# HMCS Chicoutimi   {MERGED}



## Bograt

Last Updated Tue, 05 Oct 2004 12:22:06 EDT 
HALIFAX - A rescue effort is underway off of the west coast of Ireland after a Canadian military submarine with 56 people on board issued a distress call Tuesday. 

Military officials in Halifax said a fire broke out on HMCS Chicoutimi about 425 kilometres west of Ireland, but has since been extinguished. 
   
The sub surfaced and sent out a distress call at about 10:15 EDT. Emergency officials at Clyde responded. 

Later the submarine sent out another message saying the fire was out, but the vessel needed a tug to the nearest port. 

HMCS Chicoutimi, the latest addition to Canada's submarine fleet, was one of four Victoria-class submarines purchased from the British navy. 

It left the Faslane base in Scotland on Saturday, and was expected to arrive in Halifax on Oct. 18.


----------



## canuck101

http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1096991616876_92400816?hub=topstories

My best wishes go to the families of the sailors of the Sub hoping everythings goes there way.


----------



## Alex252

This is embarrasing and a waste of the taxpayers money!!!!!! We should worry about subs after we restructure the Army, Airforce and Navy. Id also like to send my best wishes to the crew


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Alex252 said:
			
		

> This is embarrasing and a waste of the taxpayers money!!!!!! We should worry about subs after we restructure the Army, Airforce and Navy.



Any chance that you are going to substantiate that?



> Id also like to send my best wishes to the crew



Uhuh


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Ummm yeah considering subs are part of a balanced navy.  :


----------



## Alex252

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Any chance that you are going to substantiate that?
> 
> 
> I mean is we should really worry about subs later untill we have
> a) proper funding for the CF
> b) have enough money to buy new subs
> I dont know the actuall cost i admit but i know these used subs have cost enormus amounts for rapairs when that money couldve been used to help hati out or something


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Alex before you bite off more then you can chew:
http://army.ca/forums/threads/19630.0.html



> I mean is we should really worry about subs later untill we have
> a) proper funding for the CF
> b) have enough money to buy new subs
> I dont know the actuall cost i admit but i know these used subs have cost enormus amounts for rapairs when that money couldve been used to help hati out or something



a) Do you expect that any time soon?
b) see (a)...you actually think the Government would cough up the money for new subs?
As for helping out Haiti how is that helping in anyway our capabilities?


----------



## Alex252

Alright alright i see what you mean ex but it gets me mad when i see all the work put into these things and then have them catch on fire


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Doesn't make any of us happy but bare in mind when the CPFs first entered canadian service they were utter pieces of crap! Now look how well regarded they are.


----------



## JBP

ReeeHhheeeeHHHEEAAALLLYY,



> "This is something that our professional mariners are capable and good at managing."



Well, not to say that our submariners aren't trained well enough to handle the problem, and of course a fire on a SUBMARINE is more dangerous even than on a surface ship. But still, howcome they couldn't put out the fire if it started in an electrical panel? I suppose it's too early to speculate at anything but it's just sort of surprising it could be put of of commission by a fire so quickly and easily...

What the heck would happen if they were actually defending our borders against an enemy naval force? They would be sitting ducks! They'd probably already be hit!... This sub, as was mentioned also, hasn't been "modernized" yet so the equipment on board was probably not in good/great service.

I just hope those folks are okay and that they get on solid land ASAP! Glad it happened beside THE Commonwealth nation too...

Joe


----------



## JasonH

You missed the fact that they did put out the fire


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Well, not to say that our submariners aren't trained well enough to handle the problem, and of course a fire on a SUBMARINE is more dangerous even than on a surface ship. But still, howcome they couldn't put out the fire if it started in an electrical panel? I suppose it's too early to speculate at anything but it's just sort of surprising it could be put of of commission by a fire so quickly and easily...


Well they are diesel _electric_ submarines which means they are powered by electricity from the subs batteries. If there is no electricity there is no power. Shutting down the power is done so they don't run the risk of destroying the battery and the oft change of producing chlorine gas if exposed to seawater.



> What the heck would happen if they were actually defending our borders against an enemy naval force? They would be sitting ducks! They'd probably already be hit!... This sub, as was mentioned also, hasn't been "modernized" yet so the equipment on board was probably not in good/great service.


what does this have to do with the fire onboard. Any mechanical casualty through enemy action or mechanical failure during wartime runs the risk of having the sub detected and sunk.


----------



## Inch

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> what does this have to do with the fire onboard. Any mechanical casualty through enemy action or mechanical failure during wartime runs the risk of having the sub detected and sunk.



Just to add to your point Ex.

Every machine that's ever been built by man runs the risk of mechanical break down, and yes, if it happens during armed conflict, you're probably going to get sunk, shot down or blown up. That's the nature of the beast. All we can do as fallible humans is to try to reduce the risk of being casualties by having, and practicing, proper training and preparation. 

Joe, have you ever seen the video of the Apache helicopter that got engulfed in flames during a hot refuel? A hot refuel means that the refueling is done with the engines running, the reasoning for this is because a shutdown, fueling, and a start can take 30-45 minutes, a hot refuel can be done in about 10 min.   Within a second or two, the entire cockpit and most of the helo was engulfed in flames, the guys managed to get out but they were badly burned in most places.   

The point is that your world can go to hell in a hand basket so fast that all you can do try to salvage what you can. That sub could have sunk if the fire spread through the sub, it's the crew's quick reaction that prevented a disaster. I say kudos to the crew for a quick reaction thus preventing the loss of a sub and it's company.

Cheers


----------



## winchable

Ex made an excellent point regarding the CPF's.
Didn't see my dad for a year straight because those things were "Crap" then.

I say it's better the problems occur now than when they are running in a crisis or on patrol, or conducting some kind of actual task.


----------



## RL206

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041005.w5sub1005a/BNStory/International/


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

http://army.ca/forums/threads/20933.0.html

Already posted.


----------



## Big Bad John

Stranded Canadian sub awaits Atlantic rescue 
CTV.ca News Staff

One of Canada's troubled submarine fleet is stranded off the coast of Ireland, awaiting rescue after losing power when a fire broke out on board.

HMCS Chicoutimi, a diesel-electric patrolling sub, reported a fire in an electrical panel on Tuesday at around 11:15 AT. The fire was extinguished within minutes, but the vessel had already filled with smoke.

Briefing reporters in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canadian navy Commodore Tyrone Pile said the submarine had been scheduled for an "extended running period at sea" when it encountered the problem.

"This is a small setback," the commander of Canadian Fleet Atlantic said. "We're going to deal with the fire, find out what caused the problem, and get Chicoutimi over here to continue with the program."

Before that can happen, however, Pile said the now powerless sub must be rescued.

"We're taking this problem seriously, and our desire is to get that submarine and crew back to a safe port to effect repairs as soon as possible."

Britain's Royal Navy has dispatched a helicopter and a maintenance vessel to assist the stranded sub as it bobs in six-metre seas some 230 kilometres from Londonderry, Ireland. Two frigates have also been sent to the scene.

Answering reporters' questions in Ottawa, Defence Minister Bill Graham said the vessel could be waiting between 14 and 18 hours if it can't establish its own power before help arrives.

Without power, the crew is in for a rough night. The sea will knock the sub around, and there won't be any heat onboard.

"It is obviously not desirable to be without power on board," Graham conceded before sounding a more positive note. "They are a terrific crew, they're very professional, and they're managing the situation very, very well."

Although the cause of the fire and the extent of damage on board the vessel remains unclear, Graham said he has learned nine crew members suffered minor injuries.

"Nine of our personnel suffered smoke inhalation... I can assure you that is the only damage, those are the only injuries."

The outstanding questions, Graham added, will be answered in an inquiry into the incident.

The Canadian navy only recently took possession of the Chicoutimi along with three other Victoria-class submarines from the British navy.

A renaming ceremony was held just this past Saturday in Scotland, as the submarine changed its name from HMS Upholder to HMCS Chicoutimi.

As Pile explained, it was yet to undergo the "Canadianization work period" that would retrofit the vessel for full service in Canada's fleet.

The Chicoutimi was on its way to Canada and was due to arrive in Halifax harbour Oct. 18.

Another of the submarines bought at the same time, HMCS Victoria, is currently testing its torpedo system on the West Coast. A third vessel, HMCS Corner Brook, is undergoing work in Halifax. The fourth craft is HMCS Windsor.

The incident is just the latest in a string of embarrassing setbacks for the Canadian military surrounding the used subs, which Ottawa bought from Britain at a cost of $750 million.

The submarines were built in the late 1980s and early 1990s, but the British navy mothballed them in 1994, when they decided to go with an all-nuclear submarine force. 

Canada agreed to buy the vessels in 1998 to replace three Oberon class boats. But shortly after Canada took possession, cracks were found in key valves on the subs.

Despite their record, Graham defended the decision to procure the undersea fleet.

"From every point of view these are very, very useful tools for Canada," he told reporters, dismissing suggestions they were simply substandard bargains. "These are very expensive pieces of equipment, and these were acquired at a very reasonable price."

As for the fire, Graham said it could happen to any vessel.

"This is something that our professional mariners are capable and good at managing."

Repairs and tests to certify the boats are safe to dive took longer than expected, putting the "Canadianization process" about three years behind schedule.


----------



## Richard

As a civilian and a taxpayer, I'm happy with these subs. I know the Australians have had a lot of trouble with their Collins class subs; submarines are very complex pieces of machinery. I think once the Victoria class boats have been updated with American fire control s/w (taken from our old submarines) and Canadian sonar equipment, they will be worth more than what we paid for them! The navy needs modern subs and we got a good deal...it just surprises me that the Liberals actually bought them!   

Richard


----------



## Cloud Cover

Hang tough guys ... our thoughts are with you.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

All right Whiskey, thats TWO beers you owe me, didn't anybody mention the " no Jack Layton" story theory to you?
These things happen, just get back safe, gentlemen.


----------



## 1feral1

Alex252 said:
			
		

> This is embarrasing and a waste of the taxpayers money!!!!!! We should worry about subs after we restructure the Army, Airforce and Navy. Id also like to send my best wishes to the crew



Mate, pisss off the politics, and let the dust settle before you make such silly comments. we should be more concerned about the crew, and their welfare.


----------



## tabernac

> we should be more concerned about the crew, and their welfare.



Well said. People always rush to comment on the equipment, "its a lemon", and very rarely do people actually ask about the welfare of the crew(s).


----------



## Alex252

Ive got a question, may seem a little dumb but if a sub has no power how does the thing stay afloat? Also it said on the news something like a tug was coming to get them. What are they doing about the smoke inhalation victims?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Buoyancy:  the tendency of a body to float or to rise when submerged in a fluid.


----------



## YukonJack

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Well they are diesel _electric_ submarines which means they are powered by electricity from the subs batteries. If there is no electricity there is no power. Shutting down the power is done so they don't run the risk of destroying the battery and the oft change of producing chlorine gas if exposed to seawater.
> 
> 
> what does this have to do with the fire onboard. Any mechanical casualty through enemy action or mechanical failure during wartime runs the risk of having the sub detected and sunk.



Sorry Ex, that diesel/electric thing means they run on batteries submerged at depth, diesel engines at snorkle depth and either batteries or diesel on the surface. At any rate, it must've been a fire in a pretty vital spot, to leave them with no propulsion either diesel or electric.
Must've been spooky for them too, knowing the peridite coating inside is toxic at off-gassing temps of only 200 degrees. Plus, we have to remember a relatively small fire on a boat can produce very lethal gases in short order. There's lots of PVC, Hydrocarbons, paints ect. I would not have wanted to go through that, and my hat's off to those guys for doing what they do.

For Alex252, they blow water out of tanks with high pressure air. When the water goes out, the boat rises. When they want to submerge, they let water into the tanks. The HP air is held in big bejesus bottles, and without power, they'd only get the use of the air in the bottles, as they would not be able to run the compressors to fill them back up.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Thanks YJ appreciate the clarification.


----------



## Jarnhamar

I wonder why the subs came at such a low cost..


----------



## Sheerin

do I detect sarcasm?  

they were cheap because the Brits didn't want them anymore, or at least thats my completely uneducated take on it.  They were really new when their MoD decided to go with an all nuclear force.  

My 2 cents, at least.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Sheerin said:
			
		

> do I detect sarcasm?
> 
> they were cheap because the Brits didn't want them anymore, or at least thats my completely uneducated take on it.   They were really new when their MoD decided to go with an all nuclear force.
> 
> My 2 cents, at least.



Not to mention the UK wanted access to training areas here in Canada and wanted to see a Commonwealth country have first dibs.


----------



## winchable

I was really starting to think today about how absolutely awful it must be out there.

Freezing temps.
No propulsion, hence the ocean of the motion would be awful.
Seasickness in such tiny areas.
Little light.

There's no emoticon for a sick face but this where I'd put that.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Alex252 said:
			
		

> This is embarrasing and a waste of the taxpayers money!!!!!! We should worry about subs after we restructure the Army, Airforce and Navy. Id also like to send my best wishes to the crew



Just for the record I don't understand why you guys jumped on Alex for his comments.

Everyone I know understands the concept of opportunity cost and in this case I would argue
that there are a number of needs that would have been much better filled with a $1billion
capital infusion, than on submarines that are limited in range to patrolling our coastal areas
for rogue fishing boats when the same task could've been much better accomplished with
Patrol Aircraft or UAV's.

Where to start:
Option 1)   Strategic Airlift (C17's) 
Option 2)   Strategic Sealift (Simplified San-Antonio Class without VLS)
Option 3)   Artic Patrol Ships (Ice Breakers)
Option 4)   Expanded Combined Arms Training Facility

Bottom Line:    We know we don't have enough money so we better be sure we pick the
right priorities and to me I'd much rather at least have the option of deploying small contingents
to Darfur or Afghanistan or Haiti with our own airlift than in defending our coasts with an asset
that is less efficient than its current alternatives simply because that's what we've done in the
past.

JMHO....

Cheers all.



Matthew.


----------



## Alex252

I was watching the news and it turns out one of the sailors on that sub died. Aparrently the fire was way worse than thought of at first.Id like to send best wishes to the family and my prayers to the other members of the sub


----------



## Lance Wiebe

Lt Saunders had a wife and two children.

May he rest in peace.

And let's give a moment to pray for those other seriously injured sailors.  Some of them, apparently, are also in critical condition.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

God speed.


----------



## Sam69

Tragic update to CHICOUTIMI's fire.

The Prime Minister has just announced in the House of Commons that one sailor has died from smoke inhalation. This was the same sailor reported as being in critical condition earlier today.

Thoughts, prayers, and condolences to the family of yet another Canadian hero.

Sam


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

See the prior discussions on submarine capabilities and you will see why Alex was disagreed with.


----------



## condor888000

Rest in Peace...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Wow.  That is certainly a change of what the offical word was just a day ago.
http://sympaticomsn.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1096991616876_92400816?hub=topstories


----------



## scm77

One sailor dies from fire injuries

Steve MacLeod and Keith Bonnell
Canadian Press and Global Television

October 6, 2004

The Canadian sub HMCS Chicoutimi, shown in a file photo from the early 1990s. (CP)
Lt.-Cdr. Jim Pope, right, exhibits an oxygen generator as Cmdr. Randy Truscott looks on at a nerws conference concerning the fire on HMCS Chicoutimi, in Halifax on Wednesday. (CP/Andrew Vaughan)
ADVERTISEMENT

HALIFAX -- One of the crewmembers injured in a fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi is dead. Prime Minister Martin announced the death in Ottawa today.

Three injured sailors, including one reportedly in critical condition, were arlifted from a heavily damaged Canadian submarine late Wednesday as the rest their crewmates remained adrift off the coast of Ireland for a second night.

The men were declared the most in need of medical attention after a major fire Tuesday left HMCS Chicoutimi dead in the water.

"They were the worst of the casualties," said Richard Buckland, a commander with the British Navy.

Buckland said the navy had planned to take the injured men by helicopter to a hospital in northern Ireland, but the chopper was diverted to a closer hospital in Sligo, in southern Ireland after one of the men's condition worsened.

Officials at Sligo General Hospital said one of the men was listed in critical condition while his two shipmates had been able to walk in, the Associated Press reported from London. No further details were available.

Canadian navy officials in Halifax couldn't confirm the report.

The diesel-electric submarine, one of four used subs recently leased from the Royal Navy, was on its maiden voyage to Canada when the fire broke out.

A British frigate pulled alongside the sub Wednesday and dropped off a doctor and an assistant.

Canadian officials admitted the fire, which is believed to have started between the commanding officer's cabin and an electrical room, was more serious than first thought.

"This was a major fire," Commodore Tyrone Pile told a news conference in Halifax.

"The fire was of sufficient strength that most of the submarine's portable firefighting equipment was used to put it out."


© Canadian Press and Global Television 2004
http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=3a79238f-328a-4258-bb9a-9f3379919449
--------------------------------
RIP


----------



## Tpr.Orange

RIP...

peace be with you.


----------



## kmcc

My heart goes out to his family and the injured sailors

RIP


----------



## Korus

RIP, Mate.    

Best of luck to the crew, we'll see you when you get home.


----------



## Armymedic

J#&** f*&^%$# Chr***.    :'(

What a senseless death in an avoidable accident.

Yet another widow.


----------



## condor888000

Armymedic said:
			
		

> Yet another widow.



And fatherless children...


----------



## Tyrnagog

RIP, Lt. Saunders.

And may God be with his wife and children in their time of need.


----------



## Thompson_JM

Truly Another Tragic, and senseless Death.

Rest in Peace.

My Thoughts and Prayers go out to His Family.


----------



## JasonH

Tyrnagog said:
			
		

> RIP, Lt. Saunders.
> 
> And may God be with his wife and children in their time of need.


----------



## ackland

Our thoughts and prayer go out to his family and ship mates. May they all get home soon


----------



## Pte. Bloggins

RIP   

My prayers go out to Lt. Saunders' family and fellow crew members.


----------



## brin11

I'm sitting here in disbelief upon hearing this news.  The press made out at first that this was quite a minor fire.

Ex-dragoon, have you maybe heard anything else about this incident you could fill us in on??


----------



## Jungle

Rest In Peace


----------



## Cloud Cover

From the Naval Hymn:

Upon the waters dark and rude,
And bid their angry tumult cease,
And give, for wild confusion, peace:
O hear us when we cry to Thee
For those in peril on the sea.

