# Worthington Rakes the Subs



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Apr 2005)

http://torsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Peter_Worthington/2005/04/21/1006062.html


    Subs exotic but excess 
By PETER WORTHINGTON
  
As if the Gomery inquiry into the AdScam boondoggle weren't bad enough for the Liberals, now we have the submarine scandal. 
In some ways, the submarine fiasco is worse than AdScam -- not for sleaze, kickbacks and double-billing, but for incompetence and horrible judgment, as detailed in a scathing report by the all-party standing committee on defence. 
The Commons committee found the purchase of four second-hand submarines from the British was bogged down in politics. 

That's news? 

What isn't "bogged down in politics" with this government (any government, really), especially when it comes to defence? 
Conservative defence critic Gordon O'Connor, a one-time general, blames the four-year delay (1994-98) for the screw-up with subs -- a standing joke, since the damn things have trouble working. 
Can't these guys get it through their heads that the problem isn't "politics" per se, or delays in closing the deal, but the "deal" itself? 
Of all the needs in the Canadian military -- and we have decades of negligence -- submarines are what we need least. 
Oh, the Navy loves submarines -- an exotic toy. 

But Canada fought two wars without subs, and no Canadian submarine has ever fired a torpedo -- a sub's primary weapon. 
Even if they functioned okay under water (they don't), they aren't needed. 
Former defence minister Art Eggleton, who was in charge when the subs were acquired, waxed lavish in their praise -- as does his successor, Bill Graham, who thinks subs are vital for sovereignty. 

Even former defence minister David Pratt calls subs a "vital component" to our Navy, and that Canada "got a great deal" on them. Phooey. They were initially to be a "gift." 
As for "politics" in military matters, when has it ever been otherwise? 
What is a declared quota system for women, aboriginals, visible minorities in the military if not "political?" 

Does anyone think the Chretien government paying $500 million in penalty fees to cancel the Tory decision to buy state-of-the-art EH101 helicopters wasn't pure politics? Buying a cheaper replacement a decade later was also crass politics. 
We bought a crappy, costly Italian truck made in Kelowna for the military, instead of a cheaper, better military truck made by GM. More politics. 
The Iltis replacement for the Jeep was a political decision -- a vehicle since rejected by the Afghan army when we tried to give it away. There's now an Iltis graveyard in Kabul. 

Back to submarines. If we were truly keen on subs being an integral part of coastal defence, why in 1996 did the Navy court martial its best and most experienced submariner on trumped up charges? 
Lt.-Cdr. Dean Marsaw had to go on a hunger strike and rouse public outrage before the Navy backed down on charges that couldn't be proved. 

That's got to tell you something about our Navy, if not submarines. 
When it was first mentioned a decade ago, the submarine deal was depicted as too good to refuse. 
Using that argument, I suppose Canada would be tempted to equip the infantry with vintage Lee Enfield rifles if they could be bought cheaply, instead of automatic assault rifles ... or medieval suits of armour instead of Kevlar body armour if they were cheap. 

That's sort of what we did when we purchased the outdated Leopard I tanks when the Germans graduated to a more advanced model. 
Today, the sinkable subs are being blamed on Jean Chretien -- everyone's fall guy. Even Paul Martin blames Chretien for every lapse, hoping that'll be enough to save his own job. Submarines are yet another reason to vote out the Liberals. 

...now I don't know much about subs, except to say that i disagree with Mr. Worthington here, I believe they are an absolute necessity.


----------



## Lance Wiebe (21 Apr 2005)

And he is wrong.

Canada did not fight the world wars without subs.  We owned a sub, and it was based in Halifax.  Mind you, it was not used for offensive patrols, it was used to train the surface warfare types how to detect and fight submarines.  Much like we used the Oberons for, and presumably, would use the Upholders for.


----------



## Blue Max (21 Apr 2005)

IMHO, Canada only has conventional subs so that we can play at games with the Americans and train our own ASW units, because we are known as "Experts" in so few fields we do not want to lose bragging rights on any points, fine. 

Having said that, I do not believe that conventional subs are worth the money for Canada. Since a large portion of our sovereign territory is covered with ice, our conventional subs are useless for any of these missions.

