# Scrapping the Subs - Media Pressure has Begun



## Cloud Cover (11 Oct 2004)

It seems as if the CBC have begun an all out campaign to influence decision makers to scrap the sub sub fleet by questioning the utility of these platforms in the role of sovereignty enforcement and peace keeping operations. 

This afternoon, they interviewed Steven Staples from the Polaris Institute, about the value of submarines in Canadian service. It is important to note that Staples is held out by the CBC to be an expert in defence issues, and he may have some education in that area, probably at the doctorate level, but the simple truth of the matter is that he is a disarmament activist and who has a very close relationship with the NDP. Staples has a habit of getting small papers in the hands of key media personell on various military issues in a time appropriate manner. Often, they ask him questions about things they read right off his papers. 

Here are some of the notes I made while listening to the interview:     


Notes:

The submarines are cold war relics.

The Brits had a litany of problems with the subs, they were withdrawn because they were technically unreliable and could not be made to function properly.

The sub design was an experimental hunter killer.

The Aussies looked at buying the subs, but rejected them because there were too many problems with them.

Navy lobbied Jean Chretien very hard for the subs, and that he relented under intense pressure. 

The subs must be pulled out of service and laid up until the cause of the disaster is confirmed, so that other members are not needlessly put at risk.

Wants a full public investigation and inquiry.

The subs serve no real purpose in defending Canada.

The missions assigned to subs can be accomplished with our existing surface fleet, aircraft and shore based radars.

Hunter killer submarines designed for stealthy operations, they are not a sovereignty tool. 

The US pressured Canada to obtain the subs so we could be used as target practice for their ships.

This is a cold war killing tool, not a peacekeeping tool. We don't need them, because we are peacekeepers.

************

Those are the notes I took ... look for all of those points to be pushed by the CBC et al. over the next few weeks. They smell blood, just like with the CAR, watch them go for the kill of another capability by taking advantage of a bad situation.

In addition, the CBC is supposed to bring out a lawyer this afternoon   who will lay out possible legal action that can be taken to sue the Brits for the costs of the subs and the loss of life, as well as "what steps can be taken to prevent this from happening again", whatever that means. 

If anybody catches that info, please add it to this thread. 

Over the next few weeks, look for the following condensation words from the media, so called defence experts like Staples, and more importantly, the defence minister and other political actors: 

"questionable neccessity" ; "needless capability";     "hunter killer, not peace keeping" ;   "cold war relic" ; "public investigation" [as opposed to S.O.P of BOI] ; "other means to accomplish the job"; "billion dollar sub boondoggle"


Thx ...   W 601.           

* edit: added the term "billion dollar submarine boondoggle" to the list of terms. We will shortly see a comparison between these ships and the gun registry [already begun].  Has the military learned from the PR mistakes made during the CAR fiasco? Time will tell.


----------



## Sheerin (11 Oct 2004)

Polaris Institute - _...retooling citizen movements for democratic social change in an age of corporate-driven globalization.  _

Taken right off their website.

I saw staples the other day on CBC immediately questioned his 'expertise' on defense.  

I hope your wrong about them scrapping the boats...


----------



## winchable (11 Oct 2004)

As it stands I think the subs are overdue and over budget, however they are not a waste of money considering the alternative.

Scrapping them would make them a colossal waste of money, manpower and time already spent on training crew and refitting the new subs.

I really, really hope they don't think about this as a viable option.


----------



## McG (11 Oct 2004)

I've notice the editorials in the paper seem to speak for one of two camps.  The first calls the subs cold war relics and calls on getting rid of them.  The second condemns the government for not having taken the Australian route and built our own new subs (some would even seem to suggest we could still go this route).

The subs do fill a role in coastal security (because you don't always want they guys you are watching to know about it) and in operations outside Canadian waters.  Building new now will cost substantially more than fixing our subs and we cannot predict a more successful product.

Anyone remember the Mulroney proposal for a nuclear sub that would have allowed us to operate under the Arctic?  There is a program we should have stuck too (but diesel is still the only route that can go completely silent).


----------



## Inch (11 Oct 2004)

Whiskey, I saw that interview today too.   What the hell does this guy know? Has he ever been in theater? Probably not, he played out the "Peacekeeper" role to his advantage. I have a feeling this guy doesn't know the first thing about being a peacekeeper, I've never been on tour but from what I gather, peacekeepers need to be combat trained troops, not mall security guards which I think this guy feels they should be like. Even the journalist asked "should we be relying on the Americans to protect our sovereignty?", which is when he brought up that Hunter Killers don't defend sovereignty, to which I disagree. Subs are stealthy, people are going to think twice before breaching our sovereign territory knowing full well they have no idea where our subs are. I've only seen this Staples guy once and already I think he's an idiot that has yet to wake up and smell the reality of our cruel world.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Oct 2004)

McG said:
			
		

> Anyone remember the Mulroney proposal for a nuclear sub that would have allowed us to operate under the Arctic?   There is a program we should have stuck too (but diesel is still the only route that can go completely silent).



I was in the Navy at the time in question, and can remember the surprise being expressed by many admirals over the proposed fleet. But, the idea was quickly embraced with almost religious fever by all ... imagine, Canada with SSN subs, and the capability and respect that goes with it!! I believe the proposed fleet size was an even dozen of the Trafalgar variety, or perhaps a French design as a runner up.


----------



## Sheerin (11 Oct 2004)

Okay I've just done some research on staples (i'm skimming through his 2002 paper "Breaking Rank: a Citizens review of Defense spending") and this is what he has to say about the military and their expenses (http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/publications_articles/breaking_rank.pdf)



> Canada has too many frigates,
> which has prompted some defence officials to suggest mothballing a number of
> ships to redirect funds to other projects.