Rest in Peace.


----------



## Torlyn

Rest in peace, Lt. Saunders.  My prayers to your wife and children.  

T


----------



## M.O.

Yes rest in peace, why must people die, it is sad and I feel very sad of this even if I have never met or talked or anything to him, I truly hope his wife and kids will be ok and I wish I could change this but no one has the ability to change that which has happened so once again rest in peace fellow human, and I am really sad of this happening.


----------



## aesop081

My deepest condolences go to Lt Saunder's family.   This is yet another reminder to all, of the risks we take on a daily basis and of the price we often pay for service to our nation.   May he rest in peace.

I wish the best fto the remainder of HMCS Chicoutimi's crew , i pray for their safe return home.

God speed and smooth sailing


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Be at peace.


----------



## Jon-ice-sham

RIP


----------



## Bartok5

I am not one to normally offer maudlin "RIP" posts on internet discussion boards that mean nothing to the member or (more importantly) to the family in question.   Notwithstanding my aversion to such things, my heart does indeed go out to Lt. Saunders' family in this particular instance.   This is truly a tragedy for the Saunders family and I feel badly.   

No names, no pack drill this time around.


----------



## Scott

My condolences.

God speed to his family and the crew on a safe trip home.


----------



## QORvanweert

scm77 said:
			
		

> announced the death in Ottawa today.
> 
> one of four used subs recently *leased* from the Royal Navy
> 
> © Canadian Press and Global Television 2004
> http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=3a79238f-328a-4258-bb9a-9f3379919449
> --------------------------------
> RIP



 Amen. Lets not mourn that he died, but thank God he lived.

not wanting to cheapen this post, but I thought we bought these subs?


----------



## the 48th regulator

Rest In Peace My Brother.

tess


----------



## Redeye

Flags to half mast tomorrow - I imagine it will be a sombre day in Halifax tomorrow.  My most sincere condolences to Lt Saunders' wife and children, godspeed and smooth sailing to the men still aboard.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Armymedic how do you know the accident was avoidable (did I miss something).?


----------



## ark

Lt. Saunders made the ultimate sacrifice... may he R.I.P. now.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Brin when I do and if I can I will...Chris was a great guy and a fine officer.


----------



## xenomfba

This makes me so incredibly angry. Our government once again made the choice to put money ahead of the safety and well-being of the very people who volunteered to protect this country with their lives. Sailing a submarine across the Atlantic ocean should not be a deadly affair. What utter bullsh*t.


----------



## JasonH

xenomfba said:
			
		

> This makes me so incredibly angry. Our government once again made the choice to put money ahead of the safety and well-being of the very people who volunteered to protect this country with their lives. Sailing a submarine across the Atlantic ocean should not be a deadly affair. What utter bullsh*t.



And this time, someone died because of it.  There's blood on liberals hands now.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

How does anyone know this fire was preventable?  Have I missed something here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Let's have a modicum of civility here. A suitable period should pass before we start talking about causes, blame, investigations, etc. Keep it simple and sombre please.


----------



## Infanteer

This thread is getting ridiculous.   A good lot of you are just as bad as the baboons on the Parliament Floor.   Shit happens; if a vehicle rolls, a ship catches fire, or a plane crashes, culpability does not automatically fall upon the government of the day.   Quit trying to make a shit-storm from something which we have very little knowledge of right now.

Like recceguy said keep it sombre and simple.   If you have something to contribute, do so.   If you want to stir the pot and rabble-rouse, I'll just delete posts that attempt to turn this sailors life into some political statement.


----------



## 1feral1

Thinking of his  family and friends   at this time. 

May he rest in peace.

Wes


----------



## pbi

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This thread is getting ridiculous.  A good lot of you are just as bad as the baboons on the Parliament Floor.  crap happens; if a vehicle rolls, a ship catches fire, or a plane crashes, culpability does not automatically fall upon the government of the day.  Quit trying to make a crap-storm from something which we have very little knowledge of right now.
> 
> Like recceguy said keep it sombre and simple.  If you have something to contribute, do so.  If you want to stir the pot and rabble-rouse, I'll just delete posts that attempt to turn this sailors life into some political statement.



Well said Infanteer. Mudslinging will come later, in spades, and from all quarters. At the moment we should just remember that any one of us who serves may go at any time, and never have the opportunity to select the manner or time of our passing. What really matters is how we are recalled by those who knew us.   Cheers.


----------



## NavyGrunt

Alls well sir, carry on  

My prayers are with his family.


----------



## Bograt

The Submariner's Prayer 
Almighty,  Everlasting God,  the Protector of all those 
who put  their trust in Thee: hear our prayers in behalf 
of Thy servants who sail their vessels beneath the seas. 

We beseech Thee to keep in Thy sustaining care all 
who are in submarines, that they may be delivered 
from the hidden dangers of the deep. 

Grant them courage, and a devotion to fulfill their duties, 
that they may better serve Thee and their native land. 

Though acquainted with the depths of the ocean, 
deliver them from the depths of despair and the 
dark hours of the absence of friendliness and grant 
them a good ship's spirit. 

Bless all their kindred and loved ones from whom they are separated. 

When they surface their ships, may they praise Thee for 
Thou art there as well as in the deep. 

Fill them with Thy Spirit that they may be sure in their reckonings, 
unwavering in duty, high in purpose, and upholding the honor 
of their nation. 

Amen


                                                            ---Author Unknown


----------



## Guardian

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."
John 15:13

RIP, sir.


----------



## FastEddy

Sleep Peacefully Lieut. Saunders, You Shall Not Be Forgotten


----------



## Gunnar

Life of 2nd sailor from stranded sub in danger
CTV.ca News Staff

One of the sailors aboard HMCS Chicoutimi, has died and now there is word that the life of a second sailor may be in danger.

A doctor says the unidentified sailor, who is suffering from smoke inhalation, has been transferred to intensive care at a hospital in Ireland. He has extensive lung damage and may have to be put on a ventilator.

A third sailor is said to be in a stable condition. 

Another sailor, Lieut. Chris Saunders, a 32-year-old husband and father of two small children, died of injuries Wednesday evening. 

The three were airlifted Wednesday night off the Chicoutimi, which remains stranded at sea after a major fire Tuesday. 

News of the death came as a shock, since initial reports said the fire was "minor" and there was no indication that any of the three injured sailors were suffering from life-threatening injuries.

On Wednesday night, about half a dozen people gathered outside Saunders' home to offer comfort to his wife, Gwen, who stayed in the house with her parents and sister.

Saunders was injured Tuesday by a large fire that broke out on board between the commanding officers' cabin and an electrical equipment room. The fire's cause is still unknown.

Initial reports were that nine of the 57 crew members suffered smoke inhalation. British navy medical officers were lowered on board Wednesday and determined that three of the sailors needed medical attention.

They were evacuated by helicopter later in the day. But en route, the aircraft was diverted to a hospital in southern Ireland when Saunders' condition worsened.

Cameras captured the landing of the British helicopter and the sight of two men wheeling a stretcher while a third man applied CPR. The two other Canadian sailors walked to a car and were driven away.

Saunders was declared dead at the hospital in Sligo. 

"Regrettably, during the course of the medical evacuation, his condition worsened," Gen. Ray Henault, chief of defence staff, told an Ottawa news conference Wednesday evening.

An autopsy is expected to be performed Thursday.

Sub still stranded

The rest of the crew is still stranded on the Chicoutimi, which was on its was to Halifax from the port in Faslane. The sub currently has no power and is being tossed around in the North Atlantic between Ireland and Scotland.

Graham said the sub will have to towed to shore but the weather has been bad, with choppy waves that have been delaying that operation.

"Until the weather is calm enough, they certainly cannot attempt anything as tricky as towing a submarine," he said. 

"So some speculation is for much later today. There's other speculation it might be tomorrow. That's obviously for the navy to determine."

The submarine will likely be towed to a base in Faslane, Scotland, but the journey will take a few days and the vessel likely won't reach shore until Sunday. 

Severity downplayed?

Now there are accusations the military downplayed the severity of the situation. Henault faced questioning after a report suggested that the Saunders' family was told Tuesday the sailor was okay.

"We were certainly aware Chris Saunders had suffered smoke inhalation," Henault replied, adding that the crew had been communicating via cellphone.

"But there was certainly no indication from the onboard medical staff that there was any cause for concern, other than the fact that they had had smoke inhalation," he said.

When the Royal Navy medical team saw the three, they determined they needed further observation, "and there were no indications of any problems until the very last moment," he said. 

With communications equipment between the sub and Canadian marine officials damaged, it was difficult to maintain contact and "to come to a conclusive result early on," Henault said.
"It was our understanding that everything was stable with (the nine injured)."

On Thursday morning, Defence Minister Bill Graham could offer few other details about what went wrong.

"I cannot give you the answer to that question because we don't have that answer yet," he told Canada AM. 

"The information we received that situation wasn't life-threatening was based on the analysis of those on board. After that, we were able to get two medical people on board. At the point, it was decided it would be wise to transfer three of our sailors to shore hospital. 

"Obviously, the medical officer in charge made a decision that was appropriate to transfer him. And that's all I can tell you at this time. "

Originally, officials said the fire was a minor event but on Wednesday, that story changed when rescue ships arrived.

"Information we have received... indicates damage was more extensive than first thought," Cmdr. Tyrone Pile told reporters at a briefing in Halifax.

Describing it as a "major fire," the commander of the Canadian Atlantic Fleet said it, "was of sufficient strength that most of the ship's portable firefighting equipment was used to put it out."

A second fire broke out soon after, Pile added, when the crew tried to start an oxygen generator. It was quickly extinguished. The blazes knocked out all power to the vessels and Pile says "the restoration of propulsion ... is unlikely."


----------



## LowRider

Is there any good reason why we couldn't have built our own submarines?I can't see any good reason to go buy second hand subs when they could have been built in Canadian shipyards.Even if it costs more to do so,the economic spinoffs would make up for it.


----------



## FastEddy

What would the Medical Personal consist of aboard this Submarine.


----------



## axeman

I belive not sure that its a 7 qual PA basicly the last one i worked with could crack a chest and go in to minimized the damage or fix a hole


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Good question Lowrider but I think mainly itsbecause we have never have had a submarine (military) building industry and have zero experience in it. Witness what the Australians have gone through and I think you would have seen the same things happen here, not to mention zero foreign sales for the Collins as well.


----------



## PeAcH

there are no words to describe wat i am thinkin   
RIP


----------



## Goober

RIP   

My thoughts and prayers go out to the family, and friends of Lieut. Chris Saunders. I also hope the others who were injured have a speedy recovery.


----------



## Guardian

LowRider said:
			
		

> Is there any good reason why we couldn't have built our own submarines?I can't see any good reason to go buy second hand subs when they could have been built in Canadian shipyards.Even if it costs more to do so,the economic spinoffs would make up for it.



This logic has wasted billions of dollars in the past. "Economic spinoffs" do help the economy, it's true, BUT they don't make for effective defence spending. There are two primary reasons:

1. We wind up, more often than not, paying a premium to have things built in Canada. I offer the $80,000 Iltis for an example (we could have had German-built ones for something like $25,000, or so I read somewhere). The added cost comes because often a foreign company will have to start a Canadian subsidiary, or re-tool a Canadian plant, or charge the government more for the inconvenience of having to include an "offset package." Also, developing made-in-Canada kit from scratch means we spend millions / billions in R&D for something that may / may not be better than a design that's already been developed elsewhere.

2. Often, for political reasons, a Canadian product that's lower quality or more expensive may be purchased over a better foreign product. I offer the LSVW, the Ross Rifle, the Oliver webbing.... Just because it's Canadian doesn't mean it's quality. 

Now, if the government wants to keep the funds in Canada and buy Canadian, that may be a valid decision. However, DND shouldn't have to subsidize regional development. If we must pay a premium to "buy Canadian," the extra money should come from Industry Canada, or one of the regional development agencies. Why should our defence dollars - as scarce as they are - be used to create jobs in civilian industry? Use other government money for that. If we actually spent defence dollars on DEFENCE procurement and not regional development, we'd more closely resemble Australia and the Netherlands in spending efficiency (the Dutch spend maybe $8 billion or so on defence - we spend $12b - and they have MLRS, Leopard IIs, Apache attack helicopters, infantry fighting vehicles, almost as many frigates as we do, MORE diesel subs, an amphibious assault ship complete with landing craft and a marine corps, airborne units, etc.......)


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

My condolences, particularly to his family and fellow sailors.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Odd question but what do they eat when there is no power.  Do they have IMP's or would they eat fruits/ verg, dried meats?


----------



## xenomfba

Infanteer said:
			
		

> This thread is getting ridiculous.   A good lot of you are just as bad as the baboons on the Parliament Floor.   crap happens; if a vehicle rolls, a ship catches fire, or a plane crashes, culpability does not automatically fall upon the government of the day.   Quit trying to make a crap-storm from something which we have very little knowledge of right now.



I'm sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to post my opinion on a public message board devoted to my profession. Instead of posting an irrelevant "RIP" message that no one affected will ever see, I decided to express my anger. I'm not in the Navy and as such can admit my knowledge of submarine fires is limited, but everyone knows this isn't the first thing to go wrong with our $1,000,000,000 acquisition. The difference is that someone died this time. 

You're right, crap happens. But if crap happens again and again until someone dies, there's something wrong.


----------



## NavyGrunt

xenomfba said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't allowed to post my opinion on a public message board devoted to my profession. Instead of posting an irrelevant "RIP" message that no one affected will ever see, I decided to express my anger. I'm not in the Navy and as such can admit my knowledge of submarine fires is limited, but everyone knows this isn't the first thing to go wrong with our $1,000,000,000 acquisition. The difference is that someone died this time.
> 
> You're right, crap happens. But if crap happens again and again until someone dies, there's something wrong.



This might be the most inappropriate post of all time. This is a thread where we are expressing our condolences. This is for reflection and expressing solidarity. Hardly irrelevant. Start another thread for your anger. Infanteer I think you'd be "spot on" if you deleted all these excess posts


----------



## Inch

Guardian, well put, especially about Industry Canada propping up companies instead of us. I was going to reply along the same lines but you beat me to it. Just to add a bit.....

The amount of stuff we buy is also a determining factor, there is no company in the world that will set up shop here just to build 4 subs, or 28 helicopters. The cost of infrastructure alone would be in the millions if not billions, that's an awful lot of wasted money to build 4 subs every 20 years. Compare this to the Americans and their 600 ship navy (I'm not sure it's that big anymore but in the 80's I know it was), there is a continual need for ship building and refit. We just don't have the same demand nor the money to support that kind of industry. The same goes for most of our other equipment, the Americans buy 1000 F-18's, we buy 122 CF-18's, they buy 1000+ M1's, we buy a little over 100 tanks.

I'm not saying I'm against Canadian made but as Guardian said, Canadian made doesn't always mean it's the best.

Cheers


----------



## ackland

I second that!


----------



## Scott

Recruit Joe said:
			
		

> ReeeHhheeeeHHHEEAAALLLYY,
> 
> 
> 
> Well, not to say that our submariners aren't trained well enough to handle the problem, and of course a fire on a SUBMARINE is more dangerous even than on a surface ship. But still, howcome they couldn't put out the fire if it started in an electrical panel? I suppose it's too early to speculate at anything but it's just sort of surprising it could be put of of commission by a fire so quickly and easily...
> 
> What the heck would happen if they were actually defending our borders against an enemy naval force? They would be sitting ducks! They'd probably already be hit!... This sub, as was mentioned also, hasn't been "modernized" yet so the equipment on board was probably not in good/great service.
> 
> I just hope those folks are okay and that they get on solid land ASAP! Glad it happened beside THE Commonwealth nation too...
> 
> Joe



The part about breaking down while at war has been addressed.

Now, do you have any training/experience with electrical fires? If you did then you'd know that they can be the most nasty of fires to combat. What do you put on them? How do you de-energize the source? How do you protect yourself against the noxious fumes? All of these questions must be addressed before you put the wet stuff on the red stuff. 

Plastics, any firefighters enemy. Ask any "old" hand on a fire department what the difference is today from 20 years ago and they will almost always say that it's plastics. Deadly combinations of chemicals are put together to create these compounds. They're safe, until they burn. The couch that you probably have sitting in your living room, if it were to catch fire, just the couch, and the room was left unventilated and you had no respiratory protection, you could expect about two breaths of that smoke and you'd never have a worry again.

I am not familiar with the makeup/composition of our subs. I don't know the training regime that submariners are put through in order to deal with these situations (Ex Dragoon, can you shed some light here? Do they go through the DCS like most Naval pers?) SO.....I'll keep it shut when it comes to that. What I can say, from experience is that smoke inhalation is one silent yet swift kick in the ass. It takes you down good style and sometimes you don't know that it's an issue until much later. Just trying to help with some facts.


----------



## Infanteer

> I'm not in the Navy and as such can admit my knowledge of submarine fires is limited



That about sums thing up; why don't you just spare us the rant and let the facts do the talking.

Anyways, enough of this for now.  Say your peace and move on.


----------



## 1feral1

Since last night AEST, this incident been all over the news here, and mentioned is the loss on one, and another in critical condition.

As of just now, they say conditions are very rough in the northern Atlantic.

regards,

Wes


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

There is a time and place for everything and throwing out blame isn't suited for this particular thread.


----------



## the 48th regulator

here here I agree,

Start another thread if you want to talk about blood on anyones hands.   

Honor a fallen Brother.

tess


----------



## xenomfba

Aaron White said:
			
		

> This is a thread where we are expressing our condolences.



Expressing your condolences to who? Some 17-year old weekend warrior from Saskatchewan? I doubt you'd walk up to a random person on the street and say "I'm so sorry about Lt. Saunders." If you sincerely want to try and make this horrible event easier for Gwen Saunders and her two children, send them flowers or a card with your condolences. I'm sure the MFRC would be glad to help you out with that. However, if you want to post a quick 15-second message on an anonymous message board just to make yourself feel better, then keep doing what you're doing.

Why am I the only one that sees something wrong with this?


----------



## jfladeroute

xenomfba said:
			
		

> Why am I the only one that sees something wrong with this?



