# "MILITARY EXPERT SPEAKS"



## pbi (20 Oct 2004)

I cut this from the CBC News site this AM (20 Oct), from an article on the Chicoutimi fire inquiry:



> Former colonel Michel Drapeau says Canadians need to know whether or not the military was deliberately downplaying the incident.
> 
> "I say we have a very, very serious problem. That we are not getting the straight goods from the military staff. And this is peace. Imagine what it would be like if this were war, or an emergency."



Now, based on exactly _what_ does he make _that_ comment? The inquiry isn't even finished and he is already calling the Navy liars. This is the same individual who commented on the Tarnak Farms deaths by saying that 3PPCLI doing night training in an area of operations was a sign of how poorly trained they were. I wish people like this would be quiet at least until the investigation is finished. Cheers.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (20 Oct 2004)

Just serving his political masters no doubt.


----------



## scm77 (21 Oct 2004)

Here's the full article. 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/10/20/sub_fire_major041020.html

It talks about how the sailors on board told called Halifax and said that the fire on board was "major", yet when DND officials announced it publicly they said it was "minor".


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (21 Oct 2004)

Fog of war.  I think the announcement was made prior to talking to the sailors.


----------



## pbi (21 Oct 2004)

CFL is right. Anybody who has ever been directly involved in a major incident in the military, especially those involving death or severe injury, knows that it takes at least a day (_at least_...) for the initial facts to get sorted out. During that time, all sorts of confusion, BS, well-intended suggestion confused as fact, speculation by the il-informed, etc. etc will swirl around the incident until the dust settles and the facts come out. Unfortunately, in the process a number of knee-jerkers will already have convinced themselves of the "facts" such that when the actual facts come out, these people will immediately attack them as the product of a "cover-up". Every story has about eight sides, minimum. Cheers.


----------



## IPC10 (21 Oct 2004)

Vent On-
Point One-
When this whole â Å“cover-upâ ? story started to surface I really couldn't get mad at NDHQ.   I mean think about at your level.   For instance â â€œ you're sitting in your Artic Tent and decide you are too lazy to go outside to re-fuel the stove.   You do it inside the tent and when you go to light her up a small fire of spilled Naptha starts on the ground.   As you concentrate on trying to put it out before the whole tent goes up your immediate superior yells from outside the tent â Å“What's going on in there?â ?   Do you tell him/her â Å“Just a sec' I have to put out a little fire here.â ? or â Å“The tent's about to burst into flames, we have a major problem here.â ?   More realistically, when bad things happen we usually say â Å“Contact, wait, out.â ?   Why?   It lets higher know the situation has changed and the wait sort of refers to details to follow.

Point Two-
Now we have this â Å“Ltâ ? going on the news to state that he reported it as a 'major' fire.   Firstly I acknowledge I wasn't there and I'm not trying to second-guess what he did or did not report.   My issue/vent/point is that we have a serving junior officer (Capt/Lt(N) is a junior officer rank) going to the media and calling into question the integrity of his chain of command.   The chain of command all the way to the top.   So if this Officer has demonstrated this level of integrity and loyalty up the chain of command how does he ever expect to have the loyalty and trust of his sub-ordinates?

Principles of Leadership
#1.   Achieve professional competence.
#3.   Seek and accept responsibility.
#4.   Lead by example.

for starters....

Vent Off


----------



## pbi (21 Oct 2004)

> Point Two-
> Now we have this â Å“Ltâ ? going on the news to state that he reported it as a 'major' fire.  Firstly I acknowledge I wasn't there and I'm not trying to second-guess what he did or did not report.  My issue/vent/point is that we have a serving junior officer (Capt/Lt(N) is a junior officer rank) going to the media and calling into question the integrity of his chain of command.  The chain of command all the way to the top.  So if this Officer has demonstrated this level of integrity and loyalty up the chain of command how does he ever expect to have the loyalty and trust of his sub-ordinates?
> 
> Principles of Leadership
> ...



Is that really what he did, or did he testify under oath in front of a Board of Inquiry whose proceedings were being reported by the media? I'm not sure. Cheers.


----------



## IPC10 (21 Oct 2004)

PUBLICATION	GLOBE AND MAIL 
DATE: 	THU OCT.21,2004 
PAGE: 	A1 (ILLUS) 
BYLINE: 	JEFF SALLOT 
CLASS: 	National News 
EDITION: 	Metro DATELINE: Ottawa ON 