(Staples, 2002:22 30 in the PDF)

Oh here is another doozie 



> While
> much media attention has been paid to the need to replace the aging Sea Kings,
> there has been little public scrutiny of why the forces need helicopters with antisubmarine
> warfare capabilities designed to find Russian submarines, given that
> ...


(Staples 2002:23 (31 in the PDF file))



> These submarines have no clear purpose in Canadian defence needs that cannot be
> met by existing surface vessels â â€œ especially considering that the submarine threat has
> disappeared, thereby removing the need for an anti-submarine warfare capability. In
> fact, their most important function seems to be to allow the Canadian Navy to participate
> ...


(Staples 2002: 24 (32 in PFD))

I also noted he quoted a journalist's artilce "Why Australia rejected Canada's new subs".  Anyone have a copy of that article?



> However, the Canadian Forces has no plans to purchase this stealthy and offensive
> warplane [F-35], and is already spending nearly $1.2 billion to upgrade its existing fleet of CF-18s.


Staples 2002: 24)

and I found this towards the end of the artilce, this is his discription of the following image







> Three Canadian ships in a U.S. battlegroup near Afghanistan. New
> missiles on Canadian ships could be targetted and fired by the
> U.S. commander aboard the U.S. destroyer.



The CBC should do their homework a little better or at the very least inform people of this mans bias.  But I kinda doubt they care.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Oct 2004)

Hey Inch and Sheerin, Happy Thanksgiving!!! Staples is emerging with near God like reverence by the CBC on defence issues. He wrote a small book a while ago for the Center For Policy Alternatives, [or something like that], to counter the CDA's publication on defence. In the book, he complained about us taking part on the WOT, on Canada having offensive systems etc., NATO membership, NORAD issues etc. Strangely, he is now advocating the use of CPF's and Aurora's [presumably] to conduct sovereignty missions. These are the very systems he has previously advocated scrapping, or rendering useless by removing weapons systems.   

But make no mistake about it, many people will jump on his bandwagon on this issue. Will DND effectively neutralize this turkey and his CBC students? I strongly doubt they will, they will simply ignore him and leave it up to others to counter his momentum, to the detriment of the submarine service.   

Thanks for the link Sheerin ... good quick research!!!


----------



## McG (11 Oct 2004)

Scrapping subs unlikely, Graham says
By ALLISON DUNFIELD
Globe and Mail Update  

Defence Minister Bill Graham played down a suggestion Monday that Canada would scrap its submarine program because of the fatal fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi.

"I certainly would wait until the board of inquiry told us what was the cause of this accident," he said. "My own view, based on the advice of the navy, is that submarines are an integral and an important part of the strategic role that the navy plays and that these were the submarines they wanted and they were operating them.

He did not, however, reject the idea entirely.

"I would rule nothing out at this time. As I said before, I would rule nothing out, but I also don't engage in speculation about things that are not likely to happen," Mr. Graham told reporters in Faslane, Scotland, where the crippled Chicoutimi arrived on Sunday after a five-day towing operation following Tuesday's fire aboard the submarine.

One sailor, Lieutenant Chris Saunders, died a day after the blaze when he was being airlifted to hospital for treatment for smoke inhalation. Two other crewmen are in hospital in Sligo, Ireland, where they are receiving treatment for smoke inhalation but are making "good progress," the submarine's captain, Commander Luc Pelletier, said Monday at a separate news conference in Scotland.

Mr. Graham also would not speculate on whether Canada would seek compensation from Britain following the incident. 

Chicoutimi was one of four used submarines purchased from Britain in 1998. They have been plagued with delays, cost overruns and mechanical problems, including leaks.

"There is a board of inquiry. That will tell us what future action we will take between the United Kingdom and ourselves. Anything else is pure speculation," Mr. Graham said.

At a later news conference in London with both Mr. Graham and British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, Mr. Graham was asked whether the subject of compensation from Britain came up with Mr. Hoon. 
"When we know the cause...we'll work this out as allies and friends....let's just see the facts before we can talk about such things. This is just speculation. I don't know why everybody's so busy speculating until we know what the facts are." 

Mr. Hoon was asked by a reporter whether Canada's purchase of the subs were a case of "buyer beware." 

Mr. Hoon did not answer the question directly, saying that fires at sea are among the most dangerous conditions aboard a vessel. "That's why in recent years, members of the Royal Navy and members of the Canadian navy train in a particularly vigorous way to deal with [and] confront fires." 

"I think it's important to give proper respect to the people that fought the fire so hard," Mr. Hoon said. 

During his earlier press conference in Scotland, Mr. Graham commended Britain for helping Canada out in the naval emergency. Several British vessels and a helicopter were sent to assist the submarine as it was towed back to land.

"My first duty is to thank them on behalf of Canadian navy for their help in these circumstances," Mr. Graham said.

He said he would not consider asking for any compensation until the board of inquiry concludes and the facts are known.

"We are a great ally of the United Kingdom. We work together closely on many, many fronts and we'll work this out as friends do."

Liberal ministers have always defended the purchase of the diesel-electric vessels as a bargain, while the military has not lost faith in the submarines that have been a constant cause of embarrassment.

Last week, after the incident occurred, the Liberals were criticized by the opposition, who said the government put lives at risk by purchasing second-hand subs that were not up to par.

While acknowledging that it took longer than expected to re-commission the vessels, Mr. Graham said that "as in any military equipment purchase, you must work your way through these problems." you've got to work your way through these problems."

