# Rust hampers latest used sub



## McG (11 Sep 2004)

*Rust hampers latest used sub*

Halifax Daily News
HALIFAX
(Printed in Edmonton Journal Wednesday 08 Sept 04)

Rust is delaying the delivery of Canada's fourth submarine, purchased used from the British Royal Navy after that country took the vessels out of commission in the 1990s.

The British Defence Ministry also scavenged the fourth vessel, HMCS Chicoutimi, for parts in an attempt to get the other three subs working, according to documents obtained by the Halifax Daily News under the Access to Information Act.


----------



## NavyGrunt (11 Sep 2004)

That doesnt really mean anything- ships are "hampered" by rust all the time. We need more info before we can condemn >


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (11 Sep 2004)

What the media fails to mention time and time again is the subs sat docked for over a decade and while the RN supposedly was t make sure they did maintenance on them apparently they did not so the process is taking longer. I dare say if you parked you car in your backyard and 10 years later tried to get it in working order you would run into the same problems we are having to reactivate the SSKs.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (12 Sep 2004)

Over four years to get them rebuilt.  Way over budget.

To me, this  is another example of a waste of money.  All of this for training aids for the rest of the navy?  I'm sure the Navy could have spent this money on more useful items.  This along with reports that the Chicoutimi was "Huronised", parts stripped out to get the other subs running.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Sep 2004)

It's not just as training aids for our navy. Canada is recognized as having the best diesel boat drivers in the world. Other navies regularly train(ed) with our Navy to improve their ASW capabilities.

There was a story floating around (no pun intended) that a Canadian sub was able to "shoot" a USN carrier while on ex ... very embarrassing for the yanks.


----------



## DJL (12 Sep 2004)

> Over four years to get them rebuilt.  Way over budget.
> 
> To me, this  is another example of a waste of money.  All of this for training aids for the rest of the navy?  I'm sure the Navy could have spent this money on more useful items.  This along with reports that the Chicoutimi was "Huronised", parts stripped out to get the other subs running.



Even though the Vics are both not on time and over budget, we have still paid a fraction of what it would have cost to build or buy new. For instance, the RAN has spent over 4.5 billion dollars on the six Collins class subs, or 750 million per. Now IIRC, the Vic program is still under 1.5 billion, or under 400 million per sub, problems and all, we still got a bargin.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Sep 2004)

They are more then "training aids" they will do a lot more then be training tools for the navy. The continual and casual discarding of capabilities is scary one that should be sending alarm bells throughout the entire military and former military community. As for Huronizing the Chi big deal every service does that to get systems up and operating. The Brits who are responsible of reactivating the boats are the ones that will make sure all parts removed are replaced. To lose our subs in the navy is like loosing tanks to the army. An incredibly stupid and irresponsible decision and the ones that support not having subs I tar with the same brush.
If anyone else is in touch with any actively serving CF Submariner that thinks not having subs is a great idea then please point them out to me.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (12 Sep 2004)

Yes, they are simply training aids.  For ourselves, and our allies for sure, but still training aids.

Submarines have one purpose in life, and that is to sink other ships.  To do that today, one would think that the sub would require a highly capable Fire Control, a high dash speed to get in/out, and the endurance to stay submerged for long periods of time.  All of which the Upholder lacks.  We did not upgrade/modernize the fire control, opting instead to wait until a rebuild down the road.  They do have a underwater dash speed of something like 20 knots, which will kill the batteries before they make it very far, or, I read, they can stay submerged for 80 hours, cruising at 4 knots.

While I do believe that the Navy requires training aids, I'm just not positive that this is the right way to go right now.  None of the subs are operational as of yet, and will require many tens of millions more to make them operational.  But, then again, as long as they can dive, they don't need to be fully operational, do they?

By the way, this all serves to remind me, what ever happened to the original pledge "These submarines will be returned to full operational readiness and undergo trials at sea before Canada will accept them. The Canadian navy will be fully involved throughout this process. Planned and corrective maintenance will be completed on each submarine, and all four will be fully certified for submerged operations."