Military brass have trouble justifying subs 

JEFF SALLOT 
With a report from Rob Shaw 

OTTAWA Canada's top military officers found it difficult yesterday to convince skeptical opposition MPs that the country needs submarines to defend the coasts. 
Even Liberal MPs at parliamentary hearings into the $750-million purchase of used British subs asked whether they are the right kind of boats to maintain coastal sovereignty in the Arctic. *Also yesterday, a crew member on HMCS Chicoutimi said he called the Halifax command centre on Oct. 5, the day the sub caught fire, to report that the blaze was major. The public, however, was initially told that the fire was minor. 
Lieutenant Peter Bryan told the CBC that on the day of the fire, he used a satellite phone to reach officials in Halifax. "I told them that we'd had a major fire," he said. * A second crew member, Gary Taylor, said the submariners were confused when they saw media headlines the next day. 
"First thing we saw was 'A minor fire cripples Canadian submarine,' and we're like looking around the compartment going, if this is minor I'd hate to see major. 
"Somebody had their wires crossed somewhere. Never was it reported from the boat it was a minor fire. It was a major fire." 
The severity of the blaze became publicly apparent a day later, after Lieutenant Chris Saunders died from smoke inhalation and two other crew members were sent to hospital. 
The hearings at the Commons defence committee into the purchase of Chicoutimi and three other diesel-electric submarines are the first test of the opposition's ability to control Parliament's investigative tools in a minority situation. Committee chairman Pat O'Brien, a Liberal from London, Ont., seemed willing to accommodate opposition MPs as they grilled General Ray Henault, the chief of the defence staff, and Vice-Admiral Bruce MacLean, the navy chief, about the rationale for submarines. 
The officers asserted that the subs are a crucial component of Canada's coastal defence capability because they can operate covertly, deter intruders such as illegal fishing vessels and can launch a deadly attack on hostile warships. 
But when pressed for details as to what Canada's submarines have done in the past 25 years that the navy has been operating them, the officers came up with only two examples. 
Vice-Adm. MacLean, a former sub commander who sailed the older Oberon-class subs that the British subs replace, said he recalled an episode in the mid-1990s in which a sub helped to stop a ship smuggling drugs into Canada. He also noted that a sub located the black box flight recorders from the Swiss Air jetliner that crashed off the Nova Scotia coast in 1998. 
Bill Blaikie, the NDP defence critic, said that he's going to need to hear more evidence about what subs have been able to do that other military equipment can't. But based on the answers yesterday, "there's a paucity of that kind of information." 
Noting that most of the overfishing off the East Coast is being done by ships from countries that are Canada's military allies, Claude Bachand, the Bloc Quebecois defence critic, scoffed at the suggestion that a submarine is the type of ship to deter fishing vessels. 
"Do you seriously think a Canadian submarine would sink a Spanish boat?" 
Aircraft, including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that were used to try to find Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, are better types of military equipment to find smugglers and illegal fishing boats, Mr. Bachand said. 
Conservative defence critic Gordon O'Connor, a retired army general, suggested that submarines are a rather expensive way to go after fishing boats and smugglers. 
Subs can also locate other submarines, often at a great distance, Vice-Adm. MacLean said, noting that about 40 other countries have submarines. 
But other types of underwater sensors can do the same thing, Mr. O'Connor said. 
The Conservative MP said in a later interview he is keeping an open mind about whether Canada needs subs, but this is an important question as the government conducts a full-scale foreign and defence policy review this fall. 
Larry Bagnell, the Liberal MP from Yukon, said this particular type of British-made subs could not operate in the Arctic, where other countries have challenged Canadian sovereignty. He asked whether Canada wouldn't have been better off with nuclear-powered submarines that can remain submerged for longer periods, a crucial capability for operating under ice. 
Keith Martin, the Liberal parliamentary secretary for defence, wanted to know whether a submarine is more expensive to operate than a surface ship such as a frigate. 
He didn't get a direct answer. "I'm loath to compare costs," Vice-Adm. MacLean said. 


pbi - That's an article from the Globe.   Not smart enough to link to it but added the bold face.   The Lt(N) in question was giving interviews from home to the major networks.   At least he didn't wear his uniform for them.   The comments from the interviews were what got my blood pressure up.  Is it what he really did?  Who knows, but its what he's claiming in the national media.


----------



## pbi (21 Oct 2004)

Ok, seen. Thanks for that. Well.....if he was cleared by his commander to talk about a matter that is under investigation, I guess it's OK as long as he's telling the truth. Getting such permission might be possible, if somewhat unlikely. 

If, on the other hand, he's "free-lancing" before the investigation is over, then I agree he needs to be jerked back in line. IMHO we owe the dead officer at least the respect to let the investigation be properly completed before people start selling their own versions. Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Oct 2004)

Ok I have some points here:
1) I know Lt(N) Bryan and he does not freelance. And as the XO onbord he hardly rates being called junior (junior in rank but not in position or responsibility). So speculating he is doing otherwise is only calling his integrity into question.
2) So subs are not used that much....as I am and you are aware neither were the tanks so is this a tit for tat game? I am not sure if this was an open or public meeting but in most cases submarines ops is just not discussed. If ppl actually think that remote sensors and UAVs can take the place of subs in naval warfare they are smoking crack! I am surprised General Connor took the approach he did but then again when army generals start giving their thoughts on how the navy should operate we tend to roll our eyes much like the army would if the navy started to give opinions on army matters.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Oct 2004)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I am surprised General Connor took the approach he did but then again when army generals start giving their thoughts on how the navy should operate we tend to roll our eyes much like the army would if the navy started to give opinions on army matters.



I agree, this whole g.d. thing is getting way out of hand and a lot of good people are being pressed into providing comments on an issue they really know nothing about. Exactly why is a ground pounder weighing in on this at all?  

When somebody who was there, and has actual first hand executive command knowledge of the situation speaks on the issue, I think it would be a lot more helpful if we knew both the question and preceding questions he was asked, in what context, and most importantly: was the full answer in reply provided?  Was he being questioned or cross examined? Lt. Bryan, as X-O of the boat, has a duty of loyalty to those who rely upon him, and I cannot fathom for 1 minute that he is going to spout off about the CoC in the manner and context being presented.   

As for Drapeau ... who really cares what he has to say anymore? He is stale dated materiel .. some people just cannot let go of the past, and he is simply living in it.


----------



## pbi (22 Oct 2004)

So when did this sub incident become a "Navy only" issue? When an Army guy says something that upsets the Navy? As far as comments on the Navy's operations go, most General Officers have attended at least one (if not more) joint staff courses in which all types of ops are studied and units of all services are visited. If we extend your argument to its logical conclusion, the CDS cannot comment on anything that is not Air Force.

Now, just so I'm making myself very clear about my opinion on the XOs's comments: When there is a serious military incident that is under investigation, especially one involving death or injury, NOBODY opens their mouth to the meda about it, without permission. Anybody who has ever had any PA famil trg at all (as most officers should have by now) knows that. Therefore, I have to assume that the XO was authorized to speak. If not, he is wrong, wrong, wrong and I don't really care how great a guy somebody is or if they were on the scene or not. Once the investigation is complete, IMHO that's different. It has nothing to do with integrity and everything to do with allowing due process to occur.   Cheers.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2004)

Pt 1: It sounds like there was just a bit of clarification. NDHQ announced the fire was initially "minor", probably due to a communications mix-up or a slip of the tongue. When more facts come in, everybody "piles on" and accuses the Navy of a cover-up, so the XO was probably trying to clear up the misconceptions before they spread. The media prefers a sensational story, so.....