It's up to the navy whether to dock the rest of the fleet, Mr. Graham said.

He took a tour of Chicoutimi in Scotland and told reporters that he saw firsthand the severe damage the vessel suffered.

"I can tell you that, in the captain's cabin, the heat must have been incredible. I can tell you that the crew members told us that it was a matter of seconds they had ... to be able to react to this.

"What I saw led me to believe there was extraordinary courage and extraordinary professionalism on board that submarine."

He seemed disturbed by the level of damage, describing it as an "unimaginable degree." 
He said it was more extensive than he imagined and after hearing what the crew went through, he was amazed that no one else was killed. 

A funeral will be held for Lt. Saunders on Wednesday. His body was returned to Canada on Sunday.

The rest of the crew of Chicoutimi are not expected to return from Scotland until later this week.

With a report from Canadian Press


----------



## Inch (11 Oct 2004)

Thanks mate, you too.   ;D

I truly hope this weenie just goes by the wayside.   I wonder if he feels it necessary for cops to carry guns anymore since gun registration has taken care of all the illegal guns without serial numbers. I'll go back to my mall security guard example again, sure you show your face, but if someone is bound and determined to break the law, what's going to stop them? Sovereignty patrols without weapons? "You stop! Or we'll send Celine Dion to do a concert in your country!" I sure wish I lived in this guy's happy happy world on lollypop lane. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a war monger, but I believe that there are some bad people out there and they only speak one language, it's called "if you don't stop what you're doing I'm going to stick this missile up your ***"


----------



## Michael Dorosh (11 Oct 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> As it stands I think the subs are overdue and over budget, however they are not a waste of money considering the alternative.
> 
> Scrapping them would make them a colossal waste of money, manpower and time already spent on training crew and refitting the new subs.
> 
> I really, really hope they don't think about this as a viable option.



Sea King replacement.  Cormorant.  "Cadillac".   Penalty payments.  We've seen it before.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Oct 2004)

McG said:
			
		

> He did not, however, reject the idea entirely.
> 
> "I would rule nothing out at this time. As I said before, I would rule nothing out, but I also don't engage in speculation about things that are not likely to happen," Mr. Graham told reporters in Faslane, Scotland, where the crippled Chicoutimi arrived on Sunday after a five-day towing operation following Tuesday's fire aboard the submarine.



So ... given the opportunity to reject the notion as foolish, ""the door is ajar", so to speak.   He should have simply taken affirmative steps to stomp out speculation right then and there, but I suspect he doesn't really know or care about the value of enhanced fleet security provided by submarines.


----------



## Sheerin (11 Oct 2004)

It is somewhat worrying that left the door open for scrapping the subs.  
This whole situation is troubling.  

No problem Whiskey it seems the Polaris Institute is quite proud of the work done by Mr. Staples and as such had the paper displayed in a prominent position.

and happy thanksgiving to you as well.  
Oh and on a side note, I decided to send an email to CBC expressing my displeasure with the selection of Mr. Staples as a "defense expert".  You know, it would be nice if he participated in a Q&A session.  Of course I won't get anything back.


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Oct 2004)

Here is a letter I just emailed to the editor of the CBC:

Attention: Editor in Chief, CBC News. 

As a former member of the the Canadian navy, I am sending this email to you to express my disgust and outrage at the CBC for holding Steven Staples out as some sort of defence expert, especially with respect to the use and value of submarines. The man is nothing less than a activist of the Michael Moore variety, the only difference being he actually has some education. And to follow through with the subject of education, a post graduate degree of any sort is not a proper qualification that warrants the solicitation of the opinion of a person lacking the skill and expertise to form and express a well rounded opinion on any subject matter, much more in the operational arena of national defence issues.   Tell me, does Mr. Staples have any such skill and expertise beyond the campus? 

On todays television interview with Mr.   Staples, he made countless errors of fact and outright misrepresented the role and value of submarines in Canadian use. If you want factual information, stick to primary sources such the navy or perhaps ex-submariners themselves. Anything else is simply irresponsible speculation. If you want to use my tax dollars to solicit an opinion on a military issue, please use sources who have a proper understanding of the issues you are investigating and reporting on. A publicly funded media organization ought not to be engaged promoting activist points of view on such serious issues. A sailor lost his life in the service of his country, and already your organization appears to be advocating a course of action that could seriously weaken the defensive posture of our country. 

Raising the issue of scrapping the fleet by asking the question "what value are the submarines" to sovereignty and peace keeping simply reinforces the complete ignorance of attitude about defence issues that pervades the CBC. By bringing individuals on air such as Mr. Staples to present their biased and meritless opinions about defence issues raises the question of whether your organization is biased itself.

Frankly, I find myself seriously questioning the values, ethics, and indeed the utility, of your organization which rejoices in the notion of freedom of the press to gleefully undermine the efforts made by our fighting forces to defend your rights. Please stick to reporting the news, you have some competency in that, but please do not try to create news, your incompetency shines in that respect.
     
Yours truly,

Fred XCXCX

***********
Like you, Sheerin, I do not expect a reply!!


----------



## Inch (11 Oct 2004)

Amen to that! Well written Fred, kudos.


----------



## Sheerin (11 Oct 2004)

Well you made my letter look bad   

That was an excellent letter and hopefully with any luck you will a get reply.  