----------



## Genetk44 (12 Sep 2004)

Seems to me, only a civilian, that these subs are an accident waiting to happen that will cause severe regrets in the future. The Brits mothballed them almost upon completion, the Aussies turned them down.....2 good reasons right off the bat for us not to have bought them. I would have prefered to put our people in the newest,most modern subs available.....no not US made nuke boats either. But I've read that the Germans make a hell of a good boat, the Danes too, I believe.
Just my 2civvy cents worth.
Cheers
Gene


----------



## DJL (12 Sep 2004)

> Seems to me, only a civilian, that these subs are an accident waiting to happen that will cause severe regrets in the future.



What do you base that assessment on?



> The Brits mothballed them almost upon completion,



The reason being , the Royal Navy (like most of NATO) was faced with defence cuts at the end of the cold war.........it was either the four Upholders or two nukes.



> the Aussies turned them down.....2 good reasons right off the bat for us not to have bought them.



I never knew that the RAN looked at or was offered the Upholders .......I know that the South Africans were intrested, and possably a couple of other European navies.



> I would have prefered to put our people in the newest,most modern subs available.....no not US made nuke boats either. But I've read that the Germans make a heck of a good boat, the Danes too, I believe.
> Just my 2civvy cents worth.



I also would have prefered that (as I'm sure the crews), but in any event, it was most likely either the Upholders or nothing.


----------



## Genetk44 (12 Sep 2004)

DJL......I base my comment about the subs being an accident waiting to happen on the problems that have been reported over the past 4 years, leaking valves, leaking hydraulic fluid into the boats etc. plus the fact the boats sat mothballed for 10 years. The sea is a harsh and corrosive environment at the best of times and even more so for a vessel that has to operate under it, not to mention for one that has sat dockside for ten years. 
Also, I don't buy the "budget-cut" scenario as the sole reason as to why the Brits mothballed them.....granted thats just based on gut-feeling on my part but that combined with the problems we've had with the boats plus the problems getting them refurbished and
' recertified' plus the fact that the Brits couldn't offload them for ten or so years tells me that we bought 4 pigs in the poke that our guys don't deserve.
I hope I'm wrong but its my opinion.
Cheers
Gene


----------



## nULL (12 Sep 2004)

The Australian Collins class subs have had their share of problems too...

EDIT: ..and they cost about a billion each!

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/collins.htm


----------



## Born2Fly (12 Sep 2004)

The RN wanted to unload the subs to a Commonwealth Navy. And as I understand it, we turned them down the first time.


It isn't even costing us that much money. We diverted some of the costs to the British in exchange for their army to come over and use our bases to train on. So, in the end, it's not even a money factor.


This is a great deal for Canada. Period. We didn't have to spend money on research, development, design, or maintenance. We bought off-the-shelf subs which are technilogically updated, at a really, REALLY cheap price. No matter how you look at it, we got a great deal.


----------



## DJL (12 Sep 2004)

> DJL......I base my comment about the subs being an accident waiting to happen on the problems that have been reported over the past 4 years, leaking valves, leaking hydraulic fluid into the boats etc. plus the fact the boats sat mothballed for 10 years. The sea is a harsh and corrosive environment at the best of times and even more so for a vessel that has to operate under it, not to mention for one that has sat dockside for ten years.



Do you not think that those problems where associated with the fact that the Upholders were in mothballed since the early 90s?



> Also, I don't buy the "budget-cut" scenario as the sole reason as to why the Brits mothballed them.....granted thats just based on gut-feeling on my part but that combined with the problems we've had with the boats plus the problems getting them refurbished and
> ' recertified' plus the fact that the Brits couldn't offload them for ten or so years tells me that we bought 4 pigs in the poke that our guys don't deserve.
> I hope I'm wrong but its my opinion.



What does your "gut" tell you the real reason behind the Upholders being mothballed was then?


----------



## Genetk44 (12 Sep 2004)

The money issue.....ie: too much cost or,alternativley too little cost doesn't concern me...I'm not a bean counter. I just want our personnel to have the best,most easily maintained,efficient war-fighting equipment we can give them. Sailors haveing to spend hours saveing and recirculateing hydraulic fluid or continually tightening valves that shouldn't need tightening dureing a crossing from the UK to Canada on one of our "new" subs just doesn't cut it.