Perhaps keep two of the best Victoria class subs for training, but purchase a couple of small nuclear vessels, one on either coast that will be able to have a strategic effect on defense of sovereignty.


----------



## Sheerin (21 Apr 2005)

And the Sun family... basically one step above a supermarket tabloid.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Apr 2005)

> Perhaps keep two of the best Victoria class subs for training, but purchase a couple of small nuclear vessels, one on either coast that will be able to have a strategic effect on defense of sovereignty



What will one on each coast accomplish? Pretty much nothing as the solitary unit they will be required everywhere and everywhere at once. As has been said before naval warware operates in 3 dimensions above, below and on the surface. If you remove one aspect your navy {and military for that matter} loses a great deal of what makes a navy versatile.


----------



## Blue Max (21 Apr 2005)

Dragoon, the idea was not to take away any other Naval capability but to offer a minimum effect force.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Apr 2005)

Blue Max said:
			
		

> Dragoon, the idea was not to take away any other Naval capability but to offer a minimum effect force.



A single sub on each coast accomplishes nothing...nuclear or not.  Submarines ( an indee naval ships as a whole) require long  periods along side for rfits and maintenance.  In order to keep one SSN on patrol you require at least 2 or better yet 3 in your inventory. One sub on patrol, one returning( going to maintenance) and one more available to keep the cycle going when one of the subs goes into long term refit.


----------



## Sub_Guy (21 Apr 2005)

The media will always bitch about something, it will never change.  They were silent when the liberals cancelled the helo contract, they were silent when they introduced the new contract.

They killed the airborne, for god who knows what reason.

I think DND has to get off their asses, and start to promote our military.  Hell if it weren't for the subs, I would bet most Canadians would be surprised to know that we have a Navy.

I just wish that the political games would stop interfering with our military.


----------



## Blue Max (21 Apr 2005)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> In order to keep one SSN on patrol you require at least 2 or better yet 3 in your inventory. One sub on patrol, one returning( going to maintenance) and one more available to keep the cycle going when one of the subs goes into long term refit.



How does 4 conventional subs help us? It would seem that we only have enough to do the job on one of three coasts.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (21 Apr 2005)

Blue Max said:
			
		

> How does 4 conventional subs help us? It would seem that we only have enough to do the job on one of three coasts.



Very true but one of the reasons was to establish a subsurface presence on the west coast.  But why do with less? Why get an SSN when all it would do is win the ire of the Canadian public. we need to stay within our means when it comes to submarines and SSKs are just that.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Apr 2005)

It appears to me that Mr Worthington (judging by the tone of his article), has learned everything that he knows about submarines from Hollywood movies about WWII.  Unfortunately, he is like most Canadians.

It is not immediately evident to outsiders what submarines bring to a Navy.  To me, they are the ultimate stealth machine.  Contrary to popular belief, they are anything but blind- they are very much in tune with what is going on around them in the ocean. They are all offense- the very teeth of our Navy. Just owning them brings us a wealth of information that we would not otherwise be entitled to see from our allies.  they help train our surface fleet, air forces and our allies.  Should we be in situation where we are in a shooting war against another country, well, the best ASW platform is another submarine and they really screw up the plans of a surface navy (just ask the Argentineans about that).

Contrary to what Mr Worthington believes, almost every Navy (1st, 2nd and 3rd world) is acquiring, or upgrading submarines.  Just peruse Janes if you doubt me.

You can take this from a guy who has actually been in a submarine (alongside), hunted them, and found them.  I know a bit about how they work.  Unlike Mr Worthington.

Cheers.


----------



## aesop081 (21 Apr 2005)

Well put SKT.......

I'm learning how to hunt them right now.....hopefully i can find them as well !


----------



## Slim (21 Apr 2005)

For a former soldier Mr Worthington certainly has not done the CF any favours lately.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Apr 2005)

Just to piss PW off, I hope the new JSS is actually a giant submarine which spews its pay load out of a set of huge torpedo tubes.


----------



## buckahed (22 Apr 2005)

Worthington has never got past being a platoon leader in Korea. If it doesn't directly support the PPCLI, it is a waste of money. Just reading his stuff on the Vandoos is a good lesson on how regimental rivalries can go too far.
He also has a bad habit of rewriting history to fit his storyline. Calling Marsaw Canada's "best and most experienced submariner"? He sure did not spend a lot of time researching that story.