Pt 2. While I personally have never served in the Navy, and the closest I have ever been to a sub is the captured U Boat outside the Chicago Museum of Science, I can still have an opinion of the utility of subs simply by looking at it from a "combined arms" perspective. Airplanes and UAVs are great for fast response and covering areas quickly, but have limited endurance, and are usually visible to the observed.
Submarines can compliment this sort of coverage by being on station for prolonged periods of time, and not being observed themselves. Neither asset is much good on its own, but working together (and with other assets like surface ships, sea bed sensors and space surveillance) have a huge synergy effect. I might not think the "Upholder" class was the best possible sub, but it was what was available (and who knows, a submariner could probably tell us why the "Upholders" were the best choice), so it is better to take it than have nothing.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Oct 2004)

pbi said:
			
		

> I cut this from the CBC News site this AM (20 Oct), from an article on the Chicoutimi fire inquiry:
> 
> "I say we have a very, very serious problem. That we are not getting the straight goods from the military staff. And this is peace. Imagine what it would be like if this were war, or an emergency."
> 
> ...



What troubles me is the comments on war - OF COURSE THERE WOULD BE LESS MEDIA COVERAGE IN A WAR.  I bloody well hope so!  I still think Geraldo Rivera should have been shot for his truly ridiculous grandstanding during the war last year, and his idiotic gaffe on international television.


----------



## Michael Dorosh (22 Oct 2004)

a_majoor said:
			
		

> Pt 1: It sounds like there was just a bit of clarification. NDHQ announced the fire was initially "minor", probably due to a communications mix-up or a slip of the tongue. When more facts come in, everybody "piles on" and accuses the Navy of a cover-up, so the XO was probably trying to clear up the misconceptions before they spread. The media prefers a sensational story, so.....
> 
> Pt 2. While I personally have never served in the Navy, and the closest I have ever been to a sub is the captured U Boat outside the Chicago Museum of Science, I can still have an opinion of the utility of subs simply by looking at it from a "combined arms" perspective. Airplanes and UAVs are great for fast response and covering areas quickly, but have limited endurance, and are usually visible to the observed.
> Submarines can compliment this sort of coverage by being on station for prolonged periods of time, and not being observed themselves. Neither asset is much good on its own, but working together (and with other assets like surface ships, sea bed sensors and space surveillance) have a huge synergy effect. I might not think the "Upholder" class was the best possible sub, but it was what was available (and who knows, a submariner could probably tell us why the "Upholders" were the best choice), so it is better to take it than have nothing.



U-505 - Daniel Gallery, the admiral in charge of the task force that captured her - was a very good author.  His book on the capture of the sub was great reading, while his other books - mostly sea stories from his career - was even better.

But I digress.

Submarines also have certain uses for Army operations, on a small scale, namely the insertion of small land forces where helicopter or parachute are not stealthy enough....Not saying that is worth 750 mil, just saying it is another factor worth considering...


----------



## garb811 (22 Oct 2004)

> I am surprised General Connor took the approach he did but then again when army generals start giving their thoughts on how the navy should operate we tend to roll our eyes much like the army would if the navy started to give opinions on army matters.





> I agree, this whole g.d. thing is getting way out of hand and a lot of good people are being pressed into providing comments on an issue they really know nothing about. Exactly why is a ground pounder weighing in on this at all?



Please note Gen(Ret'd) O'Connor is a retired "ground pounder" and now the Official Opposition's Defence Critic with a seat on the Committee...given this he's more than correct in weighing in by asking questions and providing thoughts on this issue.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Oct 2004)

> Please note Gen(Ret'd) O'Connor is a retired "ground pounder" and now the Official Opposition's Defence Critic with a seat on the Committee...given this he's more than correct in weighing in by asking questions and providing thoughts on this issue.


Then he should have questioned the choice of submarines not the role and need. He should have known better.



> I might not think the "Upholder" class was the best possible sub, but it was what was available (and who knows, a submariner could probably tell us why the "Upholders" were the best choice)


Believe me I have tried but the two that have shown interest in participating have thrown their hands up in disgust because in their views a lot of partipants here have their minds made up about submarines and have no clue and will never have a clue on submarines.

So by your argument PBI if an admiral attends a joint staff course then he can start commenting on airmobile tactics? He might get the idea but in no way he becomes an expert. That was my argument and a lot of these guys Lewis MacKenzie included have made comments to the media over the last few years that makes people believe they know whats best for elements they may have worked with but never belonged to.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (22 Oct 2004)

"Believe me I have tried but the two that have shown interest in participating have thrown their hands up in disgust because in their views a lot of partipants here have their minds made up about submarines and have no clue and will never have a clue on submarines."

If they have the time I think they would all do us a service by explaining in the most laymen of terms the role of subs and why we need them.  The tankers have no problem definding the tank etc.
I may have missed their post but the role of a submariner (and the navy for that matter) is a bit of a mystery to me as IMO they don't get a lot of exposure.  For example I had no idea how much of a role the CN had in bording parties in the Gulf.


----------



## pbi (22 Oct 2004)

> So by your argument PBI if an admiral attends a joint staff course then he can start commenting on airmobile tactics?



Yes-of course (No pun intended...) That's one of the purposes of joint training: to let people understand and comment on the operations of the other services. Cheers.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Oct 2004)

Like I said CFL they have seen some of the posts in here and feel they would be wasting their time trying to explain it as they feel some of you guys already view yourselves as "experts". As for what we did boarding wise in the Gulf and thwe navy in general you will find numerous posts I have made on the subject.

And just how serious would a room of infanteers take said Admirals comments PBI?


----------



## pbi (23 Oct 2004)

Well, I guess it would depend   on three things:

-how the Admiral came across;

-what background he had. If, for example he was one of the Naval officers who have attended Army Staff College, gone to a Joint Staff Course, worked in a Joint HQ or participated in joint exercises, then he could have some credibility; and

-the attitude of the listeners. If they start out by saying " No dumb-*** sailor is gonna tell us nothin'" then it's probably not going to go well.

