BS: Canadian Submarines

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 04:15 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Shanghaiceltic
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 09:07 PM

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: 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 - 06:32 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 - 06:13 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: grumpy al
Date: 08 Oct 04 - 03:04 PM

Nor me!
HEEEEEEEELP

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 - 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 - 02:40 PM

That is a damned good question.

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 - 02:33 PM

Keith:

"used" is the operative word there.

Bruce M

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: Peace
Date: 07 Oct 04 - 08:43 PM

Again, I say, "Bastards!" REMFs.

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: 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.