----------



## Gunnerlove (22 Apr 2005)

Keeping subs will allow us to keep the skill set they require both to operate and hunt. Operation also inludes maint which is very specialized and has a very steep learning curve. We are still recovering from the loss of our subs. 

As for checking facts I have before me a picture of submarines CC1 and CC2 moored in Esquimalt c. 1915.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (22 Apr 2005)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Just to piss PW off, I hope the new JSS is actually a giant submarine which spews its pay load out of a set of huge torpedo tubes.



Damn it whiskey that was suppose to be a secret...watch out for the black helicopters man


----------



## aesop081 (22 Apr 2005)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Damn it whiskey that was suppose to be a secret...watch out for the black helicopters man




Ex-D...don't open the door for another senseless JTF thread ...... ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Apr 2005)

Well, I heard that JTF-2 is working on a 2 man submersible that gets shot out of a torpedo tube at mach-holy-crap....That's the only reason Canada bought subs in the first place... at least that's what I heard.

CHIMO, Kat

PS Stand down Pat, you opened the door... ;D


----------



## aesop081 (22 Apr 2005)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Well, I heard that JTF-2 is working on a 2 man submersible that gets shot out of a torpedo tube at mach-holy-crap....That's the only reason Canada bought subs in the first place... at least that's what I heard.
> 
> CHIMO, Kat
> 
> PS Stand down Pat, you opened the door... ;D



Kat...thats funny.......


----------



## aesop081 (22 Apr 2005)

This is only my personal opinion......

Submarines are an indispensable part of a modern naval force.  The army and the air force talk about dominating the battlespace.  This applies to the navy as well.  The sea is the environment and it is not sufficient to control only the surface.  Submarines have an incredibly disporportinate effect in relation to their size ( one only has to look at the effect that a single RN sub, HMS conqueror, had on the Argentinian navy in the Falklands. After the sinking of the cruiser Belgrano, the Argentine navy confined itself to harbour).  Did the Canadian military need other new equipment , Yes. Were submarines needed, Yes.  The ability to see without being seen is of incalculable value in naval operations.  Beyond the purely operational aspects, they provide invaluable training for ASW force.  Wether they be surface assets or air assets, ASW forces need to be able to train using the real thing.  At present time, we do not have any sophisticated means of simulating ASW ( speaking only from my so-far limited experience in the MPA world) and have to learn these skills the hard way.  From what i have been told and from what i have been able to see so far, ASW is a very perishable skill and it would cost alot of lives to have to re-learn them in wartime.

Was the choice of SSKs right for Canada ? IMHO it was.  I remember the uproar of an uneducated Canadian public to the conservative decision to buy SSNs.  Canada needs nuclear submarines if it is to patrol its arctic waters, that , to me, is undeniable.  Can we afford it ?  I seriously doubt it.  SSK do serve their purpose and Canada also needs them.  SSNs tend to be big, open ocean affairs.  SSKs on the other hand tend to be small, able to operate near shore and inland waters.  This makes them essential as alot of the world's navies focus on litoral operations.

I'm not saying that the decision to buy the Upholder class was good.  I certainly do not agree with the decision to base the subs on different coasts.  IMHO, all of them should have been based out of Halifax for ease of training and  for the resons i mentioned in a previous post ( relating to rotation on patrol).  I also believe that Canada should have bought more.  A larger number would have assured that we would have more subs available for deployment at any given time and would have given us more resources to carry out operations as well as the myriad of training these vessels and our ASW forces require ( not to mention the disproportionate effect i alluded to)

That being said, i realise that all 3 elements have their own pressing needs and we will have to continue to set priorities for the conceivable future.


----------



## Blue Max (22 Apr 2005)

AESOP081, well said unfortunately people in the know were not consulted adequately enough. Actually I am still confused with how and why we bought the Victoria class subs to begin with.

As I have read the limited information available, our Navy was pushing for these subs as the right tool for the job, not seeming to mention the continuous problems the Brits had with this class of sub.

It has now come out as well that the Liberal's delayed this purchase and rebuild far longer than was prudent for a sub sitting idle. Apparently they were not "free, no cash" either, so my question, why did we not do a deal like the Indians and have say the German Type 214, a fuel cell SSK built by our own shipyards?