----------



## Genetk44 (12 Sep 2004)

DJL...re: the 10 years of mothballing......in my statement that you quoted I did say that mothballing for 10 years would have a negative effect on the boats condition.  BTW.....the hydraulic leak and valve leaks that I refered to,among other problems, occured on the voyage to Canada of one of the boats AFTER it had been refurbished in the UK.
As to my gut feeling telling me other alternatives for the UK takeing the subs out of service....it doesn't. Like I said its a gut feeling...no logic to it I admit......but I do find governments' use of " budget cuts" to pat and easy an excuse to waesel out of a problem or problems. I'm not very trusting of politricksters or bureaucrats


----------



## DJL (13 Sep 2004)

> DJL...re: the 10 years of mothballing......in my statement that you quoted I did say that mothballing for 10 years would have a negative effect on the boats condition.  BTW.....the hydraulic leak and valve leaks that I refered to,among other problems, occured on the voyage to Canada of one of the boats AFTER it had been refurbished in the UK.



Do you not think that incidents/accidents happan on the other ships in the fleet?


----------



## Genetk44 (13 Sep 2004)

Of course other accidents/incidents  happen on other ships in the fleet........but a sub is not just another ship....an incident/accident that might be only minor/inconvenient on a surface vessel can be catastrophic on a sub.....the differences should be obvious!


----------



## Sheerin (13 Sep 2004)

Do a little search into the teething problems the Aussies have had with their Collins class boats.  
What it boils down to is new boats (and yes they are still new boats) will have problems.


----------



## Genetk44 (13 Sep 2004)

Sheerin.....I did the search as you suggested. However I disagree with your premise.
1  they are not new boats they are new boats that sat at dock for ten years without proper upkeep
2  the Brits have 100 years of sub building under their belts, the Aussies?
3 the Upholder boats had problems comeing out of the builders yard from the get go, includeing leaking torp tube doors
4 The RN had the boats in service for a short time(a couple of years) and mothballed them.....and the problems are still there..DUH!
5 Finally....who cares what problems the Ozzies are haveing....we're talking about the 4 lemons we bought from the Brits.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Sep 2004)

Hmmmm sorry guys but if its between those that have no clue about what subs do and those submariners that are working on them right now who still have faith in them, I have yet to hear one complain about the fire control system (told it would easily blow my ship out of the water). I think too many of you are listening to the nay sayers and not the people who are qualified on the Upholders. So no offence but your opinions don't hold much weight compared to those that use them.


----------



## Genetk44 (13 Sep 2004)

Ex-dragoon.......point taken and agreed with.
 I'd be very interested in hearing frank,honest opinions and thoughts  from some of those crew,officers and enlisted men who have actually sailed on the boats in question. Unfortunately hasn't happened yet... 
Howeve...nobody can deny that things are way way beyond schedule as originally laid out.
Cheers
Gene


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Sep 2004)

Oh that goes without saying Gene, no one is happy with the delays and the ongoing problems, it goes hand in hand with what i mentioned earlier about leaving your car in your back yard for so long and then trying to reactivate it. hobbyists spend years doing this! Is it a good thing with the _Vic's_ hell no but we can't afford to give up on another capability.  The people I talk to can see beyond that, which all that matters to them and me.


----------



## Genetk44 (13 Sep 2004)

Ex......have you had any discussions with CF crew who actually have sailed, surfaced and submerged in the boats over a period of days? Being a civilian in Montreal, I haven't had the opportunity to have informal, off the record discussions with such crew....ergo I'm left to my own devices to formulate an opinion. I'm fully aware that my opinion counts for nothing....and I don't fool myself that it has more merit than anybody elses' here but until somebody can give me real reasons to change my opinion, such as crew who have dealt with the subs, under way, then I'll stick to my guns. My central opinion is that we(the people and government of Canada) did not do the best we could for our naval personel in the matter of our subs.
Cheers
Gene


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Sep 2004)

> Ex......have you had any discussions with CF crew who actually have sailed, surfaced and submerged in the boats over a period of days?


Well thats the whole reason for my support of the subs is based upon what friends and coworkers have said about them.



