# Editorial - Montreal Gazette - "Do we really need subs?"



## muskrat89 (17 Oct 2004)

If you go to the site, read the responses. Most of them were bang-on (then the New Brunswicker really made me proud-   :-[   )

http://www.canada.com/montreal/mont....html?id=aefc5394-32be-4689-9074-db7647df5af1




> By confining to harbour the three submarines that made it to Canada, the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence have raised some tough questions: Will it make any difference to Canada and Canadians if these boats are out of service while a Military Board of Inquiry looks into the fire that disabled HMCS Chicoutimi? And if not, do submarines really have any role in a modern Canadian navy?
> 
> These are deeper issues than those bobbing on the surface of the Chicoutimi tragedy. It may be that the four second-hand diesel submarines purchased from the United Kingdom were a bargain at $750 million - particularly since much of this bill was to be paid by allowing use of Canadian bases for U.K. tank exercises. Perhaps the fire was caused by sailor error, perhaps by a structural defect, perhaps by both. This is for qualified experts to determine. But had the Chicoutimi sailed safely to Canada, would she and her sister subs have made us, or the world, any safer?
> 
> ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Oct 2004)

"After years of underfunding, the federal Liberals have promised to attend to our tattered military. First, they will conduct a thorough review of policy and objectives. The Chicoutimi tragedy has made the submarine dossier surface at the top of the list. Whether or not the subs are found to be defective and not the safe units Canada agreed to buy, this could be a fortuitous opportunity to reconsider the reasons for buying them in the first place."

Yes, lets take a bad situation and use it to our advantage and make it worse by distorting the facts, and inventing new ones. Most of this article was so error laden it seems obvious who the editors are consulting for their defence advice. The only reason why trash articles like this are published without attracting lawsuits or licence revocation hearings is because it is a political message cloaked in editorial form. There is a limit to freedom of the press, and it happens to be the dividing line between editorial opinions and reporting factual events. If this was portrayed as actual "news", then the editors could be required to start printing reatractions and corrections, or else simply fade into the useless tabloid category ... and it is obvious that is where this particular organization belongs.


----------



## winchable (17 Oct 2004)

It seems like a really moot argument to me...
All but one of the subs has been delivered and presumably payed for, if we shaft the submarines then we've got nothing to show for the purchase and hours/money spent training crew.

I also like how they make good use of the "The Americans will protect us" argument.
It's like staying at someones house and paying for groceries, the person might not neccesarily need or mind buying the extra groceries but your a stupid git if you don't chip in and offer to go shopping for them when you can.



> Some of the arguments in favour of maintaining a submarine fleet are curiously circular. We cannot train sailors in anti-submarine techniques without exercises involving submarines. But from what enemy should we anticipate a submarine attack? Al-Qa'ida?


 
I see argument, singular. Stupid tw*t

I have never been so unconvinced in something as I am right now because of reading that article.

"Letters to the editor: Giving shut-ins voices."


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Oct 2004)

Personally I think those that argue against submarines have no clue about naval warfare.


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Oct 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Personally I think those that argue against submarines have no clue about naval warfare.



Well that's exactly the point isn't it?  LOL ... according to the media et al .. we don't do war because that wouldn't be a shared Canadian value.


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Oct 2004)

Well, I like how "they" in Canada (not most of us here) criticize the Yanks for almost everything, but seem quite willing to pawn off responsibilities on them....


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Oct 2004)

The thing that i just can't understand is that the US accepts the burden... one day they are just going to say "no .. you are on your own on this one." The "we'll" be steaming mad, and blame them for failing "us" and accuse them of not being "our" ally and "we'll" be forced to go begging for "our" very own "coalition of the willing." Good luck with that .... just hope we don't need a submarine for the task.   LOL. 

* edit: I forgot about the bungle in the jungle. LOL. "We" really learned our lesson from that one eh?


----------



## jmacleod (17 Oct 2004)

Montreal Gazette is a newspaper with limited influence and less appeal. But I noticed today when
watching CTV's "Question Period", the "journalists" are continuing a spin started by the CBC to
terminate the RCN Submarine fleet. None of the "journalists" appearing on the program actually
knew anything about submarines, much less the RCN in 2004. Federal politicians appear to be
scared to death of the media in this country, which should be of some concern to the citizens
who vote for them. Prime Minister Trudeau never concealed his contempt for the CBC in particular
and ignored most of the other print and broadcast media - he appeared to intimidate most of 
the journalists he was confronted by in any event. For anyone who reads this - take a moment
and go to the Ministry of Defence Site UK - Royal Navy, and focus for a few minutes on RN submarines
surface vessels, and helicopters, especially the EH101 "Merlin" now in full operational service.
MacLeod


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (17 Oct 2004)

*sigh* There is no RCN anymore, hasn't been since the "U" word


----------



## ghazise (19 Oct 2004)

But from what enemy should we anticipate a submarine attack? Al-Qa'ida?