I don't know why. I had two civilians, in separate conversations, mention to me today how sorry they were about Lt. Saunders.  I didn't find it surprising, and I expressed my appreciation of their sentiment. Were they wrong? I don't believe so, and I'm not sure why you would find fault.  

" Each man's death diminishes me, For I am involved in mankind."


----------



## Scott

xenomfba said:
			
		

> Expressing your condolences to who? Some 17-year old weekend warrior from Saskatchewan? I doubt you'd walk up to a random person on the street and say "I'm so sorry about Lt. Saunders." If you sincerely want to try and make this horrible event easier for Gwen Saunders and her two children, send them flowers or a card with your condolences. I'm sure the MFRC would be glad to help you out with that. However, if you want to post a quick 15-second message on an anonymous message board just to make yourself feel better, then keep doing what you're doing.
> 
> Why am I the only one that sees something wrong with this?



xenomfba, pretty ignorant... if people choose to post condolances here then that is their choice to make and it is not your place to belittle them for it. Accept the fact that we are not discussing blame in this thread at this time and move on.


----------



## meni0n

Xeno, why don't you send a memo up the chain and tell  the CDS how exactly he should spend the money eh.


----------



## Infanteer

Obviously, this thread has outlived it's purpose.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> See the prior discussions on submarine capabilities and you will see why Alex was disagreed with.



I'd still take the C-17's....



Matthew.


----------



## Spr.Earl

When it comes to Operating Diesel Electric Boats we Canadian's are the Master's at it. 
Yes Folk's it's a unknown fact
Our Submariners in a D.E. Boat's have even sunk U.S. Carriers on Ex.!!!


----------



## gkeir

In light of recent news about our tragic loss, I think some of you are missing to ask some vital questions. If rescue units can pluck persons out of the stormy Atlantic why on earth can we NOT pluck a submariner with substantial smoke inhalation off for proper medical care? I am at a loss as to why it took so long to rescue these injured persons. The delay was unacceptable and the death is something that should not have happened. Did the light not go on in someones cranium, contained environment, smoke, burning plastic, toxic, inquiry. hmmmm something to ponder about.


----------



## Scott

Gord, there is no light that goes on, it's just something that happens. Firefighters try to be prepared and watch for symptoms but one can never know for sure. It's so easy to state things like you just did, not so easy to actually live through the situation, please try to remember that.

Substantial smoke inhalation, no such thing, it's all bad, just affects people differently.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Gord, lets wait and see what comes to light in the next few weeks. If you are suggesting the competency of the crew might have something to do with the event and it's aftermath, I think that is unwarranted at this point. I simply cannot believe that the skipper of the sub, the SQN CO or even the chain of command would approve of the mission without being satisfied (1) that the boat was safe, (2) the crew were well trained and competent, (3) emergency recovery procedures, including medevac, are in place. 

The Navy may be deficient in a lot of things, but not in any of those areas, especially with a submarine.

Cheers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I have heard on the news that the skipper has crewed the other 3 subs at some time, as well as other subs, and is one of if not the most experienced sub skipper in the fleet.  (the news report).


----------



## Michael OLeary

Gord Keir CD said:
			
		

> In light of recent news about our tragic loss, I think some of you are missing to ask some vital questions. If rescue units can pluck persons out of the stormy Atlantic why on earth can we NOT pluck a submariner with substantial smoke inhalation off for proper medical care? I am at a loss as to why it took so long to rescue these injured persons. The delay was unacceptable and the death is something that should not have happened. Did the light not go on in someones cranium, contained environment, smoke, burning plastic, toxic, inquiry. hmmmm something to ponder about.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041008/SUBINHAL08/TPNational/Canada




> *Delayed effect masks damage of smoke inhalation, MDs say*
> 
> 
> By SHERYL UBELACKER
> Canadian Press
> Friday, October 8, 2004 - Page A4
> 
> 
> The death of a crew member more than 24 hours after a fire aboard a Canadian submarine mirrors the delayed-effect pattern of smoke inhalation -- an injury called the quick-change artist of emergency medicine.
> 
> When some crewmen of HMCS Chicoutimi were caught in two flash fires Tuesday, they likely inhaled smoke containing hundreds of toxic chemicals that may have severely injured their lungs.
> 
> But the most dangerous damage is caused by the inflammation that arises after special immune-system cells rush to the site to mop up the damage left by the chemical assault, doctors say.
> 
> "There is damage to those delicate breathing sacs in the lung and the damage actually grows worse over those next 24 to 36 hours," Dr. Kenneth Chapman, director of the Asthma and Airway Centre at Toronto's University Health Network, said yesterday.
> 
> That's why smoke inhalation can be so tricky: a chest X-ray can look clear and oxygen levels in the blood may appear normal in the first hours after a fire. But a day or more later, the victim can suddenly take a turn for the worse as the lungs become soggy and stiff.
> 
> "They can't exchange oxygen properly and if you do a chest X-ray at that point, you may actually see evidence of damage that you didn't see two days ago when the injury was first sustained," said Dr. Robert Cartotto, a burn surgeon at Sunnybrook and Women's Health Sciences Centre in Toronto.
> 
> A smoke-inhalation patient brought to hospital emergency may be admitted for observation and oxygen treatment, especially if the injury appears to be severe. That way, doctors can quickly put the patient in intensive care and hook him up to a ventilator if respiratory failure looks imminent.
> 
> While the exact cause of Lieutenant Chris Saunders's death Wednesday afternoon has not been officially determined, Dr. Cartotto said it "looks like the typical pattern of an inhalation injury where the delayed effects become profound within a few days time.
> 
> "Inhalation injury is one of the things we always worry about, and it's the great masquerader," he said. "You just never know which ones are going to get bad. And when it gets bad, it gets bad quickly. They can seem to be fine and have a little bit of a cough, and then they can just get into severe failure.
> 
> "It literally can happen in a matter of a few hours."
> 
> Citing figures from a U.S. study, Dr. Chapman said 75 per cent of fire deaths result from smoke inhalation, not burns or other heat-related injuries.
> 
> Did the delay in getting Lt. Saunders to hospital contribute to his death? While it's not known what kind of medical equipment was on Chicoutimi, Dr. Chapman said little can be done to combat smoke inhalation in the first 24 hours aside from providing oxygen and perhaps giving intravenous fluids.


----------



## Scott

Thank you, Michael, I was looking for a document to post that would say the same.


----------



## gkeir

Rgr k, valid respones, but the question remains unanswered, rescue attempt, the delay...you seem to have no comment on that one. How about some response. Agree, disagree?
Seems to me that someone dropped the buoy on that one. Now I'm not pointing the blame on this one but, if this was 200 miles off the coast of B.C or New Foundland I can bet top dollar that this person would have been picked up long before he was in critical condition and as it turns out too late.

BTW.

Impressed with the rapid responses on this one.


----------



## Spr.Earl

Also as to the rescue the men were lifted out of the Conning Tower as the deck was awash.


----------



## Scott

Gord, 

Originally you sated that we were incapable of picking up a sailor with substantial smoke inhalation (Not quoted verbatim) I thought that was your point. There may be a million reasons why there was a slow response time. How do we know it was slow in the first place?

 When I taught firefighting for the offshore (Sable) we instructed the students that their craft is the most important thing, an injured mate is not. Sounds harsh but how can you help the downed roustabout if you're all bobbing in the north Atlantic clinging to the same piece of driftwood. 911 doesn't work out there and that's why mariners are trained very highly (So I am told and have seen with the offshore) in damage control. You don't have many choices out there and no one wants to board life rafts. 

I am not so much disagreeing with your point, it may be valid, only time will tell, just trying to put a different spin on it, one that is relevant to my background


----------



## Cloud Cover

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Also as to the rescue the men were lifted out of the Conning Tower as the deck was awash.



How did they overcome roto static electrical discharge? Where's Inch when we need him?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Don't they use something like a grounding pole?


----------



## Inch

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> How did they overcome roto static electrical discharge? Where's Inch when we need him?



Here I am!

To be honest, I haven't done hoisting yet and SAR isn't my bag. If Sam is reading this he may have an answer with respect to that.

In response to Gord.   They're 200nm off the coast of Ireland, by helo (and the Merlin is a pretty quick helo) that trip would have taken about and hour and a half. That's provided they were able to launch from the British Frigate, I don't know the limits for launching a helo off British ships, but maybe the sea state was such that launching from the ship wasn't possible.   We don't even know where the helo was launched from.   If it was launched from land it wouldn't have come from Ireland so the trip there could have taken in excess of 2 hours, then an hour and a half back and now we're looking at 4hrs round trip. As stated by the Doc in that article, they can take a turn for the worst in a few hours, like 4 maybe? 

With respect to the same thing happening off the coast of BC or Nfld, we could get there and back in 4hours, but if the skipper doesn't send out the message that they need an evac, how are you supposed to know? All reports state that the casualties were assessed as having smoke inhalation and none of them seemed to be serious.   Maybe they should have requested the evac sooner, but again, none of us were there and given the info avail at the time, maybe an evac wasn't considered necessary.   Hindsight is 20/20 right? 

Cheers

*edit, the more I think about it, the more I think even 4hrs is not possible.   I don't know endurance figures off hand, but you tend to be pretty slow when you're getting maximum endurance, and speed really burns the fuel quickly. I'd be inclined to say that 3.5 hrs of flight time is more realistic for a Merlin. If this was off the coast of Nfld, we would have to refuel at Hybernia. So this just adds another dimension to why there may have been a delay and if they could have evac'd the injured crew any sooner.


----------



## Sam69

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> How did they overcome roto static electrical discharge? Where's Inch when we need him?



The normal Canadian procedure is to use a grounding wand to grab the cable initially and discharge the shock. In the little bit of video of the medevac that I saw on the news, they already had the cable on board and were using a guideline to assist the hoist (so I am not sure if they used a grounding wand or not). You can also let the cable touch the deck and ground itself but that is almost impossible to do when hoisting from the sail of a sub because of the tiny area involved. In this case,I suspect they used a grounding wand to initially ground the cable and then just used the guideline from there on in. 

Having conducted sub transfers myself - in much more benign weather conditions - I can say that I am in awe of the job the RAF rescue pilots did. Hoisting from the sail of a sub at sea is difficult under ideal conditions; they made it look fairly easy in some pretty nasty weather. You have to realize that, when the helo is over the sail, the pilots can't see any part of the sub. They have to maintain a stable hover using reference to a rolling sea and adjust their position using conning from the back. As well, you have to let the boat move and come back to its upright position without giving in to the urge to try and chase it while it is rolling and heaving. It is clear to me that they accepted a difficult mission and executed it masterfully while doing everything they could to save Chris and the two other submariners. Well done to them.

Sam


----------



## Cloud Cover

Thanks for the tech info Sam, and thanks also for the comments on the RAF pilots, their efforts have been much underappreciated in this whole episode!!!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I think (I may be wrong here) but in the movie the Hunt For Red October used something similar to a grounding wand.  Also thanks for giving us a perspective of how difficult the RAF's job is.  Also I have read that an American ship is now taken over towing duties and have increased the speed double.  Its good to see all the allies helping each other in the time of need.  I think the overall job the CN navy does on the high sea's is also overlooked with our public.


----------



## Sam69

CFL said:
			
		

> I think the overall job the CN navy does on the high sea's is also overlooked with our public.



I think you are right but I think this assertion also applies to most of the work done by CF members. I am constantly in awe of the amazing things done by our people in uniform; often in spite of the system that is supposed to be there to support, train, and equip them. It is too bad that it is only in times of tragedy like this that people seem to stand and take notice. Sadly, this attention lasts too short of a time in consideration of the great cost we have paid.


----------



## PPCLI Guy

Good article today it the Toronto Star (as unlikely as that sounds):

Dispelling myths about Canada's subs
We got four excellent subs for what it cost the British to build one boat, says Allan Dunlop

There have been many complaints about the purchase of the Victoria (ex-Upholder) class submarines from the Royal Navy. The criticisms reached a crescendo after HMCS Chicoutimi caught fire in the Atlantic last week, resulting in the death of Navy Lt. Chris Saunders. I am amazed how people love to provide commentary with few facts at their disposal. I would like to provide some facts and to dispel a few myths.

Myth #1 â â€ We got a raw deal.

Balderdash. We got an outstanding deal. We got four excellent submarines and the entire training infrastructure that goes with them for what it cost the British to build one boat. We would have trouble building one new boat in Canada with twice the amount we paid for the four Upholders. 

We are talking about savings in the vicinity of $3 billion, and the money we spent was spent wisely. Submariners were excited. These submarines were no stranger to us. Canadians on exchange had sailed in them and spoke highly of their capabilities. We couldn't wait to get our hands on them.

Myth #2 â â€ The RN wanted to dump a lemon.

Many people wonder why the British would sell these boats if they are so fantastic. It's very simple: Money. In the early 1980s, the Royal Navy was looking for a new diesel-electric submarine to replace the Oberon class that was nearing the end of its life expectancy. The Upholder class, a very bold and forward-thinking design, was created and 12 hulls were ordered. Partway through the building program, the Royal Navy decided it could no longer afford to support both nuclear and diesel-electric submarines, and, like the United States, adopted a purely nuclear sub-surface fleet.

The Upholder building program was halted after the first four hulls were completed. They were mothballed in the hope a buyer could be found.

Myth #3 â â€ We bought damaged goods

What nonsense. Defects get a lot of attention and so they should, but there always will be defects. Submarines are technically extremely complex â â€ things break. So, fix them. The process of identifying and rectifying defects is far more important than the fact they exist. The purchase process for the Victoria class subs left responsibility with the Royal Navy for ensuring that these boats met all the original technical specifications of the class. Canadian observers were present at all times and each technical trial required Canadian approval. 

The British workers and Canadian observers were supported by technical and legal advisers to guarantee that each item was dealt with. There are still some issues being resolved, but resolved they will be. The defects people keep talking about â â€ welding, rust, a dent, air purification, a leaky fuel tank â â€ are all things that have happened before. They go with the territory.

Myth #4 â â€ They're overdue, something must be seriously wrong

Of course, people get impatient. They want to know why it has taken so long to bring these submarines into service. They jump to the conclusion that something is terribly wrong. It is not. 

It has taken longer than hoped for, but people were dealing with a lot of unknowns. Nobody had ever mothballed and recommissioned submarines before, so when it came time to recommission the four boats, delivery estimates were made with no empirical data and they were too optimistic. The British had to spend more time recommissioning and Canadians had to be patient; if it's worth doing, it's worth doing well. 

Myth #5 â â€ They're not safe

On the contrary, the submarines are very safe. They are technically sound. Engineering teams have examined every detail with painstaking care. Safety has never been compromised. Crews are well trained to respond to a wide variety of emergencies, something that is practised every day at sea. Accidents can still happen and tragedies like the fire in HMCS Chicoutimi have a salutary effect, but such accidents are rare. We must deal with them and learn from them. Somebody asked me recently if our sailors would continue to have confidence in the Victoria class submarines. The answer is a resounding Yes. Our sailors are tough and resilient and they love their new boats.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Allan Dunlop is a retired captain who spent 33 years in the navy and commanded two submarines, a destroyer and the First Canadian Submarine Squadron. He retired in 1997. He was part of the lead group that launched negotiations for the purchase of four Victoria class submarines from Britain.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

Bravo.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I just realized I hadn't posted my condolences.   :-[

Rest in peace Lt. Saunders.

And to all those serving, my personal thanks and gratitude.

Your sacrifices too often go unrecognized....



Matthew.


----------



## basxav

Hi all:
My condolences too for Lt Saunders. I'm glad that teh crew is safe and sound today.
I realy really hope that the disaster at the Chicoutimi will wake us up (I mean teh average Canadian) and require that the polictians allow the military to buy the proper equipment it needs. Can you imagine the outcry if it had been a constrction company?

xavier


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Quoting an unnamed source,.......of course :
   http://www.canada.com/components/printstory/printstory4.aspx?id=79f3aff7-45cc-4106-86e4-e8c6c3349f4e
   
Sub crew to blame for lethal fire
Report: Seawater in battery compartment may have caused short circuit
   
Sutton Eaves 
The Ottawa Citizen 


November 7, 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.


----------



## painswessex

Anyone who knows subs or served on subs will tell you that they dont like to ride out a storm on the surface. So i doubt it that a crewmember left the hatch open.


----------



## buckahed

The entire article is utter nonsense. A little research on the web and that reporter would not have dared to write that garbage. To put the information publically available in perspective:

1. If the hatch to the   battery compartment (which is under 2 deck)   was open you would not be getting a fire 90 minutes later in the captains cabin on 1 deck. You would have about 9 seconds from the salt water entering the battery compartment to massive shorts, fires and chlorine gas IN the battery compartment.

2. The Chicoutimi was running on the surface opened up. That means the conning tower hatches were open to allow air to get to the engine room for the diesels. This is SOP. If the weather really gets rough then the conning tower hatches are shut and air is sucked in through the snort induction system. (NOT the snorkel. Snorkel is German. The Royal Navy does not use German terminology. They have a thing about that.) 

If you look at the Victoria internal views on the forces website you can see how the conning tower is designed as a series of baffles to prevent water and seaspray from getting sucked down the tower. There are a number of very good technical and operational reasons for running opened up. Getting an ingress of sea water down the tower is a severe PITA but it happens. Even in decent weather a rogue wave can send a shower down the tower. It is not human error.

3. It was fall in the North Atlantic. The weather conditions were normal for fall in the North Atlantic. A gale like that is more common than good weather in that area. The conditions were nowhere near bad enough to alter the schedule and dive early. You might as well suggest the Navy shut down operations from September to June.

4. The Chicoutimi had not reached her dive area. You do not alter schedules and dive early lightly. Especially   when you are in some of the busiest sea lanes in the world. It is possible Chicoutimi was in a hurry to get clear of the sea lanes and get to her dive position.

Whoever that source is, (if he exists) he is not a submariner, I doubt he is even in the Navy. More likely a PR jerk for the British shipbuilding industry banking on the technical illiteracy of the reporter.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good post buckahed.  You are confirming a few things that I had suspected. I suggest we let the BOI do it's and not rely too much on the news media's "guesses" about what happened.