CBC's selection of Staples really makes we wonder if the producers actually looked into what he wrote or if they had him on to push their own agenda.  
My brother used to work as a producer with CTV news and aparently whenever they needed an 'expert' 9 times out of 10 all they would  do is look a list of people given to them by the various Think Tanks and select one.  Most of the time they have no idea who the individual is or what the goal of his organization is.  Part of me hopes that this is the case with CBC and not them trying to take funding away from the military.


----------



## McG (11 Oct 2004)

I expect you'll now be invited if the CBC hosts a town-hall show on the issue of the subs.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Oct 2004)

How much money actually changed hands here?  Didn't we give them access to training area's and such as oppossed to all the money quoted?


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2004)

A great letter Whiskey.

I see that in Britain there are rumours of breaking up the CBC.  Gave me thought.  Maybe what we could do is split the CBC budget in two and two networks funded.  One would be administered by a Government oversight committee.  The other by the official opposition.  Maybe then we could get a balanced debate on public policy.


----------



## Sheerin (11 Oct 2004)

Never will we ever get a balanced agency, unless of course we use Robots, but then the programmers of the robots bias would be a problem... 
Okay bad humour.

I somehow doubt the CBC will hold a Town Hall meeting about the subs.  Maybe if the Chicoutimi went down with all hands then maybe CBC would do something like that.  
Did we pay 750 million or does that figure include the costs associated with the Brits using our bases?


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Oct 2004)

Thanks  guys .. it was probably thrown in the gash after the first paragraph was read!!


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Oct 2004)

McG: i forgot to respond to this part:


			
				McG said:
			
		

> The subs do fill a role in coastal security (because you don't always want they guys you are watching to know about it) and in operations outside Canadian waters.



The best way to take care of an enemy submarine stalking your surface assets is another submarine with quieter characterisitcs, more advanced sensors and faster, longer range torpedo's. We have that ... it's called the Victoria SSK. A surface ship cannot really hide from a determined sub, although with enough warning they can attack and kill one or, if they are lucky, simply steam away at high speed with their stern puckered. Helo's with their electronics payload are at the mercy of the sea state, thermal layers and generally do better with seasoned crews who can think like sub skippers. Our fliers are top notch examples of that, despite the equipment problems. 

A D.E.  sub with a good crew and decent equipment can sneak up on just about anything surfaced or submerged and sink it, photograph it, board it or whatever the mission dictates. We must not lose this capability, it is that simple!!!

Cheers ...


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (11 Oct 2004)

Sounds like you have a letter to the editor right there Whiskey


----------



## DJL (12 Oct 2004)

Did anybody by chance see this clown Staples yesterday on global sunday? The panel was made up with this Staples character, a retired O-boat commander(Jay Plante), and two other analysts. The readers digest version is that he tried to make the same kinda points as Whiskey mentioned, and the retired submariner made him look like a tit  >

Here's part of the transcript:

http://www.canada.com/national/globalsunday/story.html?id=3ed23c33-cbe3-4821-a4bc-5e6efc7734ba


----------



## Sheerin (12 Oct 2004)

damn thats annoying... i guess they want us to buy a copy of the transcript.  

I was under the impression that main reason the Aussies rejected the Upholders was becuase there were only 4 of them?


----------



## Inch (12 Oct 2004)

Where the hell do these guys come up with this stuff? 



> Bourbeau: The effects of years of underfunding and almost no strategic direction from the government can be seen in all three branches of the military. For example the Navy is still flying Sea King helicopters, which spend much more time in repair hangars than they do in the air. A replacement is finally on the way, but it will be years before the last Sea King is retired.
> 
> The Navy's supply ships and destroyers are thirty-five years old with no replacements in sight. And the electronics on board the Aurora long-range patrol aircraft are obsolete. They're now being updated and the Navy is hoping to squeeze another twenty years of life out of these planes.



Since when do the Auroras and Sea Kings belong to the Navy? These guys call themselves experts? S***, my grandmother knows more about defense than most of these clowns. The worst part is the media plays these guys off as experts and the public believe it. It's embarrassing.


----------



## Inch (12 Oct 2004)

A slight correction to my previous thought, David Bercuson is bang on. This guy knows his stuff. I had the opportunity to sit in one of his history lectures at U of Calgary, he's a fantastic speaker and very pro-military.


----------



## jmacleod (12 Oct 2004)

Anne McLellan MP from Calgary Alberta perhaps? but originally from Nova Scotia is (I can hardly
believe it) Deputy Prime Minister - a few minutes ago she was quoted on the CBC saying that
the Government is considering "laying up the fleet" - not a term one would hear in Calgary,
but certainly in DND HQ, or either Canadian Coast. I detest the CBC, but occasionally check
their sites on the Net. The CBC destroyed the Canadian Airborne Regiment. Its reports from
the Middle East are so distorted (they in fact, lie) that the public network is frequently subject
to criticism by "Honest Reporting" focused on the truth in reporting on Israel. The Canadian
submarine had an unfortunate and sad accident. Sometimes unavoidable in the real world.
But your previous observation that Canada focused on nuclear submarines in the 1980's
is correct, and I think the concept was supported by then PM Brian Mulroney and most of his
Cabinet, including the PC MP's from Halifax and Nova Scotia. The submarine service should
continue of course, it would be outrageous to write off the dedicated service of the crews
of these   vessels, who represent this Country with zeal and courage. MacLeod


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2004)

I see that the Navy has ordered all subs to return to dock.  Maybe that's what MacLellan was alluding to.  A temporary tie up until the cause of the fire can be determined.  A fairly sensible precaution and unfortunately a fairly routine occurence with our Cormorants, SeaKings, Griffons, Hornets, Hawks, Tucanos.......am I forgetting any?  