But really, IIRC, all O'Connor said was:



> Conservative defence critic Gordon O'Connor, a retired army general, suggested that submarines are a rather expensive way to go after fishing boats and smugglers... But other types of underwater sensors can do the same thing, Mr. O'Connor said.
> The Conservative MP said in a later interview he is keeping an open mind about whether Canada needs subs, but this is an important question as the government conducts a full-scale foreign and defence policy review this fall.



So where's the technical commentary there, that would be impossible for a semi-well informed Army officer (esp at GO level) to know about? He ends up by saying he's keeping an open mind, which I thought was usually a positive thing. Anyway, he's really speaking as a politician rather than an Army officer. Cheers.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Oct 2004)

Umm, guys-

Maybe we should all cool it down a bit.   We are all on the same side here, and in my opinion, we are rapidly approaching the "AAirborneRegiment zone" whereby the next intemperate or sensational story that hits the front page wrt submarines will cause the government to kneejerk us (the CF) out of the sub business.   For those of you on the board who were in Petawawa for the disbandment, I need not remind you of that mess.   For those of you who never experienced it- you don't want to wish it on your worst enemy- even the Navy deserves better.  I mean, when has losing a capability ever been "better" for the CF?  Can anyone tell me?

Now as for submarines- I think we need them as part of a well-rounded military. Here is why:

1.   Submarines provide a third dimension to sea control (the other two are aircraft and surface ships).   No one or two elements can exert perfect control the way all three together can.   All three parts have strengths and weakness- aircraft are weather and endurance limited but can relocate quickly; ships are not especially steathstealthyan remain on station for long periods of time and have lots of firepower (generally); diesel submarines are stealthy and are unmatched vehicles for tracking surface and sub-surface contacts, but tend to be slow.   

2.   As a maritime nation, we need a strong navy.   This should be axiomatic.   For those who say that "hey- lets just plant sensors everywhere and monitor what comes in and out of our waters", I say- not good enough.   To exert sovereignty over one's territory, it is not enough just to know what it is going, we must have the capability to back up, with force if necessary, our position.   Because subs are so hard to find, it takes alot of resources to counter them (I have first hand experience on this point).   Anyone contemplating naval action against us (or our allies) must take that into account.   for those of you who say "those days are over- no country will ever be a naval threat to us again", I say don't be so sure- it happened three times in the past 100 years (WW1, WW2 and the Cold war).   Submarines, and by extension naval warfare, are not a turnkey affair.   Once the expertise is gone- it is really expensive and time consuming to get it back. Really, we are not talking huge dollars to have a diversified and capable fleet that includes subs.   To me, it is cheap insurance.

3.   The best platform to find and kill a submarine is  another submarine. There are over 40 nations that operate subs and not all are friendly to us or our allies.   And for those of you who weren't aware, our shiny new frigates do not directly kill submarines.   They carry a helicopter close enough so it can kill the submarine, but will always stay well out of the sub's range (aircraft are the second best way to find and kill a sub).

4.   The Canadian Navy is still probably the best ASW navy in the world.   This is what we bring to NATO.   We did not get that way by accident.   We learned hard combat lessons in WW2 and we trained like hell against our O-boats from 1965-2000.   I'm not ready to give that up. We also got lots of nuke boat time from the US and Brits for our aircraft and surface ships to train by trading diesel sub time for their forces to use.   Surely, in this day and age where we contribute less and less to our allies, it is not too much to ask to for us to operate subs if for no other reason but to provide training for US Navy Nuke boats who WILL go into harms way from time to time?

5.   Final reason- it is called water space management (WSM).   If we are not submarine operators in NATO, we no longer have the right to be informed of submarine movements anywhere in the world.   How, exactly, does not having that information enhance our sovereignty?

6.   Final, final reason.   Subs can infiltrate/exfiltrate special forces very easily.   Nice policy option for the government, no?

Let us all let the BOI get to the bottom of the fire on CHI.   Hopefully, there will be no more military members "stepping off the reservation" and sounding off to the press on this issue.

Cheers.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Oct 2004)

Re-reading my post, I've noticed that the spellchecker makes things worse, not better.  Hope it is still readable.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (23 Oct 2004)

Well said Tacco. We noticed though when the O-Boats left service training opportunites withe the USN and RN SSNs disappeared rather quickly as their submarines became _unavailable_.

I would not say we are the best ASW navy now. Back when we had the steamers we were but the changing multi-threat enviroment and introduction of the CPFs and Trumped Iroquois class destroyers we lost a little bit of that expertise as we had to bring ourselves up in a hurry on ASuW and AAW aspects of the triangle.


----------



## pbi (23 Oct 2004)

I also agree with us having subs-in fact I see them as an invaluable capability. Further, I would like to see our Navy more capable, (not less) of being a full partner in a truly joint force expeditionary capability. My only point was to defend O'Connor's ability to speak, not to agree with him. The End. Cheers.


----------



## GGboy (23 Oct 2004)

SeaKing Tacco is absolutely right about "approaching the Cdn Airborne Regiment zone" which is why I've been so disappointed in Mr. O'Connors' take on the Chicoutimi incident. He's playing politics basically (as are all the other members of SCONDVA, although to be fair he's far from the worst offender) with a capability that the navy, indeed the whole country, need desperately. The opposition smells blood and are using the Chicoutimi to clobber the government, whatever the cost to the navy's ability to control the subsurface environment. 
In that regard I think it's critical for ALL members of the CF, serving or ret'd, green, blue, dark blue or purple, to put all the excellent arguments in favour of having subs before the public (arguments SeaKing Tacco makes far more eloquently than I could) The only thing I would add to his precis is the concrete example of how useful Canadian TF and TG commanders in Op Apollo found the French subs attached to their command in the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf -- they kept them busy for months, tracking suspicious vessels and monitoring Iranian, Pakistani and Indian subs operating in the area. 
The public need to hear about this sort of thing: a much-needed antidote to semi-informed opinions about the Upholder class deal ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Oct 2004)

All of the points made by Sea King Taco have been made in other threads, except for WSM, which is an excellent point - when that policy is actually practiced.   Obviously, the practice is ignored by some players for strategic or perhaps national reasons. It follows then that a nation with a large, resource laden coast line should possess an advanced subsurface fleet, with hunter killer capabilities- not "just in case" but rather, because of an actual need. This is not just a question of having a fleet for training purposes, there are bona fide reasons for maintaining the fleet including meeting the assigned objective of protecting the territorial security of the country. And, having bobbed around there for a while, I can tell you that that security was, and remains, at risk. 