----------



## buckahed

Seaking Tacco, 
DOLPHIN  73
                64a


----------



## lfejoel25

I don't even want to pretend that I know what I'm talking about, because I don't know a thing about subs, but I do know a bit about electricity.  So I'm wondering, exactly how much water are they talking about?  And what was it that was supposed to arc?  Water would have shorted somethin out, arcing occurs through air.  Why would you have two conductors with enough voltage betwween the two of them to arc, close enough together to cause them to arc?  and why would you design an electrical system on a submarine that would have catastrophic consequences if it got wet?  To short something out using water you would have to completely submerge it in water.  Unless you had just the right conditions that a puddle of water that was in contact with one conductor, and a second pool of water on the second conductor just happen to pool close enough together to cause an arc between the pools.   Which happens very frequently i know on a sub with seawater splashing in, during rough seas on the atlantic.  (being sarcastic of course).


----------



## SeaKingTacco

buckahed said:
			
		

> Seaking Tacco,
> DOLPHIN   73
> 64a



Aw crap- I can never find my dolphin code cheat sheet when I need it...


Cheers


----------



## buckahed

http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ac121/soca/code.htm

If I have done this right, the PC version of the code is here.

lfejoel25,

The subs use high voltage, very high amperage DC in very cramped quarters. The equipment is supposed to be rated to MilSpec standards for extreme harsh environment. The inquiry has called in experts in electrical wiring and insulation according to some news reports.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

buckahed said:
			
		

> http://www.chebucto.ns.ca/~ac121/soca/code.htm
> 
> If I have done this right, the PC version of the code is here.



Check- I googled it right after I posted and found it first shot.  Ahhh, the memories...


----------



## JasonH

Politics stalled sub deal, Collenette says

Three-year delay by Chrétien allowed vessels to rust, corrode, committee told

By JEFF SALLOT
Tuesday, December 14, 2004 - Page A6  

OTTAWA -- Politics stalled the purchase of submarines for the Canadian navy by three years, a period of time that allowed the vessels to rust and corrode, former defence minister David Collenette says.

The Liberal cabinet agreed in principle to buy the four used subs from the British in 1994, but then-prime-minister Jean Chrétien waited another three years to sign the $800-million deal, Mr. Collenette told the House defence committee yesterday.

Mr. Chrétien worried about public reaction to big purchases of military equipment at the same time as the government was cutting health care and other social programs, he said. "He thought about it for three years."

The defence committee is investigating the submarine deal after the fatal fire aboard one of the boats, HMCS Chicoutimi, two months ago. 

A separate investigation by a naval board of inquiry has yet to determine what caused the fire aboard the ship that resulted in the death of one submariner and the injury of several others.

But previous witnesses at the House committee have testified that Chicoutimi -- the former Royal Navy ship Upholder -- suffered damage from neglect and lack of maintenance while it was out of service and tied up for years in a Scottish port.

Submarines are sensitive pieces of equipment and the effects of salt water and damp air may have caused damage, Mr. Collenette said.

"They were sitting there in a climate that was not particularly hospitable. They were not like airplanes sitting in a desert where they can easily be reactivated."

"It's not surprising" that mechanical problems have developed with the submarines, given the length of time they sat idle, he said.

The former minister's testimony points to the need to call Mr. Chrétien to testify, some opposition members of the committee said.

Mr. Collenette, who was defence minister from 1993 to 1996, said he was persuaded by defence officials early on that the navy needed to replace its three older submarines, the Oberon class subs. By 1993 "the Oberons were a danger to their crews" because of their age, he said.

In opposition, the Liberals had campaigned on a platform that promised cuts to military spending.

Thus, it was politically difficult to justify the purchase of military equipment no matter how good a deal the British were offering on the used subs, Mr. Collenette said.

The Chrétien government also split the purchases of other military equipment, such as helicopters and armoured vehicles, to spread the acquisitions over a longer period because of political considerations, Mr. Collenette told the committee.

Politics is not just about leading, Mr. Collenette told reporters later. Politics is also about "bringing the public along with you. And there was a feeling the public wouldn't really understand why we were spending so much money on hard-core military equipment. . . . So we waited until the situation was a little better."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041214/SUBMARINES14/TPNational/Canada


----------



## LCISTech227

I was browsing through some news sites anc came across this, I find it very peculiar that we would be taking possession of a broken ship.  Why wouldn't we just make the brits fix it rather then ship it back to Canada and then worry about fixing it here?

Crippled Canadian submarine loaded onto transport ship for voyage home

1 hour, 33 minutes ago


HALIFAX (CP) - A crippled Canadian submarine was loaded Friday onto a transport ship that's expected to carry it home.



Tugboats pulled HMCS Chicoutimi alongside the Norwegian sealift vessel at the Royal Navy base in Faslane, Scotland, said Canada's Defence Department.

Department spokesman Jeremy Sales said the transport ship then partially submerged to allow the submarine to be brought on board.

"The Chicoutimi is now in the confines of the ship," Sales said.

"It's a complicated process before the ship is ready to sail, but she has been embarked."

The warship had to be towed back to Scotland in October after an electrical fire broke out during its maiden voyage under the Canadian flag.

The blaze left the vessel stranded northwest of Ireland and killed one crew member.

Earlier this week, high winds and fog in Scotland delayed the transfer to the transport vessel.

Sales said the weather had improved substantially by Friday morning.

He added the weather wasn't as much of a factor once the submarine was safely aboard the transport ship.

The ship was expected to depart for Halifax some time Sunday, a journey that should take 12 to 14 days.

The sealift is expected to cost Ottawa $2.7 million. 

Here's the link:  http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm.../cpress/20050107/ca_pr_on_na/submarine_return

Typical I suppose... I just don't see the point of taking possesion of a broken piece of kit.... that would be like signing for a coyote with a broken surveillance suite.  And by no means am I trying to make light of the situation that happened aboard the above submarine,  I find it tragic that Canada is still interested in this boat.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> I was browsing through some news sites anc came across this, I find it very peculiar that we would be taking possession of a broken ship.  Why wouldn't we just make the brits fix it rather then ship it back to Canada and then worry about fixing it here?



1. Because it is our submarine, not the Royal Navy's.  Hence the 'C' in HMCS... 



> Typical I suppose... I just don't see the point of taking possesion of a broken piece of kit.... that would be like signing for a coyote with a broken surveillance suite.  And by no means am I trying to make light of the situation that happened aboard the above submarine,  I find it tragic that Canada is still interested in this boat.



2. See point number 1 above.  And I can assure you that our Navy is very much interested in these submarines for alot of good reasons that have been covered in any number of other topics on this forum.  I don't want to have to keep going over the same ground time and time again...


----------



## JasonH

Maybe they want another sub to add to the fleet at west edmonton mall?  
(Sorry, just trying to brighten a gloomy story, no offence intended).


----------



## Storm

LCISTech227 said:
			
		

> Why wouldn't we just make the brits fix it rather then ship it back to Canada and then worry about fixing it here?



Because they did such a bang-up job the first time around...    Serisously though, the sub is ours now, as
SeaKingTacco pointed out. You take care of your own kit if you want any sort of respect.



> I find it tragic that Canada is still interested in this boat.



It's not a choice of this boat or another one. It's a choice of having all four or only three. I'd find it tragic if Canada wasn't interested. The other three seem to be doing quite well from what I've heard, so why wouldn't we want another one? If it were a complete write-off I would be with you, but why on earth would you toss something as useful (and expensive) as a sub when it can be repaired?


----------



## Gunnerlove

Well they are sort of ours. We can't modify them or manufacture parts for them as we only lease them. If we could have bought them they all would have been barged to Canada to be canadianized but alas not they way things happened.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Well they are sort of ours. We can't modify them or manufacture parts for them as we only lease them



And where did you get that info...fact is we have been making and buying parts for them since we bought them.


----------



## LCISTech227

The way I understood it the brits were responsible for supplying us with a working boat... as it isn't a working boat why do we have to take care of it?  It be like me buying a car, driving it off the lot and blowing the engine, and them telling me of well it's yours now.  As if.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Well they are sort of ours. We can't modify them or manufacture parts for them as we only lease them. If we could have bought them they all would have been barged to Canada to be canadianized but alas not they way things happened



Having been on HMCS WINDSOR and having sailed in company with HMCS VICTORIA, I can assure you that the submarines have been modified with our fire control system and our comms systems, just to give you two examples.   My understanding of the whole process is that the mods were done in the UK and not in Canada because we didn't have the in-house expertise at the time (the jump from O-boat technology to the Type 2400s was about like going from flying an F-86 sabre to an F-18 in one go.   Or Shermans to Leopards, to provide an Army example.)   We have now gained much of that expertise.   I also suspect that BAE is about to get busy with the ASTUTE class SSNs and wants us out of the way (I stand to be corrected on this point).



> The way I understood it the brits were responsible for supplying us with a working boat... as it isn't a working boat why do we have to take care of it?   It be like me buying a car, driving it off the lot and blowing the engine, and them telling me of well it's yours now.   As if.



We were supplied with a working boat.   It passed sea trials, was accepted by Canada and commissioned as Canadian warship. The used car anology is over-used and bad for alot of reasons. Buying complex military equipment is never like buying a car.   There are no consumer protection laws for countries.   There are sometimes warranty periods, but usually with limits.   Sometimes, when you buy a complex piece of kit (and the 4 submarines we now have are far and away the most complex equipment ever owned by the CF), bad and unexpected things happen.   Grown-up sovereign nations suck it up, learn lessons and make improvements.   Let's quit whining and move on- it is unbecoming and it wastes energy.


----------



## Navalsnpr

Courtesy of BBC NEWS Scotland

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4170811.stm

*Fire-hit submarine heading home*

The vessel carrying the Chicoutimi makes its way out of Faslane 
A stricken Canadian submarine has left the Faslane naval base at the start of its journey home. 
HMCS Chicoutimi was towed to Scotland in October after a fire on board killed one crew member, Lieutenant Chris Saunders, and injured others. 

The former Royal Navy vessel is making the crossing of the Atlantic on board a Norwegian transport ship. 

A spokesman said: "The submarine will take around six or seven hours to get through the Clyde Estuary. 

"The weather conditions were what stopped the captain from setting off earlier this week but they seem fine now." 

The voyage to Halifax in Nova Scotia is expected to take a fortnight. 

The Chicoutimi drifted for three days off Ireland after the fire, which broke out during the submarine's maiden voyage under the Canadian flag 


Lt Saunders died after the incident on HMCS Chicoutimi 

An investigation found the blaze started in the commanding officer's cabin and a smaller one started in an oxygen generator. 

Canada's Prime Minister Paul Martin paid tribute to Lt Saunders, 32, a married father of two, saying he "gave his life serving his country and we owe his family our deepest condolences". 

The Chicoutimi was decommissioned by the Royal Navy in the early 1990s. It was then refitted by BAE Systems before being recommissioned for service in the Canadian Navy. 

The fire prompted Canadian opposition parties to accuse their government of buying "inferior submarines" on the cheap. 

But UK Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon said the vessel had been brought up to Royal Navy standards.


----------



## big bad john

Chicoutimi hearing postponed as skipper, two officers seek legal advice
  
Murray Brewster 
Canadian Press 


Saturday, February 19, 2005


HALIFAX (CP) - The renewed investigation into the fatal fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi has been put off until next month while the submarine's captain and two officers seek legal advice, The Canadian Press has learned. 

Closed-door hearings that were supposed to take place next week in Ottawa have been postponed until March 1 as Cmdr. Luc Pelletier, Lieut. Sebastian LaTullipe and Lieut. Brendan Ryan talk to lawyers, military sources say. 

All three were slated to testify about a decision to leave a hatch open as the British-built warship plowed through rough seas on Oct. 5, off the coast of Ireland. 

The opening of the hatch is believed to be a key link in a series of events that led to the electrical fire, which claimed the life of Lieut. Chris Saunders of Halifax, and injured eight other crew. 

The prevailing opinion among Canadian submariners is that Pelletier and the officers are being set up as scapegoats, said a military source. 

The intent is to "deflect attention away" from the British, who failed to inform the Canadian navy about the warship's electrical faults, the source added. 

"It's now a witchhunt," he said. "Pelletier is getting a raw deal." 

A second military source said the navy is anxious to avoid a diplomatic row with Britain. 

As a result, questions about why the British failed to repair certain electrical defects on Chicoutimi are getting lost "in the call for somebody's head," said the second source. 

The military board of inquiry, which completed its initial investigation in December, was re-opened on Feb. 1 to look into why a hatch was left open while sailors tried to repair a conning tower vent. 

A spokeswoman for the board of inquiry would not confirm who had been asked to testify. 

But Lieut. Diane Grover confirmed that under military regulations those asked to appear have the right seek legal counsel. 

Grover said she understood why navy personnel were concerned about the fate of the captain and officers. 

"I can appreciate where they're coming from," she said in an interview from Ottawa. "These people are concerned about their shipmates. However, I would like to say that the board of inquiry is nothing more than a fact-finding tool." 

Grover then made a direct appeal to Canada's sailors: "Have some faith in the process," she said. 

The inquiry has heard that a rogue wave swept over the warship, pushing sea water through the open hatch and into the control room, submerging an electrical junction box in the captain's cabin. 

That caused a short-circuit, a shower of sparks and a major fire. 

The Victoria-class submarines have two conning tower hatches, one of which is usually sealed when the boat travels on the surface. 

The decision to leave that hatch open could have only been made by the captain. 

The two officers, Ryan and LaTullipe, are being questioned because they were the designated officers of the watch, which means they were on the bridge at separate times during the repair operation, said the second source. 

Current and former Royal Navy submariners have said the practice of "running open" in rough seas is considered unsafe. 

But Canadian submarine crews dispute that claim, saying the practice is common on Chicoutimi's three sister ships, all of which were acquired from Britain in an $897-million lease-to-purchase deal. 

"I've sailed on the old (Oberon) boats opened up and I'd do it again," said one source. 

It remains unclear whether the Canadian navy officially endorses the practice. 

An ex-submariner, who now teaches at Nova Scotia's Dalhousie university, said there is no clear-cut answer. 

"It depends upon the class of submarine, its design and construction," said retired commander Peter Haydon. "Running a submarine on the surface is complex. 

"You have to get air into them and some submarines are built with a separate air induction system that they can draw air in from the conning tower. Older boats did not have that separate induction valve and just drew it through the hatch." 

Haydon declined to comment on the Chicoutimi case, saying he wasn't familiar with the design. 

Meanwhile, serving members of Canada's submarine community say the questions surrounding the hatch are just a distraction. The key question, they say, is why the British did not waterproof the junction box on the floor of the captain's cabin. 

"Submarines are susceptible to water," said one source. "They're designed to get wet a lot and we still go about our business." 

The Canadian investigation has revealed that engineers in Britain had raised concerns about the integrity of specific, high-voltage junction boxes throughout HMS Upholder, the submarine that would later be renamed HMCS Chicoutimi. 

The problem was fixed on the three other Victoria-class submarines by applying vulcanized rubber and shrink-wrap plastic, members of the navy's SubSafe program confirmed during a briefing in Ottawa last fall. 

But the junction box in the captain's cabin of Chicoutimi was not touched. 

The Canadian navy found out about the repair job as it sifted through technical papers in the aftermath of Chicoutimi tragedy, the briefing revealed. 

© The Canadian Press 2005


----------



## big bad john

Sub commander won't be scapegoat, lawyer vows
'I won't allow it'
  
Chris Wattie 
National Post 


February 22, 2005


The lawyer for the commander of HMCS Chicoutimi said yesterday that he is not about to allow his client to be made the scapegoat for a deadly fire aboard the ill-fated Canadian navy submarine.

David Bright, a prominent Halifax lawyer, said he expects the naval board of inquiry looking into the fire on board the submarine to be fair to Commander Luc Pelletier, the Chicoutimi's captain for its maiden voyage from a Scottish shipyard last October.

"Let's give it a chance," he said. "To date, they've tried to be fair and reasonable. [But] I'm sitting there representing one of these people and if they're not, then I'll do something about it."

Cmdr. Pelletier is one of three Chicoutimi officers notified by the four-member board of inquiry last week that they were "likely to be adversely affected by the evidence" at the probe into the fire aboard their submarine.

Lieutenant (Navy) Chris Saunders died of smoke inhalation and eight other crewmen were injured after an electrical fire crippled the submarine.

Lieutenant Sebastian LaTullipe and Lieutenant Brendan Ryan were also notified and are expected to hire lawyers as well, naval sources say.

Vice-Admiral Bruce MacLean, the head of the navy, asked the board to hold further hearings into the fire after reading its initial report last December.

The board was ordered to look into the decision to leave a hatch open as the sub ran through rough seas on the surface. That hatch is believed to have let a flood of seawater into the sub, which may have caused the electrical fire.

Many officers in the Canadian navy have concluded that Cmdr. Pelletier is being set up to take the blame for the high-profile accident, distracting attention from systemic problems with the submarines and government delays in purchasing the British-built boats.

But Mr. Bright said he is prepared to give the board the benefit of the doubt for the time being.

"There's a potential for everything ... [including] that they'd hang him out to dry. I know that's run around the submarine squadron," he said.

"But let's give these guys a chance to do ... what's honourable."

But he said that even if the inquiry does not recommend a court martial for Cmdr. Pelletier, its report could effectively kill his military career.

"Even if there's a letter saying 'You acted improperly,' there's no disciplinary action but it still goes to a person's reputation," Mr. Bright said.

© National Post 2005


----------



## 043

Can't help but feel for these guys but lets be honest, if a mistake does cause an accident then it can't go unanswered either.

Go Navy!