In the late 1990's it was discovered that Central Americans Drug Lords were building a convential submarine to smuggle drugs into the US and essentially avoid the USCG,  The Al Queda does receive substantial funding from the sale of Drugs, so for Al Queda to acquire a submarine or even build one is not that far fetched, Osama himself owns about a dozen freighters,,,

Convential subs will complement the USN and RN fleets quite nicely,,, It is my impression (only from newsreports) that more money was needed to refit the subs


----------



## Infanteer (19 Oct 2004)

One of the biggest potential threats is an unfriendly Middle Eastern state (take a guess) attempting to close off the Straits of Hormuz with cheap diesel electrics.  Think of Naval chokepoints around the globe.  

What if China builds a massive fleet and decides to blockade our ally Japan or Taiwan with an expanded submarine fleet.  Just because we are currently focused on a small group of international terrorists does not mean we should get tunnel vision, assuming that all future conflict will resemble the current one.


----------



## DJL (19 Oct 2004)

> What if China builds a massive fleet and decides to blockade our ally Japan or Taiwan with an expanded submarine fleet.  Just because we are currently focused on a small group of international terrorists does not mean we should get tunnel vision, assuming that all future conflict will resemble the current one.



It's not a "what if", they do have a massive fleet. (5+ nukes and well over 50 SSKs)


----------



## nULL (19 Oct 2004)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/23/220813.shtml


_According to the Jamestown Foundation's Richard Fisher, China is acquiring a fleet of blue-water submarines armed with the deadly Shkval. In a recent defense report, Fisher noted the Chinese navy is arming itself with a deadly combination of silent submarines, supersonic nuclear tipped Stealth missiles and Shkval rocket torpedoes. Fisher warned that the new Chinese navy is capable of operating far from Asian shores._


----------



## Danjanou (20 Oct 2004)

2FtOnion said:
			
		

> But from what enemy should we anticipate a submarine attack? Al-Qa'ida?
> 
> In the late 1990's it was discovered that Central Americans Drug Lords were building a convential submarine to smuggle drugs into the US and essentially avoid the USCG,   The Al Queda does receive substantial funding from the sale of Drugs, so for Al Queda to acquire a submarine or even build one is not that far fetched, Osama himself owns about a dozen freighters,,,
> 
> Convential subs will complement the USN and RN fleets quite nicely,,, It is my impression (only from newsreports) that more money was needed to refit the subs



In Oct 1994 I was in Colombia and on my last day there the front page of the local (Barranquilla) newspaper had a photo of a Soviet conventional sub "acquired" by the cartel for drug running ops and recently captured by the Colombian Navy. Now considered the wealth of the cartel, the ease of acquiring Soviet equip for suitcases fll of hard currency then at the break up of the USSR(and I guess now still), and the effectiveness of the Colombian Navy, I always wondered if there were other drug running subs they picked up and if they're still out there.

Yup we still need conventional subs for all the reasons given. I way we wait and see what the investigations reveal about what went wrong here and what needs to be fixed.


----------



## ghazise (21 Oct 2004)

During the Falkland's Campaign, one british submarine sank a Argentinian cruiser (General Balgrano, ex-USN Cruiser), early in the conflict,  with the sinking of that cruiser, that essentially committed the remaining Argentinian fleet to port,,, I believe it demonstrates that submarines can be a force multiplier, as a pyscho-logical weapon,
The conflict also showed a need for Air-Defense systems, multiple British ships were hit by exocet missiles,
Exocet missiles are cheaper than submarines, 
missiles would be the easiet way to challenge a superior Navy; 
but exocets can't hit a sub; 
so a balance is required, 
and once the subs are ready, they will be an invaluable National Asset


----------



## Inch (21 Oct 2004)

Well, all it takes is one sub. Remember the Turbot fishing dispute with Spain back in 1995? They actually sent warships and we had a bit of a Mexican standoff, so we sent out one of our subs (we still had the old subs at the time). All it took to de-escalate the situation was to tell the Spanish that we had a sub on station, we didn't tell them where it was and they decided that losing a warship or two wasn't worth the fishing trawler.  

Nearing the end of my Maritime Warfare course, I can safely say that having an enemy sub in the area adds a whole new dimension to your planning. They're sneaky, they're quiet and if you're not looking for them, you can't see them until it's too late. It's a constant thought in your head during Naval operations if you suspect there's one around.

As for who's got them, due to OPSEC, I don't think I can name names, but you would be astounded at how many countries have them. The Russian Kilos are the most exported sub in the world and everybody has them because they're cheap to get. As I said before, it can be only one sub and it'll cause you to completely change your plan. Definitely a major factor in Naval warfare, we'd be stupid to cut out that capability.

Cheers


----------



## Inch (21 Oct 2004)

For those that doubt what a single torpedo launched from an out of sight submarine can do to a ship, here's a few pictures for y'all to have a gander at.

http://www.ssbn622.homestead.com/Sinkex.html

If this wasn't staged, the guys would never see it coming. Now tell me that's not intimidating.