Anyway I just hope they don't forget to untie them at a later date.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Oct 2004)

Kirkhill, I agree with your analysis, even if I don't know what a "Tucano" is.  It might be a bit of a relief for the families of the crews to have them "feet dry" until the cause is determined. Check your PM's in a second.


----------



## Inch (12 Oct 2004)

A Tucano is what the British or some other country on the other side of the pond call the Harvard II, the Americans call it the Texan II.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Oct 2004)

Thanks Inch. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Oct 2004)

Sorry Inch. IF'dU ;D


----------



## Inch (12 Oct 2004)

I wouldn't have even known that if there weren't guys in Moose Jaw that had instructed in Saudi



Edit-Che hit the wrong button, meant to PM you, sorry Inch.


----------



## Gobsmacked (13 Oct 2004)

Those interested in a good non-biased description of the Victoria class might want to check out the following link, good pics:

http://www.saoc-central.com/letter.html

Also saw it on the dann website.  Counters that Idiot Staples pretty good, especially the 'World Wide Submarine Proliferation' - sure wouldn't hurt for our Surface ships or Auroras' to have some pratice against the type of threat they may encounter in Middle East or Asia.

I understand it was written in the late-90s before the official rename of the Upholder class.


----------



## Infanteer (13 Oct 2004)

Why don't we invite the gentleman here to see if he can convince us?

steven_staples@on.aibn.com


----------



## jmacleod (13 Oct 2004)

The Embraer "Tucano" is a turboprop high performance advanced military training aircraft which
was bought by the Thatcher Conservative government in Great Britain, and manufactured/assembled
in the United Kingdom. It was a very controversial purchase at the time. The Raytheon-Beech
"Texan Two" is based on the Swiss designed Pilatus PC-9, also turboprop powered and manufactured
by Raytheon-Beech in the United States. I know of at least one CF pilot from CFS Moose Jaw
(by way of VU-32 Squadron 12 Wing) who instructed in Saudi - there were probably others.MacLeod


----------



## Inch (13 Oct 2004)

MacLeod, you're right, they are different. I've always heard the names used interchangeably. Kirkhill, IF'dUp too!   :-[ I knew what you were talking about though.

There are quite a few guys in MJ that worked in Saudi, some are back with the CF and some instruct there as Bombardier employees.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2004)

Oh well.  Can't be right all the time.  

Thanks Macleod.


----------



## Bert (13 Oct 2004)

I'm not a submariner or a naval electrician and have no information on the overall fitness of
the Upholder class subs, but there is a logical reason why there was a fire onboard.

Many journalists and otherwise have stated the subs are no good, unuseable, and judging 
from the facts presented (two consecutive fires, electrical panel blows up in shower of
sparks, adverse confined space environment, and tragic loss of life), seem justified on the 
surface of things.  Subs are not as forgiving as a medium as a car on a Sunday afternoon
drive.  Without understanding what really failed on the sub, making judgements based 
on no facts seems to be what CBC does best.

Personally, I'd like to know the real reason behind the fires.  Something pulled alot of
current with no apparent circuit breaker/fuse protection, created fires and flooded the
compartments with fumes quickly.  Though its a definite technical problem, it may be
the problem has no bearing on design or functionality.  Before I'd discuss scrapping
subs or the program, its better to find out what really went wrong and act on that data.


----------



## Slim (10 Jan 2005)

> This is a cold war killing tool, not a peacekeeping tool. We don't need them, because we are peacekeepers



Thanks for that informed statement you uninformed a$$h@le. now go f#ck off and keep your bullsh*t comments to yourself!

And Mr Staples you CAN quote me on that!

Slim


----------



## mo-litia (10 Jan 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Thanks for that informed statement you uninformed a$$h@le. now go f#ck off and keep your bullsh*t comments to yourself!
> 
> And Mr Staples you CAN quote me on that!
> 
> Slim



I couldn't have said it better myself! I wonder why this guy's outlook on the world is so rosy when it is obvious the guy's head is crammed so far it his a$$ it must smell a little off. ;D

As for that tripe that we don't need warfighting tools because we're peacekeepers . . . Fine, the CF can pull out of Afghanistan and be replaced by a Canadian contingant of Mr. Staples and a few hundred of his pot smoking hippie peacenik friends, who can traipse about unarmed and show the Muslim fanatics so much love they'll drop their medieval dogma and embrace the decadent ways of the West!

Either that or the CBC will be reporting massive Canadian "Operation Treadeau Love" losses while the CF sits at home laughing our collective ass off by the television.


----------



## Torlyn (10 Jan 2005)

Drinking rye again, mo-lita?    Pretty old post to revive...  

T


----------



## mo-litia (10 Jan 2005)

I'm studying so I'm sticking to beer, thank you very much. 

And I didn't revive this - it was Slim . . . I was just looking for an excuse to post that picture of George W. ;D


----------



## Sheerin (10 Jan 2005)

Hey you guys want a larff?  Read Staples' paper "Breaking Rank"  its fun
http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/publications_articles/breaking_rank.pdf


----------



## mo-litia (10 Jan 2005)

lmao  ;D

Hey Slim, your bitterness is showing! Oh, wait, so is mine!


----------



## Slim (10 Jan 2005)

mo-litia said:
			
		

> lmao   ;D
> 
> Hey Slim, your bitterness is showing! Oh, wait, so is mine!



Everyone's is Bro, just ask around a bit...