----------



## x-grunt

From today's Toronto Star



> May 5, 2005. 12:35 PM
> 
> MURRAY BREWSTER
> CANADIAN PRESS
> 
> HALIFAX - A young submariner who died following last fall's electrical fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi was in the wrong place at the wrong time, a naval board of inquiry has concluded.
> 
> An investigation report, released today in Halifax, found that Lieut. Chris Saunders, 32, was the closest one to a lower-deck electrical space that exploded in a shower of golf ball-sized sparks and flames on Oct. 5, 2004.
> 
> Saunders, a combat systems engineer, was observing a damage control party as it tried to isolate a ground fault in the submarine's electrical system when a massive short circuit in the captain's cabin melted two holes in the thick steel deck above him.
> 
> "The board finds that neither Lieut. Saunders nor any other person was responsible" for his death, said the 700-page report that was eight months in the making.
> 
> The young officer, who had just transferred to Chicoutimi two weeks prior to the fire, "suffered internal burns and smoke inhalation injuries in the release of hot gases."
> 
> The report also said the medical care given to Saunders aboard the submarine in the aftermath of the accident "was adequate given the difficult circumstances, the available equipment and the limited facilities."
> 
> His presence outside the electrical space at the outbreak of the fire was an "unfortunate circumstance."
> 
> As the passage way filled with acrid, black smoke, Saunders groped his way 10 metres to a ladder and climbed up one deck into the control room â â€ his post in an emergency.
> 
> "In the smoke and darkness, Lieut. Saunders and others did not locate (emergency breathing) masks," said the report.
> 
> Once in the control room, Saunders, still unable to locate a mask, called out for assistance, but passed out near the captain's chair as crewmembers struggled to fight the fire, which had broken out on both decks simultaneously.
> 
> Investigators confirmed earlier leaked reports that the short circuit and fire were the result of sea water splashing on high-voltage wires.
> 
> About 2,000 litres of water flooded into the control room after a rogue wave washed over the conning tower and down through two open hatchways.
> 
> It was enough to be "over the toes of people's boots" and "was sloshing from side to side," the report states.
> 
> The water flooded into the nearby captain's cabin, washing over eight cables and seeping into an three-centimetre area between the bulkhead and waterproof insulation on the wires.
> 
> Electrical arcing â â€ or sparks â â€ between the wires began to occur, alerting crewmembers to a problem.
> 
> After two hours of sparking, the cables separated from the bulkhead and exploded, melting two holes in the deck and causing the fire to spread downwards to the electrical room below.
> 
> The report recommends the navy install "splash-proof" insulation on electrical wires. It also suggests changes to operating procedures that would keep conning tower hatches closed while submarines are on the surface.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Good! Maybe now we can concentrate on getting the things up and running and get back to our jobs.


----------



## buckahed

http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/boi_chicoutimi/intro_e.asp

Terrific. The investigation of the wiring insulation will take another six months. What little information is in the report on the wiring is glossed over or classified. At least they are replacing the insulation on the boats. Maybe now we won't have to listen to armchair experts whine about the hatches being open anymore.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Nah the armchair admirals will find something else now....


----------



## Whiskey_Dan

You have to be kidding me, an investigation on the wire insulation!? THAT DOESN'T TAKE A GENIOUS TO DO!! 
They could easily bring in civi ship builders to see what went wrong with it. Im done my electrician apprentiship myself and even I could
probly find what was wrong. I can't believe they'd waste our money on that kind of stuff.
Just my 2 cents.

Dan


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Whiskey_Dan said:
			
		

> You have to be kidding me, an investigation on the wire insulation!? THAT DOESN'T TAKE A GENIOUS TO DO!!
> They could easily bring in civi ship builders to see what went wrong with it. Im done my electrician apprentiship myself and even I could
> probly find what was wrong. I can't believe they'd waste our money on that kind of stuff.
> Just my 2 cents.
> 
> Dan



So you have got extensive naval and bnaval engineering experience as a cadet then?


----------



## muskrat89

Done your apprenticeship at 16?   Sorry, I don't buy that. I'm a journeyman level tradesman, and take issue with that.


----------



## childs56

He is correct though. They could hire a civie Navel electrician and have them determine the reasons. No need to go into a multi million dollar investigation only to conclude it was old and out of repair.


----------



## FastEddy

CTD said:
			
		

> He is correct though. They could hire a civie Navel electrician and have them determine the reasons. No need to go into a multi million dollar investigation only to conclude it was old and out of repair.




Of course we all know the AF's do not work that way. But maybe CTD's post bears merit and a totally
independent and unbiased report might not be a bad idea.

Knowing the Grit, Training and Experience of the Crew, that they have been found blameless, does not come
as any great surprise.

I can't imagine the pounding that WWII Subs must have taken on both sides and still were combat ready, but Venting and Battery charging in the middle of the storm tossed North Alantic, ever result in a major fire ?

My Heart and Hat goes off to the Lads that have to go down in those Boats, but maybe by the time they are ready, they'll be obsolete.

As far as Whiskey_Dan goes, give the Lad a break, extract his idea on the subject, not what you might think his qualifications might or might not be. Whether you like it or not, his idea of Civilian Contractors has merit and probally would have been a lot cheaper.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

His idea might be a lot cheaper but have you ever dealt with civillian contractors onboard a warship?
"Why is this hatch so heavy?"
"To prevent the ingress of water or to slow down fire and smoke"
"They have fires at sea?"

hence my reaction to civillian contractors. No clue and my opinion stands.


----------



## childs56

Well you have to look at most of the civie contractors that the military uses. They are ex military so they know the game real well. and such take advantage of their position. What i am saying is go down to a well known Navel dock yard, be it here in Canada or else where, The Bremerton ship yard in Washington State comes to mind. Ensure they are a impartial third party and have them conduct the inquiry into why it failed and the steps to be taken to rectify the situation. They have lots of experience building subs and doing the maintenance on them. So lets have the experts do the job. Get away from the bureaucratic red tape and lets get the problem foxed and be done with with it. Enough is enough with the incessant wasting of the taxpayers money, on investigating this and that. When i use to ask my civie boss how he wanted the job finished. HE would yell out "I want it done" money generally wasn't a factor nor was placing blame if something got messed up. We need to refocus this situation and use it as a learning curve for future situations. 
I will just restate... hire a professional whom is familiar with this type of equipment, have them reccomend the changes and lets carry them out. Lets not waste the money on any more enquiry as to why, lets just get it done and limit the risk in the future. 

Just my 2 cents worth, if i have offended any person's then My apologies. The fact is we need to get these Subs working and in a timely and efficient manner.   cut the red tape and get on with it.


----------



## FastEddy

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> His idea might be a lot cheaper but have you ever dealt with civillian contractors onboard a warship?
> "Why is this hatch so heavy?"
> "To prevent the ingress of water or to slow down fire and smoke"
> "They have fires at sea?"
> 
> hence my reaction to civillian contractors. No clue and my opinion stands.




Unless things have changed a whole lot, regard for Civilian intervention or participation in Military concerns
has always been "Oh! Yeah" and with one eye closed.

In case you have missed the fact, its Civilian Designers, Engineers and Craftsmen who have and will
Design and Build every thing we use. Admittedly, there has to be design flaws in the  persuit of Perfection,
but again its these same Civilians that investigate and correct them. It is with great sadness that sometimes this process results in the loss of life of the brave Men and Women who they were designed for.

Again I say, who better qualified to investigate a fault or problem, than those who conceived it and built
the equipment. They are not there to fix blame, but to correct or re-design.

Yes you are entitled to your opinion and reactions, but based on the argument you have put forward,  I'll leave that to the Readers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Then with the arguments you guys are putting forth then Joe Blow from the local garage should be able to fix or discover whats wrong with an AFV in our inventory.


----------



## FastEddy

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Then with the arguments you guys are putting forth then Joe Blow from the local garage should be able to fix or discover whats wrong with an AFV in our inventory.




Once again you wonder, in the case of a Major design fault or problem, let us say a AFV manufactured by
the Ford Co.. Who better to solve it than the Designers and Engineers from Ford. Of course you would'nt 
think of calling up the local gas station mechanic.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Of course you would'nt
> think of calling up the local gas station mechanic.



Then why would you think Whiskey Dan who just did his electrician apprenticeship could find the electrical prolems on a submarine or any other warship? 



> They could easily bring in civi ship builders to see what went wrong with it. Im done my electrician apprentiship myself and even I could
> probly find what was wrong


That is my issue with what you guys are arguing.


----------



## FastEddy

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Then why would you think Whiskey Dan who just did his electrician apprenticeship could find the electrical prolems on a submarine or any other warship?
> That is my issue with what you guys are arguing.




I think you might be confusing our suggestions for the incorporated use of Civilian Investigators and Contractors, to encompass Whiskey_Dan's  suggestion that even he could have done the investigation.

I can assure you that this was not our intent. Our Posts clearly indicate the respective areas of
Cost reduction and by Qualified Personnel only. As for Whiskey_Dan's personal boast, that could have been added for emphasis on his part to support his suggestions.

I'm sure we all agree that your local mechanic or electrician would not be qualified in these highly
technical cases.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Had he excluded his boast originally I would have agreed with you sooner as then your point would have made sense. My understanding (and I may have misread your posts) that anyone off the street could have done this investigation to save money.


----------



## Bill Smy

http://www.news.mod.uk/news/press/news_headline_story2.asp?newsItem_id=3526


----------



## bridges

The HMCS Chicoutimi members have received a Canadian Forces Unit Commendation for their actions on this tragic day one year ago.  
Here is the text of today's CANFORGEN:

CANFORGEN 154/05 CDS 082/05 050300Z OCT 05
CANADIAN FORCES UNIT COMMENDATION - HMCS CHICOUTIMI
UNCLASSIFIED

WEDNESDAY 5 OCT 05 MARKS THE ANNIVERSARY OF THE TRAGIC ACCIDENT THAT OCCURED TO HMCS CHICOUTIMI AT SEA DURING HER TRANSIT TO CANADA FROM SCOTLAND. THE FIRE ON BOARD THE VESSEL THAT DAY FILLED THE SUBMARINE WITH THICK BLACK SMOKE AND RESULTED IN A TOTAL LOSS OF SERVICES AND PROPULSION. THE INCIDENT ALSO PRODUCED NINE CASUALTIES DUE TO SMOKE INHALATION AND MOST UNFORTUNATELY RESULTED IN THE LOSS OF ONE LIFE, THAT OF LT(N) CHRIS SAUNDERS 


WHILE SUBMARINE CREWS ARE TRAINED TO HANDLE A GREAT VARIETY OF EMERGENCIES, THE PARTICULAR INCIDENT THAT CRIPPLED CHICOUTIMI WAS TOTALLY UNFORESEEN AND REQUIRED GREAT CONCENTRATION, PERSEVERENCE, AND INGENUITY FROM ALL ON BOARD. THE SHIPS COMPANY REACTED IN AN OUTSTANDING MANNER TO THIS DIFFICULT ORDEAL, AFFECTING AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE TO THE FIRE AT SEA AND SUBSEQUENT EVENTS. THEY WORKED COURAGEOUSLY, WITH GREAT PURPOSE, TO SAVE THEIR SUBMARINE, AND ENDURED CONSIDERABLE HARDSHIP AND RISK IN SO DOING. IN THE FACE OF HEAVY SEAS, MULTIPLE CASUALTIES, REDUCED AIR QUALITY, AND THE TRAGIC DEATH OF ONE OF THEIR FELLOW SUBMARINERS, THE SHIPS COMPANY ACTED IN THE HIGHEST TRADITIONS OF THE SUBMARINE SERVICE AND THE CANADIAN FORCES 


I WISH TO PERSONALLY COMMEND THE SHIPS COMPANY OF HMCS CHICOUTIMI FOR THEIR EXCELLENT RESPONSE TO THIS INCIDENT AND WISH TO ANNOUNCE THAT I HAVE AWARDED THE CANADIAN FORCES UNIT COMMENDATION IN RECOGNITON OF THEIR OUTSTANDING EFFORT IN SAVING THEIR BOAT 


CANFORGEN 154/05 CDS 082/05 050300Z OCT 05
MENTION ELOGIEUSE DES FORCES CANADIENNES A L INTENTION DES UNITES - NCSM CHICOUTIMI
UNCLASSIFIED

LE MERCREDI 5 OCTOBRE MARQUE L ANNIVERSAIRE DU TRAGIQUE ACCIDENT EN MER DU NCSM CHICOUTIMI PENDANT SA TRAVERSEE DE L ECOSSE AU CANADA. EN CE JOUR FATIDIQUE, UN INCENDIE S EST DECLARE A BORD DU SOUS-MARIN ET UNE FUMEE NOIRE ET EPAISSE A RAPIDEMENT ENVAHI LES LIEUX LAISSANT LE SOUS-MARIN SANS ALIMENTATION ELECTRIQUE NI SYSTEME DE PROPULSION. NEUF MEMBRES DE L EQUIPAGE ONT SOUFFERT D INHALATION DE FUMEE ET MALHEUREUSEMENT, LE LTV CHRIS SAUNDERS N A PAS SURVECU 


LES EQUIPAGES DES SOUS-MARINS SONT FORMES POUR GERER DE NOMBREUSES SITUATIONS D URGENCE, MAIS L INCIDENT QUI A PARALYSE LE CHICOUTIMI ETAIT TOTALEMENT IMPREVISIBLE. IL NECESSITAIT UNE GRANDE CONCENTRATION, DE LA PERSEVERANCE ET DE L INGENIOSITE DE LA PART DE TOUT LE MONDE A BORD. LES MEMBRES DE L EQUIPAGE ONT REAGI RAPIDEMENT ET BRILLAMMENT FACE A CETTE RUDE EPREUVE. MALGRE LES PREJUDICES SUBIS, ILS ONT FAIT PREUVE DE COURAGE ET ONT TRAVAILLE EFFICACEMENT EN VUE DE SAUVER LEUR SOUS-MARIN TOUT EN S EXPOSANT A DES RISQUES CONSIDERABLES. AUX PRISES AVEC UNE MER DEMONTEE, SUBISSANT DES BLESSURES, MALGRE UN AIR IRRESPIRABLE ET EBRANLE PAR LA MORT TRAGIQUE D UN DES LEURS, LES MEMBRES D EQUIPAGE DU NAVIRE ONT AGI DANS LE RESPECT DE LA GRANDE TRADITION QU EXIGE LE SERVICE A BORD DE SOUS-MARINS ET DANS LES FORCES CANADIENNES 


J AIMERAIS FELICITER PERSONNELLEMENT LES MEMBRES DE L EQUIPAGE DU NCSM CHICOUTIMI POUR LEUR INTERVENTION REMARQUABLE ET DECISIVE FACE A CET INCIDENT ET JE SOUHAITE EGALEMENT ANNONCER QUE JE LEUR REMETS LA MENTION ELOGIEUSE DES FORCES CANADIENNES A L INTENTION DES UNITES EN RECONNAISSANCE DE LEUR EXCEPTIONNEL EFFORT POUR LA SAUVEGARDE DE LEUR SOUS MARIN


----------



## OnTrack

It's long overdue.  I would hope that there will be some individual commendations awarded as well.


----------



## babybug

I grew up in the same town and went to the same high school as Lt Saunders. He was a great guy. He is missed more than words can say.


----------



## Slim

*Chicoutimi sub crew honoured*

Sailors commended for efforts during fatal fire

By ALISON AULD, THE CANADIAN PRESS

http://torontosun.com/News/Canada/2005/11/26/1324842-sun.html

HALIFAX -- For Master Seaman Craig Evans, it's impossible to avoid the reminders of the day he almost lost his life, dozens of metres under the sea as a fire raced through his sub. 

The sonar operator for HMCS Chicoutimi is often not far from the scorched hulk of the boat as it sits on a Halifax dock, awaiting a long list of repairs. Most days he is surrounded by the crew members who fought to contain the blaze. 

And he thinks often of Lieut. Chris Saunders, the buddy he lost when noxious smoke filled the sub. 

"That's constantly a struggle for me," Evans said yesterday after he and his mates received a special award for distinguished service. 

"For me, there's always that little pang. It's visiting a gravesite. It'll take you back. There are always reminders of it -- looking at the boat, walking across the bow. It's, 'Okay, this is where I was then; this is where I was at that moment in time.'" 

The sentiment was expressed by many sailors as they were officially recognized for their efforts in fighting the fire that broke out Oct. 5, 2004, as the used British sub was on its maiden voyage to Canada from Scotland. 

Saunders was killed and eight crew members suffered smoke inhalation when sea water poured through two hatches in the sub's conning tower, soaking the electrical lines beneath the bunk in the captain's cabin and causing a short circuit. 

Yesterday, Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, praised the 57 men for their courage and presented the crew with the Canadian Forces' Unit Commendation, adding that a special pennant will fly from the submarine for one year when it returns to service. 

In a special tribute, Saunders' widow, Gwen, received a standing ovation as she and her two young sons accepted the commendation on behalf of her husband. 

The captain and crew of Chicoutimi were cleared of any blame in the fire. 

It's not clear when or if the sub will return to sea.


----------



## CallOfDuty

Chicoutimi's $100M fix-up ?
Feb. 18, 2006. 01:00 AM


HALIFAX—The cost of making fire-damaged HMCS Chicoutimi seaworthy is expected to reach $100 million, a Halifax newspaper reported yesterday.

An unnamed source told the paper the amount was far more than originally expected to rehabilitate the fire-ravaged sub. "I was utterly stunned," the source said of the massive price tag.

The Chicoutimi has been sitting in dry dock at the Halifax Shipyard since last spring. It is slated to return to duty in September 2007

The military admits it has already spent about $25 million assessing the damage and removing some materials destroyed in the Oct. 5, 2004 blaze that killed Lieut. Chris Saunders of Halifax.

But the navy has refused to confirm or deny the projected $100-million cost, which is more than six times the $15 million the navy initially estimated for fixing the Chicoutimi. 

It was crippled by an electrical fire during its maiden voyage to Canada from Scotland.

"We're still negotiating with the different contractors, and that's one of the reasons we're not going to give an estimate at this point because that sort of shows our hand and makes the negotiations more difficult," said Lieut. Paul Pendergast of navy public affairs.


CANADIAN PRESS

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1140216612402&call_pageid=968332188774&col=968350116467


----------



## Proud Canadian

Like my grandmother also told me if you have crap to work with don't expect miracles but expect crap results.

Being an ex accountant (now a Sig) I think it would of being more cost effect buying new subs for the long haul. 

What is more of an embarrasement to our military? the sea kings or the subs. Wish Canadians had more to say on Gov't money waste management.

Since the military is into restoring things maybe they should look at some used unrestored humvees. Sure they can convince Canadians it's a great value for the money.
http://www.xhumvee.com/mvs_vehicles.htm


----------



## geo

PC... if you read some of the other threads you'll find that people who are directly involved with the SeaKings don't have all that much that's bad to say about it.... your comment - is it based on personal knowledge or is it anecdotal from what has been fed to you by the media?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> What is more of an embarrasement to our military? the sea kings or the subs.