If the Navy is failing somewhere in it's attempt to justify the fleet, IMO it is simply being over- cautious with the more recent history of our submarine operations, and for that matter our anti-submarine operations [both foreign and domestic.]  Simply explaining what the submarine fleet and ASW equipment is for and what it might do, is frankly no longer enough. Navy PA had better start doing a better job of convincing the Int cell that more detail must be revealed about what is going on at sea, in our AoO, and on our inner coasts. The policy is of absolute secrecy, while admirable and perhaps even justified for OPSEC purposes, could well prove to be the undoing of the fleet in it's present configuration. This goes a long way to explaining why O'Connor made the comments that he did. Hopefully, he will recieve an education on those matters in short order.

Frankly, I would be surprised if the source of the radar signatures programmed or recorded into CANEWS belonged to fishing boats and smugglers.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Oct 2004)

> I would not say we are the best ASW navy now. Back when we had the steamers we were but the changing multi-threat enviroment and introduction of the CPFs and Trumped Iroquois class destroyers we lost a little bit of that expertise as we had to bring ourselves up in a hurry on ASuW and AAW aspects of the triangle.



I think we are still the ASW Navy in the world- everyone else has gotten bad at it at the same rate or faster.   In the Gulf, the USN turned to us whenever a submarine threatened to become a problem because they recognize that we are generally better at it than they are.

I agree that the Navy needs to talk publically a bit more about what is going on in our waterspace and along our coastlines.   I have seen quite a few "interesting" things, but I don't know what is and isn't in the public domain so I will shut up there.   

As for the UPHOLDER class submarine, I worked against HMCS VICTORIA for three weeks last summer.   I cannot speak about her safety or mechanical reliability, but she was the hardest submarine to find that I have ever worked against, and I have found and routinely tracked both US Nuke boats and Chilean Diesel boats (on exercise).   She would give any first world navy a really hard time.   A second or third world navy would not stand a chance against her or her sister boats.   I am proud that we have that much capability in our fleet, even if they (submariners) are the sworn enemy of a Sea King crew


----------



## Inch (23 Oct 2004)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> As for the UPHOLDER class submarine, I worked against HMCS VICTORIA for three weeks last summer.   I cannot speak about her safety or mechanical reliability, but she was the hardest submarine to find that I have ever worked against, and I have found and routinely tracked both US Nuke boats and Chilean Diesel boats (on exercise).   She would give any first world navy a really hard time.   A second or third world navy would not stand a chance against her or her sister boats.   I am proud that we have that much capability in our fleet, even if they (submariners) are the sworn enemy of a Sea King crew



I heard the same thing out here from our TACCOs when they were tracking the Windsor. They said they had to ask her to slow down in order to keep up.  Pretty impressive piece of kit if you ask me.


----------



## pbi (24 Oct 2004)

Inch said:
			
		

> I heard the same thing out here from our TACCOs when they were tracking the Windsor. They said they had to ask her to slow down in order to keep up. Pretty impressive piece of kit if you ask me.



So what is the general consensus in the Navy world about these boats? Cheers


----------



## Spr.Earl (24 Oct 2004)

In regards to Brit Subs there was one point made and that was both their Nuke and Deisel Elec. are the quietest boats in the world.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Oct 2004)

From a navy point a few and most submariners I have talked to they are a good investment, there were a couple that still have their doubts but you will always have someone that does not like a piece of kit. Moral of the story is to believe the word of those that use the kit as they are the SME and not the bureaucrats and fat cats in Ottawa.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2004)

Since the subject is military experts speaking, would any submariners like to let us see your "wish list"? This could include anything from what the Victoria/Upholder class subs should get in their mid-life refits to "blue sky" stuff ("hey, lets refit the Kursk!"). 

I would be interested to see what you're thinking.


----------



## Gobsmacked (25 Oct 2004)

While not military, I do chk background and ATI reports fairly thoroughly.
I ran this by a LCdr(Ret'd) - no names as this site does not do that - who was speaking on CPAC last wednesday about the Victoria-class subs and he noted _"You make a number of important points very well.  I am preparing a piece myself, and was struck by the commonality of our thoughts."_

I'd actually submitted the following Opinion Piece on Oct 14 but, not surprisingly, the anti-submarine Media did not pick it up.
I myself had two media outlets calling (CBC Calg and Halifax Herald) looking for info (sensationalist scoop) on 'problems or shortfalls' with the submarines.  Although, in deference to the closed-door naval inquiry, two simultaneously open watertight hatches in the conning tower over the control room during extremely heavy sea state - when normally at least one should be closed at all times, at the same time as an open door on a normally waterproof electrical panel, in conjunction with a few inches of highly-conductive saltwater, makes for a major communications oops in situational awareness on the submarine.  Just my, and many submarine engineers, opinion.  


*Excellent Value for the Money*
Common misconceptions about Canada's Victoria-class (ex-RN Upholder-class) submarines.

    The Canadian public seems to be extremely critical about our navy's acquisition of the four Victoria-class submarines from the Royal Navy which does a disservice to our resolute and steadfast submariners.  While some criticisms may be valid in regard to the two nearly simultaneous fires and resultant injuries/death aboard HMCS Chicoutimi (ex-Upholder) - for which the current naval inquiry will reveal a course of rectification, most are misconceptions fed by an ignorant media that tends to blame the military without blaming the true source of the problems.  Most military trouble can be attributed to the Liberal government that voters have kept in power since 1993 - who have consistently starved the Canadian Forces (CF) of the funds needed for proper equipment and sufficient personnel while increasingly deploying them.  Our defence spending at 1.1% of GDP, the second lowest in NATO, is even worse than it appears as only 42% of the defence budget (a mere 6% of the federal budget) goes directly towards the three services, while some C$1 Billion is pension and employee benefits contributions - funding other NATO nations don't include in their defence estimates.