Cheers


----------



## DJL (23 Oct 2004)

Just thinking aloud, but I wonder how much it would cost to purchase, refuel and "Canadianize" four, first flight 688s? Though the youngest of the first flight were commissioned in the early to mid 80s (IIRC 83-85) and are now approaching twenty plus years of age (of a projected 30 year lifespan), I've read that the USN has conducted studies that stated that the subs could operate safely (on a case by case basis) for closer to 40+ years. Using my fingers and toes, thats intill about the 2020 range, which just so happens to be when their Virgina class production run will be winding down........


----------



## canuck101 (24 Oct 2004)

I really don't think Canada will ever have nuclear subs, we could never afford them.  The Victoria class ssk that we have will have to do once we get them working.  The navy has said itself that they are a in-term vessels which in my mind means we have them for the next ten to fifthteen years.  Maybe by then we can pick up some younger subs that the germans may want to sell to us when they are upgrading to a new class of sub. ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Nov 2004)

This isn't going to help ...

__________________________________________________
  
*Sub crew to blame for lethal fire
Report: Seawater in battery compartment may have caused short circuit
  
Sutton Eaves 
The Ottawa Citizen 


Sunday, November 07, 2004*

A fire on board a Canadian submarine that killed one of its crew was a result of human error, a British newspaper reported today.

Quoting an unnamed source, London's Mail on Sunday said initial findings of the inquiry into the tragedy show crew members left open hatches as HMCS Chicoutimi sailed on the surface in a raging North Atlantic storm. That meant seawater flooded into the sub's battery compartment, causing short circuits and an electrical fire.

"This looks like a simple case of a drill not being carried out. Had a hatch at the bottom of the conning tower been closed, the water would never have got inside," an unnamed British military source told the Mail.

He was referring to the Oct. 5 fire aboard the Chicoutimi that killed 32-year-old naval Lieut. Chris Saunders, injured two others and crippled the British-built submarine off the coast of Ireland.

Recent media reports quote crew members saying the sub's hatches were open when it was struck by a massive wave, allowing water to spill into the control room below.

An electrical fire sparked by the onset of water reportedly raced along the Chicoutimi's inside walls while crew members struggled to mop up the flood.

"It's a mystery as to why the submarine was on the surface," the Mail quoted the source as saying.

"She should have been underwater in those conditions. It was very rough weather."

Last month, some members of the same crew denied the fire was a result of "human error."

Earlier, other crew members had told the media it wasn't uncommon to have the conning hatches open while cruising in rough water.

A spokesman for the navy's board of inquiry investigating the fire said reports of open hatches are unconfirmed.

"There are a lot of theories and a lot of speculation but what the board of inquiry is doing is very much still in the fact-finding phase of its investigation," Lt.-Cmdr. Albert Wong told the Citizen last night. "It's premature to come to a conclusion at this point."

The board is expected to release its report by the end of the month once hearings, held in Scotland and now Halifax, are finished.

The proceedings are being held behind closed doors, despite appeals from Canadian media outlets to have the inquiry opened to the public.

A federal court justice ruled yesterday that the investigation will continue despite a request to have it halted while media outlets petition the courts for public access.

"As far as I am concerned, the operation of the navy is at stake," Federal Court Justice Sean Harrington ruled after a four-hour teleconference.

"That is the prime function, and that has to take precedence over the charter of rights of the press."

The CBC and two Halifax newspapers requested a cease in proceedings after the inquiry president, Commodore Dan Murphy, refused the media access to the investigation.

Warning that public access would cause delays, Judge Harrington wrote in a letter to the news organizations: "I must be mindful of the release of information that could compromise privacy, security, operational and international relations requirements."

The board has released three findings of its investigation so far. It revealed there was an ingress of water into the submarine, the fire was electrical, and there was an electrical arc, which occurs when a strong current jumps a gap in a circuit.

Lt.-Cmdr. Wong emphasized that the board has not made any connection between these three facts.

While the final report is expected by Nov. 30, the board can appeal to the chief of maritime staff to have that deadline extended.

"At this stage, we are still moving towards the 30th. But it's ambitious. There are a lot of things to do," said Lt.-Cmdr. Wong.

© The Ottawa Citizen 2004

Copyright © 2004 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest Global Communications Corp. All rights reserved.
Optimized for browser versions 4.0 and higher.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2004)

This is not the first and will not be the last time that human error, including human error by Canadian officers, NCOs and sailors and soldiers, has been the cause of death of other Canadians.   It is sad but it is part and parcel of our business â â€œ and especially for those who _go down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters_.

If there was a mistake then the Navy *may* need to institute corrective measures â â€œ maybe even disciplinary measures if someone disobeyed a standing order, for example.   Sometimes, however, there is no clear, practical corrective measure ... sometimes people make errors in judgment but the _right_ answer is not, necessarily, another rule.

Let us hope that commanders and senior officials are not led around by the nose by an ignorant national press corps.


----------