I hereby apologise to all Canadians for causing you embarassment.  Sorry... won't happen again...


----------



## Gino

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I hereby apologise to all Canadians for causing you embarassment.  Sorry... won't happen again...


No worries.  I think we all realize where the blame lies.


----------



## Navy_Blue

We should cut our losses moth ball two subs for parts, maintain two and start the replacement program early.  At least with two subs in the water we could maintain trained crews to take on a new batch.  Its starting to get ridiculous now.  I don't care what anyone says subs are useful tools politically and tactical.  Workable ones are worth the money.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Type 212 baby with AIP...dreaming.


----------



## Armymatters

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Type 212 baby with AIP...dreaming.



Better: the updated Type 214, with AIP. Bigger and more capable. Dives deeper, goes farther on AIP, and is slightly faster.

But of course with a unlimited budget, I would take the good old Seawolf class submarines...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

: like we will see an SSN in Canadian Navy service. I am looking at a possibility (very slim at that) not something that there is not a hope in h3ll for.


----------



## CallOfDuty

I second Navy_Blue's opinion.

     
Steve


----------



## Navy_Blue

Nothing US and nothing Nuclear.  Germans are making really nice boats with Fuelcells.  NASA has been using fuelcell tech since the 60's; its not like its not prooven.  Puts you in between Diesel and Nuke for underwater endurance.  Life time costs would be much cheaper as well.  US would make us do our refits south of the boarder.  Should have the choice which service station you take your car for repairs.


----------



## Sheerin

Out of curosity, how are the other three boats doing?


----------



## Armymatters

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Out of curosity, how are the other three boats doing?



If I remember correctly, the status are as follows:
HMCS Victoria (SSK 876): Partially operational, as she put to sea a while back in May of 2005, so I suspect all is ok with her, now.
HMCS Corner Brook (SSK 878): Fully operational, but suffered a small electrical fire in October 2005. Don't know if that has been repaired yet, but it is safe to assume yes, as after the fire, she continued her patrol.
HMCS Corner Brook (SSK 878): In Canadianization refit in Halifax. She is due to be fully operational in April 2006.
HMCS Chicoutimi (SSK 879): Repairs and Canadianization refit in Halifax. She is due to rejoin the fleet late 2006, or early 2007.
http://www.vcds.dnd.ca/dgsp/pubs/rep-pub/ddm/dpr2005/mcp_e.asp#5


----------



## Slim

Armymatters said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, the status are as follows:
> HMCS Victoria (SSK 876): Partially operational, as she put to sea a while back in May of 2005, so I suspect all is ok with her, now.
> HMCS Corner Brook (SSK 878): Fully operational, but suffered a small electrical fire in October 2005. Don't know if that has been repaired yet, but it is safe to assume yes, as after the fire, she continued her patrol.
> HMCS Corner Brook (SSK 878): In Canadianization refit in Halifax. She is due to be fully operational in April 2006.
> HMCS Chicoutimi (SSK 879): Repairs and Canadianization refit in Halifax. She is due to rejoin the fleet late 2006, or early 2007.
> http://www.vcds.dnd.ca/dgsp/pubs/rep-pub/ddm/dpr2005/mcp_e.asp#5



What is the source of your information?


----------



## geo

read in the paper today that some Cdn ships are heading south for Spring break and some ASW fleet training with the US.
3 Frigates: HMCS Montreal, Ville de Quebec and.....?
1 sp ship:   HMCS Preserver 
& 1 sub:     HMCS Victoria (balance are reportedly "on the beach")


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> & 1 sub:     HMCS Victoria (balance are reportedly "on the beach")



You mean HMCS WINDSOR, right? HMCS VICTORIA is based in Esquimalt.


----------



## Armymatters

Slim said:
			
		

> What is the source of your information?



I linked it to the DND report. It states the progress of the Submarine Capability Life Extension as of the end of March 2005, which also gives the status of the various ships.


----------



## geo

Uhhh.... don't think so SKT,
the article said something about the other 3 upholders being NS
guess that would suggest that someone is going on a long cruise


----------



## Melbatoast

Armymatters said:
			
		

> If I remember correctly, the status are as follows:
> HMCS Victoria (SSK 876): Partially operational, as she put to sea a while back in May of 2005, so I suspect all is ok with her, now.



Victoria is currently sitting in the ditch in Esquimalt Dockyard still on this side of a 72 week docking work period.  She's not going anywhere for a while.  She's a learning case for west coast Canadian dockyard workers, which is why it's going to be such a long period.

Word is either Cornerbrook or Windsor is going to RIMPAC this year (I don't remember which).  That would be some trip.


----------



## geo

Xpensive training aid MBT...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/24/lead-submarine060224.html

Lead contamination found on military sub
Last Updated Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:17:40 EST 
CBC News
Repairs on one of the used submarines Canada bought from Britain have been suspended after unacceptable levels of lead contamination were detected.  
Navy officials say the contamination, detected in the officers' mess, may be from lead ingots in a ballast tank. They say they'll remove the lead as soon as possible. 
In the meantime, the area has been quarantined. 

As many as 75 people have been working on the sub on any given day, but officials say they don't believe anyone has suffered lead poisoning. 
The 12-year-old submarine is one of four decommissioned Upholder class submarines purchased from Britain six years ago. It arrived at CFB Esquimalt three years after that. 

The sub has been at sea for just over 100 days in the past five years because of a series of problems that led to Victoria being sent to drydock. 
One of its sister subs, HMCS Chicoutimi, caught on fire in 2004 after leaving Britain, bound for Canada. A sailor died from the effects of smoke inhalation. 
Eventually the submarine was sealifted to Canada aboard a Norwegian surface vessel. 
The navy has now issued a warning about the lead contamination to those working aboard the other three subs. 

Only one of the four is in good enough condition to go to sea.


----------



## WCST

First off, if you buy a lemon, expect lemonade. 

The lead they found was no big deal. It's not like the tables are made out of lead or anything. They're OLD subs, and with old equipment comes cross-contamination from years of going from point A to point B without washing hands.

What I can't believe is the government buying subs they were TOLD over and over again were no good. I have a strong feeling that it was someone at HQ wanting to make their final PER a good one who rammed through the purchase. 

Subs, choppers (bought, dropped and still paid for, then repurchased), ships, clothing... I see it happen all the time. When will the people who write the cheques realize that you get what you pay for? Murphy's Law of Combat Operations #4 clearly states: Your equipment was made by the lowest bidder. Why can't that be changed to Your equipment was made by the BEST bidder?

Ranting? Yes, I am. I walk by that sub EVERY day. EVERY day I see the scaffolding around it and talk to the boys who should be sailing in her. Every day I'm reminded at how ineffectual our purchasing processes are, despite all the hoops we're supposed to jump through.

It makes me wonder if the same people who bought these things do the same thing when it comes to THEIR personal purchases? I bet not.

M :brickwall:


----------



## geo

wonder if anyone would notice / care if we towed out a couple of them for use in gunnery practice?

if anyone hasn't mentioned it - maybe we should start thinking about the purchase of new subs..... maintain expertise with what we got and look ahead to the future...... PLEASE!!


----------



## redleafjumper

Several years ago I had a good conversation with the RAdm in charge of the new sub procurement project.  I was a rather blunt subaltern at the time and I was quite direct in telling him that the government wasn't going to buy the subs that his whole project was about.  He looked at me like I was quite naive and told me that he would know, as after all, he was in charge of the project.  Some 5 months later, the sub procurement project was dropped.  

I would suggest  that instead of engaging in yet another escalation of commitment, we sell/scrap these second hand subs and look at either building or buying some that will do the job.  


(edited to fix typos)


----------



## geo

creative suggestion (keep 1 running, 3 as hangar queens for the spares)
with 1 sub operational we can maintain and develop doctrine....... while looking into the procurment of something that's new.


----------



## WCST

That would be great if we only had 1 coast to defend. Without getting into Arctic Soveriegnty (sp), one on each coast would be ideal. It's the same song as the 280's - we had 4, they worked or didn't as the case may be, then they spend millions of dollars on a communications platform for one, while decommissioning the other one on the West Coast.

The subs should never have been bought in the first place. But they were and now we're paying MORE money to get them working. Throwing good money after bad really. If the international community could be coerced into purchasing them off us, we would be better off selling them and using the money towards buying GOOD subs, ones that work off the block instead of going in for extended repairs and refits.

Bah. I'm too close to this to articulate well.

M :brickwall:


----------



## Armymatters

Didn't see that the CBC news report was posted here, but to add in my two cents, I don't think we can get much off the subs on the international arms market... maybe we can find a buyer on the international scrap metal market? lol.


----------



## Sheerin

I'm curious, is it the general consenus in the navy that the Vics are lemons?


----------



## rvdklok

who needs submarines when we got hundreds of thousands of canoes???  ;D


----------



## zipperhead_cop

rvdklok said:
			
		

> who needs submarines when we got hundreds of thousands of canoes???  ;D



Yes, please feel free to sail your canoe at 300 m below the surface.  In the Arctic, for at least a week.

Not my normal lanes, but does Canada still have a cold war bone on against nuclear subs?  And if so, why, since we used to sell nuclear reactors and use nuclear power here?  

As far as why the old Brit subs were bought, that should be obvious.  Another Lieberal cash grab, since the lemons would of course need overhauling in yards and need parts from Lib friends.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just a thought....why don't we volunteer to produce a run of (12) vessels with AIP - (4) for us, and (8) for Taiwan. 

It gets the Taiwanese their submarines.

It gets us our submarines.

It rebuilds our lost shipbuilding infrastructure with Taiwanese subsidization (providing a lot of jobs in the process).

It gets the United States Navy out of the fear of producing an SSK on home soil when they want to maintain an all-nuclear sub fleet.

The only downside is the Communist Chinese would be peaved which personally I think is a good thing (and something I hope Harper actually initiates).  If they want to start a trade war they'll get hammered because we import a lot more of their goods into Canada than we export to them.  In addition, since we primarily only sell them natural resources it doesn't matter if they buy them from us or someone else.  If demand goes up, it affects market prices and our producers get the same prices anyway, we'll just be shipping to Europe or India instead of China.  We can also play the oil card.  Perhaps some regulartory issues with pipelines from the Oil Sands to the Pacific Coast as an example, or restricting their right to buy Canadian Natural Resource Companies until they allow us the same right in their country.

Short Version:  If we decide we're going to replace the Victorias sooner rather than later, it may be a serious win-win.


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

rvdklok said:
			
		

> who needs submarines when we got hundreds of thousands of canoes???  ;D



:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The problem is we would have to import the expertise to build the subs, buy the license to build the sub, find the right design to build. Most economical is buy the subs straight from the country that makes them.


----------



## Armymatters

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just a thought....why don't we volunteer to produce a run of (12) vessels with AIP - (4) for us, and (8) for Taiwan.
> 
> It gets the Taiwanese their submarines.
> 
> It gets us our submarines.
> 
> It rebuilds our lost shipbuilding infrastructure with Taiwanese subsidization (providing a lot of jobs in the process).
> 
> It gets the United States Navy out of the fear of producing an SSK on home soil when they want to maintain an all-nuclear sub fleet.
> 
> The only downside is the Communist Chinese would be peaved which personally I think is a good thing (and something I hope Harper actually initiates).  If they want to start a trade war they'll get hammered because we import a lot more of their goods into Canada than we export to them.  In addition, since we primarily only sell them natural resources it doesn't matter if they buy them from us or someone else.  If demand goes up, it affects market prices and our producers get the same prices anyway, we'll just be shipping to Europe or India instead of China.  We can also play the oil card.  Perhaps some regulartory issues with pipelines from the Oil Sands to the Pacific Coast as an example, or restricting their right to buy Canadian Natural Resource Companies until they allow us the same right in their country.
> 
> Short Version:  If we decide we're going to replace the Victorias sooner rather than later, it may be a serious win-win.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



Your right about the fact that the PRC will be cheesed off. The Americans have proposed building conventional submarines for the Taiwanese in the past, and it got a very negative reaction from Beijing, hence it is part of the reason why the Americans are dragging their feet. The other reason the Americans are dragging their feet is local pressure from the US Navy not to build conventional submarines. There was some serious backlash against France and the Americans earlier for selling Mirage 2000 and F-16 jets, plus La Fayette class frigates to the Taiwanese in the late 1980's, early 1990's. Future arms sales from Europe due to pressure from Beijing are now highly unlikely due to this. 

Canada signed recently many trade bilaterals between us and the Chinese, representing billions of dollars of trade for us, and we do not wish to risk them. Also, we signed in 1970, an agreement with the PRC, formally recognizing the PRC government, as the "sole legal government of China" and "takes note" of China's position that Taiwan is an "inalienable part of the territory" of the PRC, hence we will be breaking the founding communique that established PRC-Canada relations.

And playing the oil card with China will just get us brushed off by Beijing. The PRC does not depend at all on Canadian oil exports, they depend on mostly domestic and Russian energy imports. So that card is already in the trash can already. The Chinese can theoretically dump our markets with goods, which will not be good for Canada at all. And check the back of your computer or any electronic or consumer good you own; most likely, it came from China.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Your right about the fact that the PRC will be cheesed off. The Americans have proposed building conventional submarines for the Taiwanese in the past, and it got a very negative reaction from Beijing, hence it is part of the reason why the Americans are dragging their feet. The other reason the Americans are dragging their feet is local pressure from the US Navy not to build conventional submarines. There was some serious backlash against France and the Americans earlier for selling Mirage 2000 and F-16 jets, plus La Fayette class frigates to the Taiwanese in the late 1980's, early 1990's. Future arms sales from Europe due to pressure from Beijing are now highly unlikely due to this.
> 
> Canada signed recently many trade bilaterals between us and the Chinese, representing billions of dollars of trade for us, and we do not wish to risk them. Also, we signed in 1970, an agreement with the PRC, formally recognizing the PRC government, as the "sole legal government of China" and "takes note" of China's position that Taiwan is an "inalienable part of the territory" of the PRC, hence we will be breaking the founding communique that established PRC-Canada relations.
> 
> And playing the oil card with China will just get us brushed off by Beijing. The PRC does not depend at all on Canadian oil exports, they depend on mostly domestic and Russian energy imports. So that card is already in the trash can already. The Chinese can theoretically dump our markets with goods, which will not be good for Canada at all. And check the back of your computer or any electronic or consumer good you own; most likely, it came from China.



My humble opinion is to say "screw the existing deals" because we're getting the short-end of the trade balance anyway.

RE:  The back of my computer - I'm with you on that.  I've actually done my best to boycott PRC goods for the last 3 years and I had to hunt to buy a laptop not built in China.  More recently I went looking for a coffee maker....THEY WERE ALL "MADE IN CHINA".  Even the Stainless Steel Cuisinart I ended up buying was from China (which really pissed me off because I didn't even realize that until I had gotten it home).  

I even went looking after-the-fact and the only way I could buy non-PRC would've been to drop $450+ on a SAACO Espresso Machine.

I can hardly wait until they start dumping cars into North America....


Matt.


----------



## TCBF

Countries invariably act in accordance with their owninterests.  The ChiComs will no doubt try to bully - it's called diplomacy, by the way - others to ignore Taiwan, but, I could see South Africa, Isreal, or others making a good deal or two with Formosa.

Tom


----------



## WCST

Sheerin said:
			
		

> I'm curious, is it the general consenus in the navy that the Vics are lemons?



From technical types it is. The guys who work on the Vic are just estatic to be ON a sub. Nevermind they're not sailing her. Just repairs and fixing and climbing scaffolding. It's so frustrating for them.

M :brickwall:


----------



## The Gues-|-

Hey why don't we just get the subs from West Ed mall, paint them black and strap a couple torpedos to the sides we'll have double the subs we have now.


----------



## TCBF

What are you going to torpedo in the West Ed  Mall?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The Gues-|- said:
			
		

> Hey why don't we just get the subs from West Ed mall, paint them black and strap a couple torpedos to the sides we'll have double the subs we have now.



:


----------



## chrisf

TCBF said:
			
		

> What are you going to torpedo in the West Ed  Mall?



About as much as the Victoria's will torpedo in dry dock


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I am glad you folks find the navy not having a much needed capability very amusing, its about as funny as the army not having any tanks and buying the MGS....


----------



## redleafjumper

Actually, it isn't a very funny situation. I am sure that most of us hope that the recent announcement of a plan for a three-ocean navy comes to fruition.

Sometimes a little humour makes it easier to bear a difficult or annoying situation.  It's the old phrase "if you can't take a joke , you shouldn't have joined".  I don't think anyone trying to add some humor here was trying to be offensive, but one can see how people may have strong feelings about the penny-wise and pound foolish spending habits that seem to plague many government contracts.


----------



## cobbler

> Sometimes a little humour makes it easier to bear a difficult or annoying situation.  It's the old phrase "if you can't take a joke , you shouldn't have joined".  I don't think anyone trying to add some humor here was trying to be offensive, but one can see how people may have strong feelings about the penny-wise and pound foolish spending habits that seem to plague many government contracts.



Learn from Australia, if you let jokes like that creep into the nation's mind they will never be erased.

Before all the collins class troubles were fixed, jokes were commonplace, and now the subs are brilliant, but ehir reputation has been burned deep into the belief of the media and the general public. So now in Australia it is "common knowledge" that our submarines are "dud subs", and no matter what the facts are nor how much they prove themselves the collins will never be rid of that tag. Thanks to jokes.

All the troubles we went through were worth it to get what we have today, but of course the public cant see it that way, they have been virtually brainwashed into a false opinion.

This not only reduces pride, it affects recruitment, future defence programs, the publics perception of the building company (whom were not at fault), and many other.

Jokes are bad for submarines, because they never go away, trust it from an aussie.


----------



## redleafjumper

Good point.  It is true that something can creep into the public conscious and become a reputation, whether deserved or not.


----------



## aesop081

This whole thread :  :

A few of the posters here would benefit from the 3 weeks i just had seeing first hand what SSK's can do to a modern surface fleet.  Rather than making jokes you would be screaming for our sub fleet to get operational.  As already mentioned by Ex-Dragoon, it is a sorely needed capability.


----------



## NavyShooter

AESOP, I'm living that right now too.  I'm on the Montreal.

These boats are GOOD.