    During Tuesday's (Oct 12) Question Period the Official Leader of the Opposition, Stephen Harper, noted Prime Minister Paul Martin and the Liberals shortchanged the submarine retrofit program by cutting C$54 Million from it during the time Mr. Martin was finance minister.  "This was a deliberate budgetary decision he took. Isn't it true that the Prime Minister's decision left the navy without adequate resources to properly train and equip the sailors?"

    Recent newspaper articles and television commentary (on Global Sunday), by defence analysts and ex-submariners, have let the public know of some of the truth behind the conjecture.  Such as: 
1. the massive C$1B operational deficit that the CF labours under - the services simply cannot afford to buy adequate spare parts for our ships; planes and vehicles, let alone the fuel required for deployments, or even adequate light bulbs for base buildings.  Surely this contributes to the delays in getting the Victoria-class fully operational, especially considering the $54M hit to the sub retrofit program. 
2. Lack of adequate maintenance personnel for the submarines Canadianization process.  The reduced numbers of maintenance personnel are a direct result of the Liberals cutbacks of the 90s and the navy's massive commitment to the war on terrorism - most remaining personnel were committed to ensuring the surface warships could continously deploy to the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf. 
3. Minor defects, such as the oft-quoted pizza size dent in one of the hulls - easily happens to any ship if bumped hard enough by a tug, while defects happen to most machines constructed nowadays, take the millions of car/truck recalls constantly occuring - sometime parts are defective and require replacement, adequate funding is the main constraint in ensuring that occurs.  Unfortunately, the constraints of #1 and the lack of sufficient maintenance personnel from #2 do not bode well for rapid rectification. 
4. The submarines were an excellent deal for our Navy, which acquired four modern submarines, and their associated training infrastructure which has been relocated to Canada, for basically what it would cost to build just one new submarine in Canada.  As noted by DND in 1998, _"These submarines are a great purchase for Canada, giving our navy a vital capability at a fraction of what it would otherwise cost"_, four _"virtually new vessels for about the price of a single new one"_.  The reason the Australians passed on them, prior to their 1987 Collins-class construction contract, was that they required six submarines - restarting construction at VSEL would be prohibitively expensive for an additional two Upholders, without the benefits accruing from local construction.  Although their indigenous multi-billion$ Collins-class have had an even more scandalous reputation and operational history (save for the unfortunate Chicoutimi incident) and are still not fully operational years after completing construction.

    Unfortunately, some of the basic facts seem to keep getting missed, and the media just doesn't pick up on them in their quest for sensationalist stories and their desire to see the disarmament of the CF.  The originally planned twelve ship Type-2400 Upholder-class (reduced to four through 80s defence rationalization) are the conventionally-powered offshoot of the successful nuclear-powered seven-boat Trafalgar-class in service with the Royal Navy.  Basically the same systems, including: sub-launched Harpoon anti-ship missiles, Tigerfish and advanced Spearfish torpedos, whilst optimised for long-range patrol of the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap.  The four briefly served as patrol ships for the British until they were mothballed because they were diesel powered, and the ever cost-conscious UK Treasury decreed a focus on a slimmed-down nuclear fleet in 1994.  Upholder (launched Dec 1986) commissioned into service in June 1990, followed by: Unseen (launched Nov 1989) commissioned June 1991; Ursula (launched Feb 1991) commissioned May 1992; and Unicorn (launched Apr 1992) commissioned June 1993. 

[Note: to save money, our navy degraded their 'warfighting' capabilities by conversion to use existing Mk48Mod4 Torpedoes, with no plans to upgrade them to more capable Mk48ADCAP as used by USN, and no acquisition of Sub-Harpoon.]

    Decommissioning occurred fairly rapidly from Apr 1994, including precautionary welding-shut of torpedo-tube doors to prevent water infiltration, with Upholder placed into alongside covered storage at VSEL, joined that year by Unseen (now Victoria) and Ursula (now Cornerbrook), followed by Unicorn (now Windsor) in early-1995, with the extremely-quiet (amongst the top five worldwide) class spending an average of less-than three years in operational service.  In June 1995, the navy made its first formal request to Jean Chretien's cabinet to approve the purchase of the four, relatively fresh, used British subs for about C$750M - though a 'low-cost' barter arrangement. * For three years, Ottawa dithered and debated over the deal to scrimp a paltry few million in extra savings [<~C$50M]*, while the docked subs rusted and their electrical systems began rotting from corrosion due to saltwater exposure, as occurs to any mothballed ship.  [Most definitely Not the fault of the Navy as 'I havn't got a clue what I'm asserting now' Copps asserts]  When Canada finally took them over, the hulls were understandably corroded with rust - due to lack of regular in-service maintenance, their engines malfunctioned, external valves and signal ejectors were faulty due to cracking or corrosion and like the batteries required replacement, plus their sewage disposal systems didn't work.  All pretty much preventable if acquisition had been speedily approved by a government whose first concern should have been to ensure our submariners acquired a modern replacement for the outdated Oberon-class in an expeditious manner.

