BS: Canadian Submarines

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,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 - 07:21 PM

well fuckin' put Brucie..haha..

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

Thank you.

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: 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: 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!