NS


----------



## Collin.t

You could also read the paper in the thread "Is the US Navy overrated", it's a real moral booster for the canadian forces and also the other small navies around the world.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

aesop081 said:
			
		

> This whole thread :  :
> 
> A few of the posters here would benefit from the 3 weeks i just had seeing first hand what SSK's can do to a modern surface fleet.  Rather than making jokes you would be screaming for our sub fleet to get operational.  As already mentioned by Ex-Dragoon, it is a sorely needed capability.



[WARNING: Understanding of a Civvie.  Not to be mininterpretted as fact  ;D]

If we're talking about operation within territorial waters could not Aurora, F-18, or even ground-launched Harpoons or other SSM's could cause equal damage to enemy assets at a far lower operating cost?  

My point is that I always understood that Submarines were intended to operate stealthily in places they weren't intended to be.  Areas where perhaps an enemy has air assets and snorkelling would expose their position.  

In short, I simply cannot reconcile spending a $1billion up-front and $XX million/year in operational costs for coastal self-defence submarines that most likely will never experience anything more dangerouse than a Spanish Fishing Trawler.  Surveillance of such vessels is done far more cost-effectively with UAV's like the Predator B (Mariners).  For $1 billion, we could've bought approximately 40 units (based on $25 million per copy), they can fly almost every day without requiring long periods for maintenance and crew downtime, and can cover huge areas of ocean with minimal crew and fuel.

The only way I can reconcile spending $1billion up-front and $XX million/year in operational costs is for an ultra long-range SSK with AIP that can operate submerged in dangerous territory for extended periods of time without requiring surfacing (perhaps as trail-blazers for an eventual LPD-based battle group) which appears well beyond the capability of the Victorias in their current configuration.

Now if you're going to tell me the current configuration is transitional to an eventual AIP-refit (and hopefully extended range) and that we're just getting people trained-up on these vessels at the moment so we don't lose our capability, I'll humbly retract my objections.



Matthew.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Blackshirt-

Suppose what you're looking for in our territorial waters is not on the surface.  How does a Harpoon armed aircraft help you now?  The best ASW platform is another submarine.

There are many ways for a snorkelling submarine to hide it's snort- particularly when operating in litoral waters.  There is almost always lots of little radar contacts that they can just blend in with...

Our submarines are not just coastal defence vessels.  You have missed out on several of their assigned missions, most of which have nothing to do with operating in our waters, but have everything to do with carrying our fair share of being in a Western Alliance.  I hesitate to go further, because I am not sure what is in the public domain and what is not.  Perhaps a serving submariner can go further than I have.

Operating submarine of our own gets us access to water space management info, which is roughly like air traffic control for submarines.  You don't operate submarines, you don't get the info.

A Navy not having submarines is like an Army without tanks... oh wait.   Anyway, it leaves the force unbalanced and it hands the entire undersea dimension to any potential adversary.

You don't want to believe me that subs are necessary for our Navy to have, that is your perogative.  But I'm the trained professional who has to find them on occasion, and in my opinion, they are absolutely necessary.

Cheers


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Your tank point hits the nail on the head.  IF we accept that we'll never get a budget that will allow us to buy all the kit we should have for all services and that we have to rationalize priority #1 (airlift) vs priority #2 (tanks) vs priority #3 (submarines) vs priority #4 (sealift), IF we're going to commit to operate submarines (which I'm not arguing is a bad decision), I just can't rationalize running non-AIP vessels.

It would be like buying used F-5's for Combat Air Patrol, or M-60 Pattons as our new MBT.  They may fill a role, but faced with combat versus a competent enemy and they would be a huge liability.



_Matthew. _


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I guess you have been missing my posts (and others) about how naval warfare is a 3 tiered approach of above, on and below. You remove one from the equation and you might as well stay in port.  :

Going the niche approach like you are advocating only further erodes our effectiveness as a military. After all look how quickly the skill sets of being a submariner eroded at least now we are able to maintain some degree of proficiency.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

How about we suspend ALL welfare and provincial equalization payments and put the money into all branches of the military.  Then, if you want to live off the States teat, then you better make yourself useful to the Armed Services.  Starship Troopers, here we come! :dontpanic:


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> How about we suspend ALL welfare and provincial equalization payments and put the money into all branches of the military.  Then, if you want to live off the States teat, then you better make yourself useful to the Armed Services.  Starship Troopers, here we come! :dontpanic:



Not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I guess you have been missing my posts (and others) about how naval warfare is a 3 tiered approach of above, on and below. You remove one from the equation and you might as well stay in port.  :
> 
> Going the niche approach like you are advocating only further erodes our effectiveness as a military. After all look how quickly the skill sets of being a submariner eroded at least now we are able to maintain some degree of proficiency.



First off, I may be a civvie, but the constant rolling your eyes thing is disrespectful.  I have always tried to be respectful of you guys and I expect the same treatment in return.  

RE:  The topic at hand - I agree with the 3-tiered approach you describe, however it doesn't seem worthwhile to build those 3-tiers if the limitations of your undersea stop your ability to deploy at the Grand Banks and leave your on-sea and over-sea assets alone in other theatres due to lack of range or inherent vulnerability.  Specifically, I think force procurement should be defined by the Worst-Case Deployment Scenario in combat against the strongest probable enemy, and if you're not going to procure to that standard and are going to buy M-60's to do border patrol, then I think we'll forever be saddled with paper-tiger equipment that won't allow us to deploy due to lack of capability even when our interests and values tell us we should. 



Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The rolling of the eyes is just to show how often we go over this argument and the frustration level it brings. We have been through this time and time again, Matthew go over the sub threads again and you will see why most naval types (and those other services that can think outside the box) will disagree with you.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand?


More money for the Navy.  Just over simplified.  Again, I call for a [sarcasm] smiley to be created.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> It would be like buying used F-5's for Combat Air Patrol, or M-60 Pattons as our new MBT.  They may fill a role, but faced with combat versus a competent enemy and they would be a huge liability.



Disagree.  Strongly.  I have worked versus HMCS VICTORIA.  She is by far the hardest target I have tried to catch and hold (My previous experience includes work against US and Chilean boats).  This class of boats is, in my opinion, nothing to be taken lightly by an opponent.

Many of the problems we are having come from jumping two generations of technology in one go (we will jump three generations with the Sea King to Cyclone) and the learning curve associated therein.  Should we have gotten an AIP capability?  Probably, but I don't remember it being a "mature" technology back in 1994-95 when we started trying to buy the Upholders.  And with Treasury Board, and PWGSC and cabinet, it does not pay to keep modifying your specs as you go.

A better anology, IMHO, might be that we bought used F-117s.  These submarines are far and away the most complex pieces of machinery the CF has ever owned- it's going to take us awhile to learn to use and maintain them properly.

Cheers.



> however it doesn't seem worthwhile to build those 3-tiers if the limitations of your undersea stop your ability to deploy at the Grand Banks and leave your on-sea and over-sea assets alone in other theatres due to lack of range or inherent vulnerability.



While I was typing I saw that you posted again.  I'm not sure that I understand this part of your post.  Are you implying that our Submarines lack the range to make it to the Grand Banks?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> More money for the Navy.  Just over simplified.  Again, I call for a [sarcasm] smiley to be created.



Gotcha.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> First off, I may be a civvie, but the constant rolling your eyes thing is disrespectful.  I have always tried to be respectful of you guys and I expect the same treatment in return.
> 
> RE:  The topic at hand - I agree with the 3-tiered approach you describe, however it doesn't seem worthwhile to build those 3-tiers if the limitations of your undersea stop your ability to deploy at the Grand Banks and leave your on-sea and over-sea assets alone in other theatres due to lack of range or inherent vulnerability.  Specifically, I think force procurement should be defined by the Worst-Case Deployment Scenario in combat against the strongest probable enemy, and if you're not going to procure to that standard and are going to buy M-60's to do border patrol, then I think we'll forever be saddled with paper-tiger equipment that won't allow us to deploy due to lack of capability even when our interests and values tell us we should.
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew.



 And for the record most sailors would agree that getting rid of the tank was very stupid thing for the government to do.


----------



## Navy_Blue

On a lesser note than capability and usefulness.  Our submarines let us listen in on whats operating underwater in the Atlantic and Pacific without leaving the jetty.  Without these boats operating the big boys no longer have to include us when they want to go play.  By having operational Subs we can sit in and see what the US, UK, and NATO is doing underwater and in our waters.  We can also expect to be told when they want to go through our waters for fear of running into us.  I believe its half the reason the HMCS Victoria is out west.  The yanks move there Boomer's through those straits all the time if we didn't have a sub out there they wouldn't have to tell us anything.  If we had these things in the water as much as we should the Inuit would see allot less periscopes floating through up north.

Don't get me wrong people are still going to sneak around but not as much.


----------



## Slim

There will always be an army, navy and airforce operating in our country...

...I would prefere that it be ours.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> The yanks move there Boomer's through those straits all the time if we didn't have a sub out there they wouldn't have to tell us anything.



Not really.  Boomers always go on the surface through the Straits of Juan de Fuca.  It was no secret when Boomers went out or came in.  I saw them a couple of times a month... before HMCS VICTORIA came west. I think that you have it right in the rest of your post, however.

Cheers!


----------



## Melbatoast

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Not really.  Boomers always go on the surface through the Straits of Juan de Fuca.  It was no secret when Boomers went out or came in.  I saw them a couple of times a month... before HMCS VICTORIA came west. I think that you have it right in the rest of your post, however.
> 
> Cheers!



That's very true - you see boomers a lot when you are in the straits.  The SJDF is too shallow and too busy for a big boat like that to transit submerged.  

There's a sub out west (and probably another, eventually) because China is the biggest conventional "threat" in the world these days.  The Russians are of the same mind, as the majority of their Oscar II fleet is at Petrapavlosk and operating at a good tempo, and the Americans are likely to put all of their Seawolfs out here, too.


----------



## Navy_Blue

Point taken but once out to sea the Yanks didn't have to let anyone know anything.  At least we see part of the picture now.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Disagree.  Strongly.  I have worked versus HMCS VICTORIA.  She is by far the hardest target I have tried to catch and hold (My previous experience includes work against US and Chilean boats).  This class of boats is, in my opinion, nothing to be taken lightly by an opponent.
> 
> Many of the problems we are having come from jumping two generations of technology in one go (we will jump three generations with the Sea King to Cyclone) and the learning curve associated therein.  Should we have gotten an AIP capability?  Probably, but I don't remember it being a "mature" technology back in 1994-95 when we started trying to buy the Upholders.  And with Treasury Board, and PWGSC and cabinet, it does not pay to keep modifying your specs as you go.
> 
> A better anology, IMHO, might be that we bought used F-117s.  These submarines are far and away the most complex pieces of machinery the CF has ever owned- it's going to take us awhile to learn to use and maintain them properly.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> While I was typing I saw that you posted again.  I'm not sure that I understand this part of your post.  Are you implying that our Submarines lack the range to make it to the Grand Banks?



RE:  Your opinion of the Victorias capabilities and stealthiness - I'm ecstatic to hear that from someone in your position!  That really is outstanding news....

RE:  The Grand Banks comment - I may have worded it poorly but my intent was that it would seem a waste to only produce that 3-tiered capability if the Victorias in their current configuration only have the range and combat capability to operate in Canadian territorial waters and were unable to escort our surface vessels overseas when operating in expeditionary theatres....where if they were AIP-equipped, they would play a significant role.



Matthew. 

P.S.  Just a quick thank you for taking the time to respond in the way you have....Cheers.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> RE:  The Grand Banks comment - I may have worded it poorly but my intent was that it would seem a waste to only produce that 3-tiered capability if the Victorias in their current configuration only have the range and combat capability to operate in Canadian territorial waters and were unable to escort our surface vessels overseas when operating in expeditionary theatres....where if they were AIP-equipped, they would play a significant role.



That is not my understanding of the operational range of the VICTORIA class.  Granted, they don't have the legs that the O-Boats had, but my understanding is that they can operate pretty much anywhere in the world (not under ice, of course).  The Brits trialed UPHOLDER in the Gulf before they mothballed her.  AIP would not make them much faster (if at all), just more capable of staying submerged longer.

I've never really noted subs being tied to surface ships as "escorts" before.  Mostly, they just work alone.  It's better for everyone involved  

Cheers


----------



## Navy_Blue

You must be able to RAS these things so any task group with an operational AOR could keep subs Fueled at the very least.  Thats if we use them as an escort or intigrate tham into a task group.


----------



## hugh19

LMAO  RAS a sub at sea?????  Not gonna happen.  Unless its in a sheltered bay somewhere.  The Vic's aren't going to be escorts for anything. SSK's are used differently as they are slow. Slower than a tanker. They would be put somewhere usefull but not part of a task group. You would need a SSN for that.


----------



## TCBF

Four subs enough for a "Wolf Pack"?

 ;D

Tom


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Four subs enough for a "Wolf Pack"?



Good lord!  Submariners are allergic to other submariners- they hate working anywhere near each other.

Water Space Management (WSM) is a system of rules and procedures which keeps everyone spaced out enough to hopefully prevent "blue on blue"


----------



## Slim

TCBF said:
			
		

> Four subs enough for a "Wolf Pack"?
> 
> ;D
> 
> Tom



He can't help it...Tankers work in fours! ;D


----------



## TCBF

"Quote from: TCBF on Yesterday at 20:19:06
Four subs enough for a "Wolf Pack"? -Tom

"He can't help it...Tankers work in fours!"

Ha!

1 - "OK guys, lets talk about this next crest drill." 
2 - "Crest drill? WTF? We are 200 feet under water!"
3 - (Whispering) 'He just re-classified from Armour!"


----------



## Slim

TCBF said:
			
		

> "Quote from: TCBF on Yesterday at 20:19:06
> Four subs enough for a "Wolf Pack"? -Tom
> 
> "He can't help it...Tankers work in fours!"
> 
> Ha!
> 
> 1 - "OK guys, lets talk about this next crest drill."
> 2 - "Crest drill? WTF? We are 200 feet under water!"
> 3 - (Whispering) 'He just re-classified from Armour!"



 :rofl: :nana: :tank:


----------



## Navy_Blue

Technically we have only forgot how to RAS these Subs at sea (up to say sea state 2).  In WWII they would RAS corvettes and other escorts by dragging a fuel hose full of air behind a tanker.  they would hook it drag it on board and commence fueling.  A WWII era Corvette would have much the same sea keeping characteristics as a sub (cork in the water).  With very little modification to a AOR (a boom and spacial hose) you could maneuver a sub off the rear quarter while the tanker blocks some of the wind and wave action.  Two guys strapped in could man handle the hose and hook in on the sub.  A com line could piggy back the hose as well.  Average speed of the fleet in transit would be 17 - 20 knots.  Can the sub keep up to that?? On the surface even??

Thats just me thinking to much though we would never do this.


----------



## hugh19

How could we have forgotten things we have never done? Hmm?  please please do tell me I wanna know. The germans did do it in WW2. But is still a extremely hazardous operation


----------



## Navy_Blue

We did RAS covettes by dragging a floating hose though...It could be done with Subs to and really not much more risky than what we do now if your men are tied on.


----------



## hugh19

Its called a astern refueling. You have never stood on the uppers of a sub. I can just tell LOL


----------



## Navy_Blue

Yes a big smooth open space that would get washed by waves and potentaly hit the men trying to preform a RAS in this method.  So they would get wet  ;D  Not saying its Ideal or even really practical just possible.  You couldn't rely on the weather being nice when you would need fuel either.  

I'll drop this now


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Better yet just pick up a small freighter and convert it to a submarine tender, problem solved.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Well not Army related.

From www.dnd.ca

DND Defers HMCS Chicoutimi Repair
NR-06.016 - April 27, 2006

OTTAWA - The Department of National Defence today announced that repairs to Her Majesty's Canadian Ship (HMCS) Chicoutimi, damaged by fire in 2004, will be deferred until 2010 when a two-year refit on the submarine is conducted. 

This decision means that repairs caused by the 2004 fire incident will be conducted at the same time as the two-year refit process known as the Extended Dock Work Period, which is scheduled for 2010. If the repair process had begun immediately, HMCS Chicoutimi would have been back in service for less than two years before going back for the scheduled refit in 2010. The decision has the potential to save the department millions of dollars through a more effective allocation of resources.

The Victoria-class fleet's operational capability will not be negatively impacted because of the deferral. Deferring these repairs will allow the Navy to focus its resources on other vessels and the surface fleet. This decision is the most cost effective method to address other competing priorities on current naval resources.

"This will improve our ability to get Victoria and Corner Brook back into service and better position the Navy to have two boats fully operational in 2009," said Vice-Admiral Drew Robertson, Chief of the Maritime Staff.

HMCS Chicoutimi is currently located at Halifax Shipyards Ltd. and will be placed in an extended limited maintenance period until the Extended Dock Work Period begins in 2010. With the application of skills, knowledge, and efficiencies gained from work on other Victoria-class submarines HMCS Chicoutimi is expected to rejoin the fleet in 2012.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There are days when the seas are calm enough to do side to side refueling, but you can't count on them, plus both vessels would be completely vulnerable. I have seen pictures of U-boats and Milk Cows doing such, but the advent of Hunter killer groups, carrier aircraft and long range bomber patrol, effectively made this procedure obsolete.


----------



## geo

Hmmm..... why don't we just declare her a hangar queen and strip her down for parts?
take her out of her misery?


----------



## Armymatters

geo said:
			
		

> Hmmm..... why don't we just declare her a hangar queen and strip her down for parts?
> take her out of her misery?



We already stripped her down for parts... We looted her for parts to get Corner Brook ready... though that was the British Ministry of Defence fault for doing the looting.


----------



## TCBF

Probably took everything but the screen doors...


----------



## Torlyn

I think we're putting the screen doors on our new Northern Armed Icebreaker fleet, so they're gone as well.  

T


----------



## Armymatters

More trouble with the Victoria's... but this time it is partially a human screw up, not entirely the ship's fault:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/13/sub-060513.html
Cost spent to resolve the issue: $200,000, for parts that mirrors the original equipment found on the sub.


----------



## blacktriangle

What a joke...

By 2010, won't the sub already be 15-20 years old?


----------



## zipperhead_cop

No, it will be pretty much brand new with all of the new crap they have put on it


----------



## The Bread Guy

Here's the fate of the Chicoutimi....

 Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act - http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33409

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/512944.html

*Chicoutimi becomes spare-parts bin
Sub donor to operational fleet, documents reveal*
By CHRIS LAMBIE, Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 28 Jun 06 

The navy is using HMCS Chicoutimi as a source of spare parts to keep its other used submarines running.

Even before the navy announced in April it was putting off repairs to the fire-damaged sub until 2010, the military planned to use Chicoutimi for spares.

"In the early stages of this project, HMCS Chicoutimi will be required to be a "donor’ to the operational fleet and it is expected that (transfer requirements) will cause additional work," say navy documents obtained under the Access to Information Act.

Commodore Bob Davidson, who just took over command of the Atlantic fleet, confirmed Tuesday that some parts from Chicoutimi will go into other subs.

"There will be some bits that will be used elsewhere because that’s what we always do," said Commodore Davidson, a former submarine commander.

"We’re not going to turn it into a spare-parts bin . . . but there will be pieces of equipment that we will use."

While "some bits and pieces out of Chicoutimi" will be removed, "the aim is to keep her as intact as possible because we’re going to put her back in the water," he said. "We’ll eventually be running four submarines again."

The "quickest place" to get spares is often from a vessel that’s not being used, said Commodore Dean McFadden, who takes over in August from Rear Admiral Dan McNeil as the commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic.

"I’ve got no doubt that we will take parts from Chicoutimi and use them in the other boats when we need them," said Commodore McFadden, the former commander of the Atlantic fleet.

But he vowed they will eventually be replaced so "she can do the job the same way as any of the other submarines."

The sub has been sitting in dry dock at the Halifax Shipyard since last spring because of a fire on board on Oct. 5, 2004, that killed Lieut. Chris Saunders of Halifax.

The work to make Chicoutimi seaworthy again — pegged at $100 million — won’t start until 2010. According to the navy, the sub will return to active duty in 2012, eight years after it last went to sea.

Commodore Davidson said he’s not worried using Chicoutimi for spare parts could delay that return to duty.

"Will there be an arising? Well, I don’t know. I can’t make any promises there. Nobody can," he said. "But I don’t think so. I think we’ll be able to put her back in the water and get her running in the time frame that we’ve laid out."

Chicoutimi has a history of being used for spare parts.

In December 2004, a former navy electrician told the Commons defence committee Chicoutimi was so full of holes "she looked like Swiss cheese" as she sat in a British dry dock in January 2000.

Gerry O’Keefe, a former petty officer second class who left the navy in 2003 after 23 years, said his first impression of Chicoutimi, then called HMS Upholder, was: "Sweet mother of God, they want us to sail in this?"

"There weren’t enough parts on there to make the boat float," he told the committee. 

Crews refitting the first three subs had "robbed" parts from Chicoutimi to make the other submarines run, he said, adding that in the engine room there were two large holes where backup valves had once been. 

"There were more holes than you could shake a stick at; the submarine looked like Swiss cheese," said Mr. O’Keefe, who suffered post-traumatic stress after a 2002 flood aboard another of the submarines, HMCS Corner Brook. 

Using Chicoutimi for spare parts was one of the main delays in getting the sub ready to go to sea before the 2004 fire. The British Defence Ministry cannibalized Chicoutimi for parts in an attempt to get Canada’s other three subs working — a practice the Canadian navy strongly denied at the time.

Three of the diesel-electric subs are now in Halifax and the other is based in Esquimalt, B.C. 

Canada announced the purchase of four mothballed subs from Britain in 1998. So far, buying and maintaining them has cost about $1.2 billion. 

Only one of the subs, HMCS Windsor, is now able to go to sea. That sub is slated to sail until this winter, when it will go into a long work period ashore. The navy is hoping to get HMCS Corner Brook to sea later this summer to replace Windsor as the military’s lone working sub.

HMCS Victoria went into an extended docking work period on the West Coast last summer. It won’t be operational until the spring of 2009.

Windsor has recently been "involved in some pretty high-level exercises with the Americans where we’ve surprised them," Commodore Davidson said.

"Nobody knew where (the sub) was and it ended up being quite close to the opposition forces. I don’t think they even knew at the time that it was that close. These submarines are actually excellent submarines and what we’re proving is that, once we get them running, we get great things out of them."

The navy plans to reach what it calls a steady state by 2009, where two submarines will be operating at one time. That will happen briefly this fall.

"This autumn will be fabulous because we’ll actually have two submarines running," Commodore Davidson said. "Both Corner Brook and Windsor will be busy and active, both providing services for Canada and for the fleet."

( clambie@herald.ca)


----------



## cobbler

The Article title:


> *Chicoutimi becomes spare-parts bin*
> Sub donor to operational fleet, documents reveal



then you read on:


> ... said Commodore Davidson, a former submarine commander.
> *
> "We’re not going to turn it into a spare-parts bin . . .*  "



Anybody else see what I see?

The Navy says one thing, the media prints another.


----------



## redleafjumper

Commodore Bob Davidson, who just took over command of the Atlantic fleet, confirmed Tuesday that some parts from Chicoutimi will go into other subs.

"There will be some bits that will be used elsewhere because that’s what we always do," said Commodore Davidson, a former submarine commander.

"We’re not going to turn it into a spare-parts bin . . . but there will be pieces of equipment that we will use."

While "some bits and pieces out of Chicoutimi" will be removed, "the aim is to keep her as intact as possible because we’re going to put her back in the water," he said. "We’ll eventually be running four submarines again."

The "quickest place" to get spares is often from a vessel that’s not being used, said Commodore Dean McFadden, who takes over in August from Rear Admiral Dan McNeil as the commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic.

"I’ve got no doubt that we will take parts from Chicoutimi and use them in the other boats when we need them," said Commodore McFadden, the former commander of the Atlantic fleet.

But he vowed they will eventually be replaced so "she can do the job the same way as any of the other submarines."


It would seem that the "spare parts bin" comment from the navy spokepserson is more spin than substance based on the rest of the navy's comments.


----------



## zipperhead_cop

I'm not sure what is worse:  the denial of the spare parts bin idea, or that they want to put that submersible lemon back in service.   ???


----------



## redleafjumper

When you buy second-hand, you are often buying other people's problems.


----------



## Sub_Guy

What's the big deal, so what if they use it for spare parts right now?  The parts are right there!  So take them!

As for the sub ever making it back to sea, I have my doubts, especially when the submarine community is probably used to having a sub kicking around for various training activities (OLYMPUS)

I was on the Chicoutimi, and it was in the best shape of the 4 boats because it was used for spare parts, so most of its kit was NEW... 

Also when one reads quotes from other sailors knocking the program or the submarine in general, you always have to consider the source, you can have 500 guys saying the same thing, and it will the 501st guy saying something negative that will get all the attention.

The media has never had anything positive to say about this program, and as long as there is a submarine program the public will always view it as such.


----------



## cobbler

redleafjumper said:
			
		

> When you buy second-hand, you are often buying other people's problems.



I don't think second hand is the problem, what is the problem is the time spent sitting and collecting dust. About a decade of doing absolutely nothing will create these sorts of problems.


----------



## geo

The Brits commissioned the ships between '90 & 93
and mothballed them in '93.
The "DEAL" with Canada was announced in '98.... so the ships were, by most standards "like new" BUT it would appear that some of the people involved in the mothball process didn't go about their tasks in "bristol" fashion.  If memory serves me right, think that one of the subs had it's ballast tanks filled with saltwater for the 5 years "on the beach".... not good.

Hangar Queen = Parts bin..... the army does it often enough, so shouldn't be much of a surprise if the Navy uses that option.... they only have 4 of that line of ships.


----------



## Armymatters

cobbler said:
			
		

> I don't think second hand is the problem, what is the problem is the time spent sitting and collecting dust. About a decade of doing absolutely nothing will create these sorts of problems.



On top of that, no one has ever re-comissioned a warship of this complexity after a long period of being decomissioned. Purchasing right after the Brits were about to retire them would have been more sensible, but the decision to wait for so long was political (government had to tighten its purses due to the ballooning deficit).


----------



## ENGINEERS WIFE

Submariners' health to be tracked over long-term
Updated Wed. Jul. 29 2009 5:54 PM ET

The Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Submariners who survived the deadly electrical fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi almost five years ago will be the subject of a long-term health study.

The navy and the military's medical branch have signed a formal arrangement for a first-of-its-kind review that will assess and track the medical conditions of submariners who were exposed to smoke with possible toxins.

It's the first time the Canadian Forces has embarked on a systematic study of its members following an "occupational exposure," says a briefing note obtained by The Canadian Press.

The agreement commits both military branches to monitor the 56 sailors -- both serving and retired -- until at least 2014 when an assessment will be made whether to follow them until the end of their lives.

The study was one of the last orders issued by Vice-Admiral Drew Robertson before he retired as chief of maritime staff last month, and is among the steps taken after The Canadian Press reported in 2008 that sailors were falling ill with debilitating medical conditions.

Part of the challenge will be to keep track of crew members as they leave the military, the document said.

Lt.-Col. Marcie Lorenzen, an interim medical adviser to the maritime staff, said the study is groundbreaking for the military but not necessarily precedent-setting.

"It's probably what we should be doing and would have been doing had we had the information technology in the past to do it," she said in an interview Wednesday.

Be it former soldiers exposed to atomic tests in the 1950s, troops sprayed with Agent Orange in the 1960s, peacekeepers with illnesses or survivors of a submarine fire, the military has faced repeated criticism about the way it handles long-term health concerns of its members.

Lorenzen said the Chicoutimi study could pave the way for similar projects in future, depending upon the nature of the mission and the members involved.

An assessment shows over half the Chicoutimi crew suffered from post-traumatic stress following the October 2004 fire, which crippled their submarine off Ireland in the stormy North Atlantic. Over 20 sailors have subsequently complained of breathing trouble, said the May 7, 2009, briefing note.

The study will examine each man's medical condition before the fire and compile a database of their ailments as the years unfold. That information will be compared against a control group of submariners, who were not exposed to the raging fire caused when electrical cables were inundated with water.

In a series of 2008 interviews, sailors also spoke about unexplained fainting spells, short-term memory loss and chronic conditions, such as asthma. There were also reports of neurological disorders.

Roughly half the crew members have been discharged, will soon leave the military or have been placed on a medically disabled list.

Many of the sailors said at the time they were angry the navy had not provided them with a detailed chemical analysis of the smoke and its potential health effects, as promised in the aftermath of the fire.

They were also upset about having to fight running battles with Veterans Affairs over pension entitlements. They said they felt "forgotten."

Through the National Research Council, the military eventually came up with a chemical analysis and other tests. But queries to National Defence and internal emails show no testing was carried out dealing with "cold smoke."

The crew was most concerned about possible exposure to burning Peridite, an epoxy and known carcinogen used to glue insulation to the deck and hull.

When the chemical analysis was eventually released, it showed that the fumes and soot likely contained established carcinogens such as benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, and dioxins and furans.

And it clearly stated that the crew likely inhaled cancer-causing contaminants.

"It is reasonable to conclude that the HMCS Chicoutimi smoke contained chemical carcinogens, and that the crew were exposed to them," the June 2008 report said.

"The actual risk of developing cancer will depend on the amount, or dose, of exposure."

The crew and their families were given the news at a town hall meeting, ordered by the chief of defence staff in the aftermath of the sailors' published complaints.

The British-built Chicoutimi was on its maiden voyage to Canada from Faslane, Scotland, when a fire broke out on Oct. 4, 2004. Lt. Chris Saunders of Halifax died later in an Irish hospital.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090729/sick_submariners_090729/20090729?hub=Health


----------



## Antoine

I have a naive question:

How does the air recycling system work in a submarine?
Any exhaust or a way to deviate the contaminated air, or masks such as found in civilian airplane for passengers, any equipments that the firefighters use to breath when they need to get in a burning house?

Just wondering. 

OK, it was a stupid question, I found the answer on internet by a quick search :

Board of Inquiry - HMCS Chicoutimi Fires and Casualties
http://www.vcds-vcemd.forces.gc.ca/boi-cde/chi/se-eng.asp

And also:

Submarine air Quality: Monitoring the air in submarines, National Academy press, Washington D.C. 1988


----------



## Navy_Blue

On a Diesel powered sub we get a lot of our air when we charge.  Most gets sucked in for the diesel the rest is ours.  When we are dived and if it’s a long time we monitor the atmosphere and if it gets to low we burn a O2 candle and turn on our C02 absorption unit.  If we have a fire or our air is contaminated and we can’t come back up for what ever reason we have emergency breathing masks.  Running out of air is really the least of our worries.


----------



## Czech_pivo

An update on her current deployment

http://www.janes.com/article/76632/japan-holds-rare-asw-exercise-with-canadian-submarine

I'd love to know if she managed to 'sink' their carrier during this exercise!


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I'd love to know if she managed to 'sink' their carrier during this exercise!



If they release any info like that to the media, I'll eat my hat*.

*Beret though - wedge is too thick and I only have 1 muskrat hat  :nod:


----------



## Czech_pivo

Dimsum said:
			
		

> If they release any info like that to the media, I'll eat my hat*.
> 
> *Beret though - wedge is too thick and I only have 1 muskrat hat  :nod:



I don't think that we'd want to embarrass our Japanese ally if we did or ourselves if they managed to 'sink' us.....but I'm sure the story will be making the rumour mill once they are back home.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I don't think that we'd want to embarrass our Japanese ally if we did or ourselves if they managed to 'sink' us.....but I'm sure the story will be making the rumour mill once they are back home.



I’m fairly confident that if the JMSDF set out to find the Chi, they’d sink her before she had a chance to sink the “carrier”.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect both sides tried their best to sink each other and learn from it, regardless of who got who.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ENGINEERS WIFE said:
			
		

> Submariners' health to be tracked over long-term
> Updated Wed. Jul. 29 2009 5:54 PM ET ...


Bumped with the latest on that from the info-machine ...


> The Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Forces Health Services Group have finalized the first phase of a health study which was designed to systematically document and describe the health effects associated with exposure to the October 2004 fire onboard Her Majesty’s Canadian Submarine Chicoutimi.
> 
> The Health Study followed 250 participants including 56 crewmembers, 42 members of the Care and Custody Team who looked after the submarine following its return to Faslane, Scotland, and 152 randomly selected submariners (acting as a control group). Stage one of the study analyzed the health of participants in the five years preceding the fire and five years following the fire.
> 
> The Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy has invited the former members of HMCS Chicoutimi, and the Care and Custody Team, to attend a Town Hall meeting at Canadian Forces Base Halifax where the results of the health study will be shared, and options for the next phase of the study will be discussed.
> 
> The Royal Canadian Navy and Canadian Forces Health Services Group remain committed to undertaking this study, and will continue with the next phase of the study with input received at the upcoming Town Hall.
> 
> Media will be invited to attend a briefing following the Town Hall, where the results of the study will be released to the public.
> 
> (...)
> 
> *Quick facts*
> 
> In 2004 HMCS Chicoutimi sustained a fire during a transatlantic voyage from Scotland to Canada. The fire resulted in a number of casualties, and the death of Lt(N) Chris Saunders.
> 
> The crewmembers of HMCS Chicoutimi received comprehensive and enhanced medical and mental health care immediately following the fire, and over the subsequent months. Chief concerns at the time included respiratory conditions, and mental health issues. A number of crewmembers were also concerned that they may have had exposure to carcinogens that could have long-term health impacts.
> 
> At a Town Hall with crewmembers in 2008 the Royal Canadian Navy committed to undertaking a study to monitor the health of crewmembers, and members of the Care and Custody Team. The RCN reached an agreement for this study with the Canadian Forces Health Services Group in 2009.
> 
> The results of this study were unfortunately delayed due to several factors including insufficient tracking and follow-up, and while the draft report of the study was completed in 2015, it was not finalized until January, 2019.
> 
> Our intent now is to communicate the results of the study to crew and Care and Custody Team members and stakeholders in an open and transparent fashion, as quickly as possible, and to discuss options for further study ...


Also attached in case link doesn't work.


----------



## 211RadOp

From CTV News



> *Navy to release health study 15 years after deadly submarine fire*
> 
> The Canadian Press
> Published Thursday, July 11, 2019 4:40AM EDT
> 
> 
> HALIFAX -- Sailors who survived a devastating fire aboard the submarine HMCS Chicoutimi almost 15 years ago were expected to learn details today of a study into the long-term impact on their health.
> 
> The used British submarine, one of four purchased by the Canadian military in 1998, was on its maiden voyage to Canada on Oct. 5, 2004, when it caught fire in rough seas off the coast of Ireland.
> 
> A board of inquiry later determined that as the sub's conning tower was being repaired on the surface, a rogue wave pushed a torrent of seawater through two open hatches, partially flooding two compartments and causing an electrical short-circuit and fire.
> 
> Much of the sub was quickly engulfed in black smoke as the 55 crew members fought the blaze.
> 
> Navy Lt. Chris Saunders later died from smoke inhalation, and two other crew members were badly injured by the toxic fumes.
> 
> After the fire, many of the submariners spent an additional five days on the sub -- working on equipment covered in grey soot -- as the ship was towed to Scotland.
> 
> The navy conceded early in its investigation that the crew had been exposed to a nasty chemical cocktail, though it would take years of laboratory work to determine what was in the smoke.



https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/navy-to-release-health-study-15-years-after-deadly-submarine-fire-1.4503434


----------



## Navy_Pete

If anyone is curious, here is the June 2008 study on the health effects.  Found it on the CBC link below, but attached a copy in case it gets removed at some point. This is the study refd in the Health Canada report released yesterday over here https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/health/hmcs-chicoutimi-health-surveillance-study.html

Looks like they did some pretty comprehensive testing and actually burning a number of different materials.  They outline the limitations in detail, but seems like a reasonable approximation.

Their conclusion that the crew is at no increased risk to cancer is a bit of an oddball, as they are doing a pretty quick comparison against firefighters in general (doing mostly house fires where they can fight it from outside), while ignoring some of the other single events (plastinet fire in Hamilton, 9/11) where the first responders had a significantly higher rate of health problems.  Can't compare exposure from outside the building to being in a steel tube with something burning for assessing exposure.

from https://www.cbc.ca/ns/media/pdf/HMCSCHICOUTIMI_PotentialChemica-Health.pdf


----------

