, this inflates the hood and allows you to breath normally. No risk of a bend as the air is at normal pressure. The chamber with two men inside is then flooded until the pressures equalise and the top lid can be opened.

It only takes about 15-20 seconds to make the ascent, and you come out like a cork out of a bottle when you hit the surface.

The escape trainers practice deep escapes every year from a live boat. The deepest escape recorded for training was from 700 feet in the Med'.

SBS (Special Boat Squadroon) were regular trainees as they used this method of leaving a boat to get ashore to be inserted into hostile territory.

As for sanity, submariners are absolute pro's when at sea, even though RN boats were wet (carried alchohol) we rarely drank if at all. However once tied up in a friendly port our behaviour often left something to be desired. The skimmers would only ever see drunken submariners enjoying the benefits of the extra submarine pay. They never thought about the weeks we were confined on patrol, often not knowing where we were (with the exception of the Wardroom, the Coxswain and navigators mate)or pretending we didi not know where we were because we felt more comfortable in pretended ignorance.

There were lighter moments. The last night of the patrol was traditionally called Channel Night, and restrictions on making too much noise were lifted. On my last boat one of the officers was a good mando player and along with a good whistle player a live concert would be broadcast throughout the boat.

Once we even had a guy who could play bagpipes, a dour engine room rating. One night while coming back off patrol the sound room picked up some strange frequencies on the passive sonar. The captain was called, course was changed to clear our stern and see if the following sound would change bearing. It did not. The skipper called for forward checks, no sources found for self generated noise. Then a smile came across his face. He asked the sound room to broadcast the sound not just check the frequencies. A rather muffled version of 'Flowers of the Forest' was heard.

The source was identified to young Buck Taylor sitting right at the back of the motor room in the sterm practicing a set ready for his stint as a pipe on the casing as we entered harbour the next day. His drones were touching the inside of the hull and that was the source of the mysterious contact.

Buck would pipe us into harbour in full kit. The hem of his kilt had been thoughtfully lined and filled with lead shot by his wife to prevent it blowing up in the breeze and giving the Flag Officer Third Submarine Squadron move of an expose than he should have got.

I had 12 years in boats and I enjoyed every minute of them. But on average submariners were not the type of people you would introduce to mother.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: Rapparee
Date: 09 May 05 - 06:43 PM

If you're in Chicago, visit the Museum of Science and Industry. You can tour the U-505, the last vessel captured by the US Navy by a boarding party (in the Caribbean, in 1945).

If you're in Groton, Connecticut, you can (or rather, could -- I suppose you can still) visit the US Navy's flagship submarine training center. You can also visit USN Nautilus, the first atomic-powered boat (and the first under the North Pole). There are also surface ships to visit there, including a sail-powered whaler. When I was there the Dutch "tall ship" used for training was in port and we got to visit her, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: robomatic
Date: 18 May 05 - 09:55 PM

Not related to the Canadian aspect of the thread but I didn't think it rated starting a new thread.

Shortly after the Indian Ocean Tsunami an American sub ran full-tilt into an underwater mountain or ridge which was not on the chart they had used for navigation. 98 out of 137 crew were injured, one man died.

The sub was underway at high speed following a course laid out for them and sent to them. Of course, the Captain of the ship is responsible for everything that happens, and as it happens there were other, unused, charts available, at least one of which showed some kind of obstruction or danger in the neighborhood of the mountain. Apparently they took a sounding and found the sea was 6000 feet deep which was what they expected. But it wasn't enough to keep them from a major accident and almost losing the ship.

The story turned up in today's (Wednesday's) New York Times and the Captain was interviewed on Sixty Minutes II this evening.

Here is a link to the NYT article.

Adrift 500 Feet Under the Sea, a Minute Was an Eternity

Subject: RE: BS: Canadian Submarines
From: GUEST,Guest Shanghaiceltic
Date: 19 May 05 - 01:25 AM

Thanks for that link Robomatic. This was certainly one boat that had luck on its side after hitting the seamount. The front end damage took out the fwd main ballast tanks. Luckily the collision shock did not cause the reactor rods to drop in at the same time. That could have made things worse.

Certainly seems a cock up with the charts which led to this happening.

We did one stint of operating in the Pacific and that was the only time I have ever been on a boat with active sonar being used regularly to try and spot uncharted sea mounts. The article is correct in stating that some of these areas have only ever been charted by Cook and his contempoaries.

Today we can use satellites to pinpoint things as small as 1 metre on the Earth surface, track weather systems, but we know so little still about the real terrain of the sea bed under the oceans of the world.

Sadly there was still a loss of a life and my sympathies to the young Petty Officers family. The Captain will also have this with him for the rest of his life.