    The largest misconception seems to be, 'Does Canada really needs a submarine fleet of any description?'  Defence documents indicate the navy's main argument for acquiring the subs remained constant over the past nine years, with the naval brass arguing submarines are _"an essential part of balanced maritime forces.  They are highly effective in fisheries protection, drug interdiction and sovereignty operations off the Canadian coastline in our exclusive economic and fishing zones."_  Unfortunately, due to political pressure from a government that distances itself from anything percieved to involve actual combat operations, the main reason for their acquisition is regularly omitted.  As noted in a late-90s article 'TOP FLIGHT UPHOLDERS' at  http://www.saoc-central.com/letter.html  [Submariners Assoc Of Canada website], the main reason is 'World wide Submarine Proliferation'.  Considering that our Surface ships and/or Auroras regularly deploy to threat areas, as even nations like Iran have modern quiet Kilo-class diesel subs, the Victorias allow them to have some pratice against the type of threat they may encounter in the Middle East or Asia - a once well-honed skillset that has seriously deteriorated due to funding constriants.  Plus, don't forget that a submarine is always the best method to detect and, if necessary, kill another submarine.  Varying thermal layers of differing temperatures, which submarines are very good at hiding in or behind, do not lend themselves to successful 'sensors on the ocean bed' detection of submarines.
END   

Also, Ex-Dragoon was correct - while we 'were the best at ASW' we are not the best anymore.
Before naval types jump all over this comment, it is made from the following observations:
1. Period of approx 5 years gap without operational subs to practice against.
2. ATI reports have noted, especially for the Aurora community - and likely similar for the Sea King community, that due to cut-backs in authorized Flying Hours and the prior multi-year Op Apollo committment - ASW skillsets have degraded as aircraft and flight time have just not been available to focus on this skillset.  Any time was focused on force generation and concentration on surface recce.
3. As previously noted, no-few allied subs available to practice against.  
Unfortunately, a 'use it or lose it' skillset.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Oct 2004)

Great post Gobsmacked very accurate and what I have been trying to show. This is one navy type that won't be jumping all over this post.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (25 Oct 2004)

Good post, Bobsmacked!

Concise and informative.  

Maybe you should forward this to the Post?  They may be interested....


----------



## GGboy (26 Oct 2004)

One submariner did more good today than a tower full of admirals. From the letters page of the Ottawa Citizen:

Monday, October 25, 2004
Almost exactly 35 years ago a tragedy that bore a remarkable similarity to the fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi overtook another Canadian Navy warship.
Canadians need to put these tragedies into perspective: the reality is that there will be mishaps when complex equipment is used by the military.
In 1969, HMCS Kootenay left Plymouth, England, and joined a Canadian Task Group led by HMCS Bonaventure for a return voyage to Canada.
On Oct. 23, during full-power trials, the starboard gearbox in the engine room exploded and a fire swept across the room, killing eight and injuring three others with severe burns. Within minutes the entire ship was filled with thick, oily smoke. It took the firefighting crew three hours to quell the fire. Six crew members were evacuated by helicopter (the infamous Sea King) to Bonaventure, the burn victims and the three most badly affected by smoke inhalation.
Days after the fire, one of the smoke-inhalation victims died on Bonaventure. Almost 60 other crew members had to be hospitalized with smoke-inhalation problems.
A navy board of inquiry investigated the cause of the fire, taking several months to complete its report so that proper testing and investigation could be carried out. The cause was determined to be an improperly installed bearing in the gearbox that had been overlooked during inspection. No parliamentary investigation was ever demanded or held.
HMCS Kootenay entered a long refit and conversion to an Improved Restigouche Class ship. She served honourably for many more years in Canadian naval service.
Little recognition was initially given to the crew for the effort made to save the ship. At the time, Canada had no honours for merit or bravery to give to its servicemen and the first recognition came with letters of commendation from the Nova Scotia government. On the 25th anniversary, a memorial was placed in Point Pleasant Park in Halifax with plaques honouring the nine dead shipmates lost in that tragedy.
The fire on HMCS Chicoutimi was tragic, but before we judge who is to blame, let a proper investigation determine the real cause.

Gordon Forbes,
Orleans
(Lieutenant-commander, ret'd.)


----------



## Storm (26 Oct 2004)

> The fire on HMCS Chicoutimi was tragic, but before we judge who is to blame, let a proper investigation determine the real cause.


----------



## buckahed (26 Oct 2004)

I used to wear flat dolphins. There are not that many of us. CANSUBRONONE never had more than 200 bodies at a time, if that many. (I refuse to count the commissioned types that rotated through the wardroom cause sporting a set of dolphins was fashionable. I mopped up more salt water from a Oberon control room deck than those ticketpunchers sailed under.)

So please, gentlemen, do not feel slighted because there have not been more travellers in tubular steel gracing this board. The main reason we haven't been heard from (at least the ones that wore dolphins before subs became non-voluntary and the dolphins started getting handed out with the sarnies and sludge) is because we are feeling quite neurotic.

You see, we are reading the headlines and listening to the experts spout and we are left   dazed, wondering if we are crazy or if the rest of Canada is.

Submariners, the few , the lonely, the ones asking "What the @#$%@#$% planet are you people on" right now.

For starters could someone run that army general through basic map reading and explain what that littl
e scale thingy at the bottom means?   Cause 750 million might get him a basic sensor network to cover the sea approaches to Halifax. Maybe. That leaves just a little bit of oggin uncovered. And with all,   ahem , due respect to the zoomie brotherhood, if there is any platform more expensive than subs, it's gotta be the ones with wings. How many do they need to provide 24/7   coverage to an area for eight weeks?
Oh, before I forget, there is the mystical, magical UAV's. Over the North Atlantic. In winter. Ooookay.

I am not pretending the Victorias can cover the Artic or even provide more than a notional coverage of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, but on the present budget they are the only thing available to make people wonder if someone they can't see is watching.

This is most certainly not a knee jerk defense of Brit boats. I maintained Brit boats. I sailed on Brit boats. It is safe to say I depised Brit boats. The RN takes a perverse pride in making life miserable for the crews.

Frankly, I am surprised there hasn't been more problems. Lets use some perspective, shall we? A radically different design from the previous class, a two thousand ton platform that never finished sea trials, tied up   and left to rot for ten years, given a bandaid, on the cheap patch job, crews that haven't had sea time in years and people that have never seen a submarine have the arrogance to claim those boats are lemons.

Of course, there is the ventilation problems during the warm weather trials. Let's see, two supercharged locomotive sized diesel engines running in a tight steel tube surrounded by water about 30C. When the engines are stopped and the boat dives, the engine room gets to 60C. Really? Only 60C??? Damn, thats a real improvement on the Oberons. I wonder if they managed to do anything about the rain of 99C condensation in the engine room after a snort. Now that was a pain.