----------



## mo-litia (10 Jan 2005)

I hear that, Slim.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (11 Jan 2005)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Hey you guys want a larff?   Read Staples' paper "Breaking Rank"   its fun
> http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/publications_articles/breaking_rank.pdf



Is this staples guy for real..  I think he has spent to much time sitting in a field of green clovers eating lucky charms veiwing the world through his rose colored glasses.

God this man must be ignorant( iwas was going to call him an ASS) but it would have been edited.

I can not beilieve in todays world there are still people that think we can surrive without some form of ARMED FORCES.  (done that way intentionally)

I hope it doesn't hurt him to much when his rainbow comes crashing down around him

MOO


----------



## Slim (11 Jan 2005)

> I hope it doesn't hurt him to much when his rainbow comes crashing down around him



Or hits him in the head!

Either way his uninformed and damaging opinion is not required.

Slim


----------



## Wizard of OZ (11 Jan 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The CF is nothing but a undemocratic sinkhole that supports an aggressive, imperialistic regime.   You guys have too much money as it is.   Vote for me!



That would make a really nice new fig 12 target don't you think.

Accurancy in the forces would be in the 90-100 %


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Jan 2005)

I perused Staple's   opus "breaking ranks", with a view to pointing out his factual and logical errors.   It quickly became apparent to me that that:

a) it would take me a document at least as long as his was in the first place.
b) he has never met anyone who is actually in the in the Armed Forces.   His lack of apparent knowledge about what we do for a living is appalling, even making allowances for his editorial bias.   He gets paid by the Polaris Institute?   My post retirement planning just got easier- apparently, any boob can be an analyst in Canada.   Maybe there is room for me on their payroll?     

Cheers.


----------



## Sheerin (12 Jan 2005)

Unfortunately for you, I think you have to have a pre-frontal lobotomy to be a analyst...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Jan 2005)

> Unfortunately for you, I think you have to have a pre-frontal lobotomy to be a analyst...



Yeah, but how much do they get paid?  It might not be so bad...


----------



## Infanteer (12 Jan 2005)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I perused Staple's  opus "breaking ranks", with a view to pointing out his factual and logical errors.  It quickly became apparent to me that that:
> 
> a) it would take me a document at least as long as his was in the first place.
> b) he has never met anyone who is actually in the in the Armed Forces.  His lack of apparent knowledge about what we do for a living is appalling, even making allowances for his editorial bias.  He gets paid by the Polaris Institute?  My post retirement planning just got easier- apparently, any boob can be an analyst in Canada.  Maybe there is room for me on their payroll?
> ...



Oh Tacco, thanks for that.  I'm still LMAO....


----------



## buckahed (4 Feb 2005)

Well, the infighting over the Chicoutimi is starting to get nasty and public. Tuesday ADM Maclean rejects the inquiry report as "inadequate" and orders the Captains decisions re-investigated. So much for an independent inquiry. You think maybe Ottawa didn't like the conclusions?

Today, the Union of Retired Sub Skippers fires back with this:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2005/02/03/919475-cp.html

I get the feeling Ottawa is not going the get away with blaming it all on the skipper.


----------



## Navalsnpr (4 Feb 2005)

We need subs, just as the surface fleet needs new AOR's.

If it takes longer and costs a bit more to get to the bottom of the HMCS Chicoutimi fire, so be it. In the long run, I'm for anything that will make being on or under the sea safer.


----------



## karl28 (7 Feb 2005)

I think the sub's of the Canadian navy are far to important to scrap . They are very usefull in patrolling oceans and also Intel gathering . I hope that this doesn't happen .


----------



## Navalsnpr (8 Feb 2005)

karl28 said:
			
		

> I think the sub's of the Canadian navy are far to important to scrap . They are very usefull in patrolling oceans and also Intel gathering . I hope that this doesn't happen .



Definitely agree.

I would also add that majority of people who live near the ocean regions understand the reason for the Navy and Subs, whereas a lot of land locked individuals don't understand why we need a Naval element in the first place.


----------



## buckahed (18 Feb 2005)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=737&e=1&u=/cpress/20050218/ca_pr_on_na/submarine_inquiry


Gee, this is a real surprise.


----------



## Slim (18 Feb 2005)

For God's sake...Let the politicians run for cover and hang a member of the CF out to dry...Lest somebody'scareer is ruined! :

Maybe thay could arrange to put Kyle Brown on the sub and blame him...! :threat:


----------



## Wizard of OZ (19 Feb 2005)

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> Definitely agree.
> 
> I would also add that majority of people who live near the ocean regions understand the reason for the Navy and Subs, whereas a lot of land locked individuals don't understand why we need a Naval element in the first place.



Especialy with the "threat" of an opened Artic passage.  what better way to patrol it then to have Subs, no need to worry about ice or weather.

Someone will hang, someone always does it just depends on who plays CYA better.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Feb 2005)

Wizard of OZ said:
			
		

> Especialy with the "threat" of an opened Artic passage.   what better way to patrol it then to have Subs, no need to worry about ice or weather.



"Patrolling" also leads to the inevitable problem of "discovery" and the ability to do something about. What about the ability to deploy and recover mines as an additional deterrent?


----------



## Wizard of OZ (19 Feb 2005)

We don't use mines anymore.  That thingy they signed i can't recall if it included sea mines but i think it did i will have to look it up.

Doing something, you bet we will we will have the politicans bitch and scream and then ask us to do somehting and then they will remember we need money to do things so then they will say never mind it was not that important anyway. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Feb 2005)

http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/04/landmine.wrap/
http://www.icbl.org/tools/faq/treaty/cover
http://www.icbl.org/tools/faq/treaty/notcovered

AFAIK the LAND mine treaty only prohibits the use of anti-personnel mines.   By definition SEA mines would be occluded.   As are anti-tank mines and even anti-tank mines with anti-handling devices.   Both of those are still permitted.