> but until somebody can give me real reasons to change my opinion, such as crew who have dealt with the subs, under way, then I'll stick to my guns.


I guess naval experience counts for ver y little as well as the opinions of the personnel I have indicated above. I know some know of this forum and its my hopes those that have sailed will stop by and list the pros and cons of the _Vics_ but until then I am their lone uniformed advocate here.



> My central opinion is that we(the people and government of Canada) did not do the best we could for our naval personel in the matter of our subs.


I agree there, I would have liked to see us go German. If we let the Vics go by the way of the Leopard have we accomplished anything for the CF? We have but only in the sense that we made it weaker and less able to do its job.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (13 Sep 2004)

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> Yes, they are simply training aids.   For ourselves, and our allies for sure, but still training aids.
> 
> Submarines have one purpose in life, and that is to sink other ships.



According to whom?

Aside from the "war movies" in which secret agents are put ashore on hostile territory by sub, is there also not an advantage to having submersible vessels in order to maintain soveriegnty over Canadian waters?  Not necessarily by tracking those pesky turbot farmers, but simply being able to establish a presence in Canadian waters at will?


----------



## Genetk44 (13 Sep 2004)

I guess naval experience counts for ver y little as well as the opinions of the personnel I have indicated above. I know some know of this forum and its my hopes those that have sailed will stop by and list the pros and cons of the Vics but until then I am their lone uniformed advocate here.

Ex...sorry if I gave the impression that I didn't accept your opinion   as counting...that wasn't my intent at all..I wasn't aware you were uniformed or had actually spoken to people who had hands-on experience with the subs...if any offense was taken I do apologize.

I agree there, I would have liked to see us go German. If we let the Vics go by the way of the Leopard have we accomplished anything for the CF? We have but only in the sense that we made it weaker and less able to do its job.

Ex....I'm not advocateing letting the subs go the way of the Leopard, never did advocate that....we have them ...use them. i said earlier on in this thread we should have gone with German.   BTW.....I think the idea of getting rid of the Tank force is a mistake but I guess thats another thread.
Finally maybe now is were I should make myself very clear about my feelings towards our Forces.......I'd probably be considered a Leftie on social issues by most people...but were the military is concerned I'm very pro. I have great respect for our uniformed people,the forces and their history.   And I want the best equipment for our forces...that'll allow them to do their jobs, and keep them alive.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Sep 2004)

None taken Gene just making sure is all


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2004)

> Fuel Cell Submarine â Å“U 33â ? Launched at HDW
> 
> 
> (Source: HDW; issued Sept.13, 2004)
> ...



http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Thought this might be interesting grist for the mill.  

IIRC, between the time the Nukes were backburnered permanently and the time the Vics were purchased there was some talk of converting them to the type of vessels described above using Ballard fuel cell technology.  At the time Ballard had already done some work on submerged systems for the Navy.

Now I don't know if the technology was bad, if it needed refining or if there just wasn't the money available for the development but if it was either of the latter two cases it appears that we
may have done it to ourselves again.  Just llike the Arrow, the Bras d'Or and a number of other projects.

IMHO there would have been a good application for Federal research and development funds outside of the DND envelope.  End state could have been Canada leading the world in a technology.  

Instead it appears that we may have gone from leading the field to running along in the rear of the pack trying to decide whether or not to buy German instead or generate a "Me-Too" system either by allying with the Germans to try to learn from their mistakes.  Alternately we might end up ignoring the Germans and try to do the "All-Canadian" solution, spend more time and money, make our own mistakes.  

The question then becomes do we have the patience and the will-power to create a viable product that can compete on the world  stage by out-performing the competition.  And would the Canadian government allow us to sell them overseas anyway?

In any event the AIP Fuel Cell sub would give us the opportunity to finally contest our claim over the Northwest Passage.

Incidentally, consider Fuel Cell UUVs - autonomous mine/torpedo/detectors, communicating with VLF radios, lying quietly on the bottom of the Passage, relocating autonomously or on command, investigating and reporting on movement and noise,  capable of "direct action" operating under the control of one of three National control centres (Esquimalt, Halifax, Ottawa) or OPConned to a Manned AIP sub.

And now to sleep, perchance to dream..................


----------