Then there is the corrossion and cracks in the diesel exhaust valves. Real boondoogle, those are. All those valves are supposed to do is allow hot,corrossive diesel exhaust out and when slammed shut in a hurry, keep the -2C corrossive sea water from getting in.
Any cheap civilian valve could handle that kind of thermal shock enviroment, no problem, right?

Submerged signal ejector interlock linkages binding up in cold weather, torpedo tube bow cap seals binding and leaking in hot weather.   What's going on here??? No real navy would have that kind of trouble!!!!   Not more than some damn thing at least once a week, anyway.

Then we have the experts crawling out of the crevices declaring the problem was obviously running with the hatches open and getting salt water down the conning tower. Garbage. 100% GARBAGE.

It is a diesel electric submarine, not a bloody cruise ship. That equipment is supposed to be MilSpec to withstand years of heavy salt air, temperature extremes, heavy condensation and the occassional dollop of salt water. BAE has already stated that ingress of water could not have caused problems to the electrical equipment unless someone left a panel open.

I never sailed with an Oberon owner that would run shut down on a transit for anything less than a full hurricane.

If salt water from the conning tower ingress caused that fire then it was faulty installation or bad maintenance. 

Buckahed


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Oct 2004)

Buckahed ... thanks for that post. And welcome to the site!!!


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Oct 2004)

Buckahed and Gobsmacked- well done for two excellent posts.

Buckahed:   Keep the faith, buddy.   There are alot of people out there who do understand and support submarine ops.   They just don't get a lot of face time on TV, cause that wouldn't be good for ratings.

cynic mode off...


----------



## enfield (26 Oct 2004)

Submarines are of course a valuable part of naval warfare, and a requirement for a serious Navy. And, no one can doubt the proffessionalism and dedication of the sailors who man them.

However....
We have three submarines, which at some point, someone made the decision to purchase. At some point, someone in the military also decided that we did NOT need: tanks, troop-transporting helicopters, serious air-air refuelling, strategic air or sea lift, an Airborne regiment or elite/QRF light Inf capability, etc. 
I fail to see why we need submarines more than we need tanks, or Chinooks, or possibly a decent ammo budget for the year, or maybe enough kit to equip a uni going to Haiti. 
Do we need subs to exercise sovereignty over our waters? No, surface ships can do that. Do we need sub's to monitor our territorial waters for fishing and smuggling? Aurora's and frigate and CPF's can do that. Do we need subs to protect our coastline or shipping routes from enemies? No, we have the USN for that. Do we need subs to fight a major naval conflict? If we're building a Navy to fight a major blue-water engagement, I think we're spending in the wrong place.
Granted, subs could make an important contribution to any of the above missions - but are they necessary? The issue is not if subs are important, the issue is are subs MORE important then any number of other capabilities that could also use a $750million infusion? 

The decision to purchase subs, to me, represents an ad hoc system of capabilities and major systems purchasing that is indicative of Canada's lack of a serious up-to-date defence policy. If Ottawa had a thought out, long term policy that stated the primacy of the Navy and a priority for coastal defence, and a limited, peacekeeping/boyscout role for the army, and an air force dedicated to shooting down errant airliners, I could be happier.  In the end, someone decided that submarines are a more important weapon systems to Canada's national security for the next 25 years than troop transporting helicopters or MBT's. We have a limited defence budget, and we can't have all the gear and equipment we want, and in reality where we have to pick and choose which capabilities we want to invest in. Whether submarines were the right capability to place limited funds into is debatable.


----------



## Infanteer (26 Oct 2004)

> are subs MORE important then any number of other capabilities that could also use a $750million infusion?



According to McCallum, the National Daycare System somehow fits into the "other capabilities" pile.... :-\


----------



## SeaKingTacco (26 Oct 2004)

> Do we need subs to protect our coastline or shipping routes from enemies? No, we have the USN for that.



That's funny, I missed the session of parliament when we voted that the US would now be responsible for maintaining our sovreignty (which is, of course, an oxymoron).

It has been said before and will be said again on this forum- We (Canada) are solely responsible for own sovreignty.   Period. Full stop.   And that ain't cheap.   We work in an Alliance and can have debates about what kind of equipment to buy for our military or roles to fill, but we shouldn't be making statements like "someone else (usually the US) is just going to do it for us".   That is not what grown-up nations say or do.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (27 Oct 2004)

Enfield said:



> We have three submarines, which at some point, someone made the decision to purchase. At some point, someone in the military also decided that we did NOT need: tanks, troop-transporting helicopters, serious air-air refuelling, strategic air or sea lift, an Airborne regiment or elite/QRF light Inf capability, etc.


I didn't realize we were playing tit for tat. So you feel its justifed that if one service to lose a capbility all the others should as well? Btw we have 4 subs as _Chitcoutimi_ has not been written off yet.

[quoteI fail to see why we need submarines more than we need tanks, or Chinooks, or possibly a decent ammo budget for the year, or maybe enough kit to equip a uni going to Haiti. If you understood naval warfare and the three tenets of it you would. 1) Above 2) On 3) Under



> Do we need subs to exercise sovereignty over our waters?


Yes surface ships can do it but sometimes its even better to protect your territory covertly.



> Do we need sub's to monitor our territorial waters for fishing and smuggling?


See above



> Do we need subs to protect our coastline or shipping routes from enemies No, we have the USN for that.


Thanks for volunteering the USN as if they don't have enough to do already.   : Again if you knew anything about naval warfare or have read the past posts about submarines and their uses in warfare you would not be making so many out to lunch statements.




> Do we need subs to fight a major naval conflict?


WW1 and WW2 should be your guide to that. As much as I hate to admit it, the submarine is the ultimate naval weapon.

We do need a Defence Review desperately but going by way of niche roles is stupid. What if the goverment decided that it did not want to have a combat capable force and instead focus on logistics and communications. Entirely possible, would you be supportive of niche roles then? I dare say you would not be.


----------