As to SEA mines - What is mine?

How about a self-powered, inactive, intelligent torpedo or UUV (uninhabited underwater vehicle) lying dormant on the sea-floor?

Is that a mine, a torpedo, or a UUV?

Would it be useful to establish control and sovereignty?

Centrally commanded?  Remote command from a submarine outside of the ice zone? Occasionally relocated?
Self-recovering for service?  Built in sonar? Capable of advertising its presence? Retransmission of data? Working with long-life sonobuoys?

The purpose of the exercise is to let folks know that you are there and that they can proceed only with your permission.  The converse to that is that if permission is granted you must be able to guarantee risk free passage.   

Don't want things going boom under keel of well heeled tourists photographing nice polar bears.  Not good for business.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill,

That capability already exists.   It is called the MK60 Captor mine and is based on the Mk46 torpedo.

See Link:

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk60.htm


----------



## NavyShooter (19 Feb 2005)

A surface ship (destroyer, frigate, etc) is a visible means of power projection.  People see them, and KNOW that you have a physical presence in the area.

A submarine is an invisible means of power projection.  All it needs to do is be seen in the area ONCE, and then you don't know when it's NOT there anymore.  

Subs should not be scrapped, they should be supported.  Knowing some of the crews, they're hard working and dedicated.  My boss was one of the Pall bearers at LT(N) Saunder's funeral, and I knew 2 of the other Pall bearers as well.  

A sad day, but one to learn from, so that things get corrected.  Not a day to shut down the shop and send them to the scrap heap.

NavyShooter


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Feb 2005)

Interesting.  Thanks SKT.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (20 Feb 2005)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Interesting.   Thanks SKT.



My recollection is that Tom Clancy described an attack using active mines by the Chinese to generate an incident in order to generate public support to get the US Fleet out of Taiwan or something.

The only reason I mention it is because after reading that part of the book, I was left scratching my chin and asking myself "How the hell do you defend against that?" 

I think it was 'The Bear and the Dragon', but that was a number of years ago so I cannot be certain.






M.


----------



## Wizard of OZ (21 Feb 2005)

Excellent post Navy shooter it is as true as the sky is blue.

But we have a problem with that as the government ends up making the final decesion on all of our "pressence minded duties".  

I think we may see them gone and replaced with smaller costal defence ships that could be used for S&R as well.

Not the best option but one that will have less teeth in it, you know how the liberals like us.  All snarl no bite.


----------



## Slim (1 Mar 2005)

Tue, March 1, 2005 


*Probe in sub fire restarted*

By CP

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/03/01/945968-sun.html

 NAVAL board of inquiry reconvenes behind closed doors tomorrow in Halifax, taking crucial testimony that will help to determine who -- or what -- is to blame for the fatal fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi. The investigation was paused halfway through last month as the submarine's skipper and two senior officers sought legal advice. 

Cmdr. Luc Pelletier is expected to be the star witness at the hearing into his decision to leave one of two conning tower hatches open as repairs were conducted on a stuck vent. 

The opening of the hatch is believed to be an important link in a series of events that led to the electrical fire which claimed the life of Lieut. Chris Saunders, 32, and left the submarine powerless and bobbing on the ocean surface. 

Some members of the navy, who spoke anonymously, have said they were worried Pelletier, who is a popular figure in the tightly knit submarine community, was being set up to take the fall for what they claim might be poor workmanship by British shipbuilders. 

No one, however, is being singled out for blame at this stage of the investigation, a military spokesman was quoted as saying Monday.


----------



## jmacleod (1 Mar 2005)

I remember the "Mulroney Plan" for acquisition of nuclear submarines - part of a team of consultants
contracted to find alternative ports on the East Coast of Canada to support the vessels, away from
the naval base and Port of Halifax NS. We focused on Port Hawkesbury NS, Sheet Harbour NS,
Stephenville, Newfoundland etc. The "Mulroney Plan" had much merit, and was in the very advanced
stages when the plan was abandoned, much to the regret of Canadian, British and U.S. navy people
of the period. It would be a serious blunder to eliminate Canadian submarine resources, and the
problems with the ex RN boats will be resolved in typical "Hearts of Oak" fashion by the Navy of course
- the CBC in my opinion is no friend of the Canadian Forces and is a propaganda vehicle for the very
fuzzy left in Canada, but for some reason have the support of certain key Liberal Federal cabinet
ministers, a sad situation. MacLeod


----------



## Slim (1 Mar 2005)

Well I think that its become quite obvious that they're looking for a scapegoat.

Slim


----------



## big bad john (1 Mar 2005)

Slim said:
			
		

> Well I think that its become quite obvious that they're looking for a scapegoat.
> 
> Slim



I saw the article this morning.  I am disgusted with the way it is being handled.  Witch hunts anyone?


----------



## jmacleod (1 Mar 2005)

I think Slim is right - the Federal Government is looking for a scapegoat, which will mean a General
Court Martial for a least one and possibly more of the vessels's officers - that is why currently the
hearing into the fire at sea and subsequent events are "in camera" in Halifax NS. But having said
that, the Captain of a naval vessel in any circumstance involving loss of life or heavy damage to
a serving ship, would normally face an Enquiry and a Court Martial - a traditional and wise course
for the Navy to establish responsibility and encourage changes focused on prevention. But the
retention of our submarine capability must continue - I have always been impressed with the
dedication and professionalism of the submariners in the Canadian Navy, and their dismissal from
the Fleet would be a very serious blow to naval morale. MacLeod


----------



## Sub_Guy (1 Mar 2005)

Scapegoat?  I don't think so, bottom line both hatches were open, and water got in.  Both hatches should not be open, the boat was not designed for that.  It is common practice to open them before diving, to get as much fresh air through the boat, and it also allows for the bringing down equipment from the bridge to go more smoothly.