Is no one concerned in the navy for the loss of major shipbuilding expertise in this country, we know the Liberals are not?


----------



## Sub_Guy (22 Apr 2005)

I agree with all of that, except for the fact that all should be based in Halifax.  We have 3 coasts, and everyone seems to think Halifax is it.  The most potential future hotspots are sitting in the Pacific.   2 on each coast is good, the navy should balance the fleet a bit more.  The west coast always seems to be forgotten. 


Submarines are the true stealth.


I read somewhere that they are considering basing troop transport capability out of Halifax, sounds good, but for my fellow army brothers in Edmonton it is a long trot to Halifax.

We have to be able to mobilize from both coasts.  Not just the one.


It took the Aussies over 10 years to get their sub fleet operational, and believe me they had some major issues too.


----------



## aesop081 (22 Apr 2005)

I find the loss of shipyard expertise perticularly alarming.   The fact that we have lost this capability is the lack of long term planing for our navy.   If we planned for the upgrade/replacement of our ships as soon as they left the builder's yard, we could have a constant flow of work for our naval industry.   This has not been the case in Canada as far as i can tell.   As far as submarines are concerned, i do not know of any canadian shipyard with expertise in this field.   The Upholder class, from hwhat i have rad on them, are not a bad design.   Simple fact is that the RN decided to have an all nuclear fleet ( SSN and SSBN) and subsequently mothballed the Upholders.   IMHO, what ultimately killed the Victoria class is the long wait by the government that allowed the boats to sit and rott in Britain.

As for how the deal went down, i'm sure that the commons comitee will shed more light on this issue.   It was to be expected that the "Canadianization" would go longer than scheduled and over budget.   once again, IMHO, the Australian Collins class SSK would have been a better choice for the Canadian Navy and in retrospec to what we seem to have paid for the Victorias, would not have costed more.   There are a number of SSK classes out there that also would have been suitable for our navy ( Walrus, A17, A19.....)

Sub guy:

I agree that Halifax is not the "be all end all".  My point is that 2 subs on each coast provides either coast with a "non-event" due to the lack of critical mass.


----------



## buckahed (22 Apr 2005)

Lets see,


Canada was going to go in with the Brits on the Upholders.
Then we were gonna buy SSNs.
Then we were gonna go in with the Aussies on the Collins class.
Then we were gonna go in with the Swedes on AIP.
Then we sunk a big chunk of sub money into Ballard Power for research on fuel cells for AIP.
Then we ended up with the Upholders because they were cheap, available and the government had to do something to keep from getting tossed out of NATO and the G8. ( Plus sink a few hundred million into the JSF program.)

Canada is not a serious country.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (22 Apr 2005)

buckahed said:
			
		

> Lets see,
> 
> 
> Canada was going to go in with the Brits on the Upholders.
> ...


     Canadian governments are not serious about defence, or foreign policy.  We have become sound and not-so-much fury, signifying nothing.  Pretty much the regard other nations have for our politicians pious mouthings.  Our leaders have chosen time and time again to respond to the militaries requests for first rate combat equipment with something cheaper from the discount rack, but announced like its cutting edge equipment.  We have not become a paper tiger, because we don't even look good on paper any more.  The navy found some subs that we could get for a song, and it still took us so f*&king long to get them that they needed major work.  The navy knew it wasn't going to get new subs, and don't even bother asking for nuclear boats, so it asked for what it figured it could get.  The army would have liked main battle tanks, but they can't have them, so they asked for LAV III to give them a tool they have a chance of getting that can still do the job (at least partly).  The navy, faced with the same situation, made the same call.  The blame lies in the public that can't be bothered to care, if they cared, then politicians would fear the results of being caught endangering the lives of service men and woman with their substandard and superannuated kit.  As it is, dead soldiers are only worth a sound byte if the statement is attacking the military, not the government whose policies have cost so many needless lives.  If you get the government that you deserve, then all of Canada has been sufficiently punished in the last decades....


----------



## GK .Dundas (23 Apr 2005)

Peter Worthington as writer on modern Naval warfare make a pretty good hairdresser


----------