Sure the junction box was in bad shape, but if the hatches were not open then the water wouldn't have gotten in..... 

Someone made the decision to open the hatches, and we all know what the end result was.

The Captain is in charge of his vessel, unlike the army which can out the blame on a private and get away with it, really blame the private, that was a mess, and it makes me sick to my stomach just thinking about it... 

I couldn't imagine blaming some Ordinary Seaman for such a fcuk up........


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Mar 2005)

Well Sub Guy, you hit the nail on the head. Someone's going to get blamed, it won't be the OS or the skipper. How long has it been since a  chief has been hung out to dry?


----------



## buckahed (1 Mar 2005)

There goes my blood pressure again.   The inquiry was not "paused half way through last month as the submarines skipper and two senior officers sought legal advice". The inquiry was finished, Ottawa rejected the findings and ordered the decision to run opened up re-investigated. So much for an "independent inquiry".
It is the arrogance that gets to me. 

 As for you, Sub Guy, what kind of boat were you on? Not designed for it? There is no way you can run normal sub ops without risking an occasional shower down the tower. Not being able to run open up would put a serious operational restriction on the boats. And for your information, the design calls for those splices to be water proof, not "water resistant" cause they are going to get wet.


----------



## Sub_Guy (1 Mar 2005)

Occasional shower yes, did you see the video footage of the Chicoutimi flopping around in the waves?  The boat is not designed to be opened up in that weather.  Ripping around the straits yes, not being able to run open up doesn't restrict the boat at all.

Also if you follow procedure properly it would be nearly impossible for that much water to get in.  I assume you know how the tower is designed, and the procedure for using it...... Yes in calm waters it is common for both to be open, but in rough weather, I wouldn't expect to see both open.

We don't know what was going on out there, and if the procedure was followed for going up to the bridge was followed, we probably wouldn't be discussing any of this.  It is all speculation.

Yes the splices should have been water proof which makes sense.  The Chicoutimi should have been in the best shape as she had all new parts... The other boats got Chi parts.  I don't think the boat should have sailed when it did, 6 more months in the UK would have been beneficial for the crew and the boat.


----------



## buckahed (1 Mar 2005)

Ooookay, they tell me I can't discuss op details on a public board and the moderators have expressed a firm desire that participants remain polite and not say things like "where did you get your dolphins, out of a CrackerJacks box" but you are making it real hard, Sub_guy.

I hauled out my file of clippings so I can keep this strictly within what has been released to the public.

1. Yes, I saw the Chicoutimi flopping around like a OS after his first visit to the Rue Sau Paulo. A video taken the day after the fire, after the gale had moved in, of a sub dead in the water and broadside to the waves. That has nothing to do with the conditions at the time of the ingress. Conditions were worsening but the gale had not reached Chicoutimi. SOP had been followed and the OOW had confirmed no greenies had reached the fin for 15 minutes prior to opening up. They took a rogue wave which can happen even in calm conditions. From the accounts of the OOW and lookout the boat was opened up for several hours after the fire with the tower acting   as a chimney so they could not get below. Even dead in the water and rolling they did not report any more ingresses of water.

2. Your name and previous posts imply you are serving on a boat. It should be very easy for you to find a EOOW or senior greenie to explain to you the restrictions caused by running shut down.

3. The   boat was designed with the designers knowing that the boat would be opened up in extremely bad weather. Man Overboard and Recovery ops   have an inconvenient habit of happening in extremely bad weather. Having the diver and rescue party lock in and out is not a serious option.

4. The RN had the cable splices upgraded on the other three boats and in the Chicoutimi's engine room because of earthing problems. There has been no explaination of why the Chicoutimi's cable splices in the captains cabin were not upgraded.

5. The cables had not been renewed during the activation. Cannabalizing the Chicoutimi to activate the other three   boats and then not doing a complete refit is ........to be polite and mild, not good engineering pratice. Knowing 52 million was cut out of the maintenance budget does not inspire confidence in NDHQ's version of events.

I have no brief for Pelletier. I don't remember if I sailed with him or not. There were so many ringknockers rotating through the wardroom I never bothered learning all their names. The bottom line is the probability of those cable splices being immmersed in water sometime during the boats lifetime is 100%.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Jun 2005)

Subs tied up longer than needed: documents
Last Updated Mon, 20 Jun 2005 14:15:31 EDT 
CBC News
There was no technical reason to keep three of the navy's British-built submarines tied up for months after the fire on HMCS Chicoutimi last October, according to government documents. 
HMCS Victoria, Windsor and Corner Brook were ordered to port after the Oct. 5 fire on Chicoutimi, which killed one submariner and injured several others. 

Several weeks after the fire, navy engineers declared the other submarines safe and recommended they be put back in service, the Canadian Press reported Monday, citing documents obtained through access to information legislation. 
But senior officers overruled that recommendation and asked for extra technical improvements to the subs. 

A navy analyst told CP that the decision to keep the vessels tied up was wise, because the potential for a mechanical problem on one of Chicoutimi's sister subs was "political dynamite." 
HMCS Victoria and HMCS Windsor finally returned to sea last month.


----------



## Slim (20 Jun 2005)

I guess we can thank the media for that!


----------

