Author Topic: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}  (Read 74436 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TCBF

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,939
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #250 on: April 28, 2006, 21:41:58 »
Probably took everything but the screen doors...
"Disarming the Canadian public is part of the new humanitarian social agenda."   - Foreign Affairs Minister Lloyd Axeworthy at a Gun Control conference in Oslo, Norway in 1998.


"I didn’t feel that it was an act of violence; you know, I felt that it was an act of liberation, that’s how I felt you know." - Ann Hansen, Canadian 'Urban Guerrilla'(one of the "Squamish Five")

Offline Torlyn

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 530
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #251 on: April 28, 2006, 22:29:36 »
I think we're putting the screen doors on our new Northern Armed Icebreaker fleet, so they're gone as well.  :D

T

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #252 on: May 14, 2006, 14:54:38 »
More trouble with the Victoria's... but this time it is partially a human screw up, not entirely the ship's fault:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/13/sub-060513.html
Cost spent to resolve the issue: $200,000, for parts that mirrors the original equipment found on the sub.

Offline standingdown

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 54,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,390
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #253 on: May 14, 2006, 14:59:17 »
What a joke...

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

Offline zipperhead_cop

  • Much work remains to be done before we can announce a total failure to make any progress...
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 5,866
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,206
  • Gotta kick at the darkness till it bleeds daylight
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #254 on: May 14, 2006, 15:10:21 »
No, it will be pretty much brand new with all of the new crap they have put on it  :P
God loves stupid people.  That's why He made so many of them.

Of course forests contribute to climate change - you pointless, vacuous wankers.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 406,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,532
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #255 on: June 28, 2006, 22:46:16 »
Here's the fate of the Chicoutimi....

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

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

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

By CHRIS LAMBIE, Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 28 Jun 06

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chicoutimi has a history of being used for spare parts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( clambie@herald.ca)
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline cobbler

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 164
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #256 on: June 29, 2006, 00:05:43 »
The Article title:
Quote
Chicoutimi becomes spare-parts bin
Sub donor to operational fleet, documents reveal
 

then you read on:
Quote
... said Commodore Davidson, a former submarine commander.

"We’re not going to turn it into a spare-parts bin . . .
  "
 

Anybody else see what I see?

The Navy says one thing, the media prints another.

Offline redleafjumper

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 896
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #257 on: June 29, 2006, 14:18:39 »
Commodore Bob Davidson, who just took over command of the Atlantic fleet, confirmed Tuesday that some parts from Chicoutimi will go into other subs.

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Redleafjumper

"After all, courage of the lonely sort is surely the most glorious thing that we can hope to witness, and whether it is displayed upon our side or upon the other, one feels the better for having witnessed it."  Major H. Hesketh-Pritchard, DSO, MC in Sniping in France 1914-18, p. 113.

Offline zipperhead_cop

  • Much work remains to be done before we can announce a total failure to make any progress...
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 5,866
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,206
  • Gotta kick at the darkness till it bleeds daylight
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #258 on: June 29, 2006, 15:35:56 »
I'm not sure what is worse:  the denial of the spare parts bin idea, or that they want to put that submersible lemon back in service.   ???
God loves stupid people.  That's why He made so many of them.

Of course forests contribute to climate change - you pointless, vacuous wankers.

Offline redleafjumper

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 420
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 896
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #259 on: June 29, 2006, 15:52:28 »
When you buy second-hand, you are often buying other people's problems. 
Redleafjumper

"After all, courage of the lonely sort is surely the most glorious thing that we can hope to witness, and whether it is displayed upon our side or upon the other, one feels the better for having witnessed it."  Major H. Hesketh-Pritchard, DSO, MC in Sniping in France 1914-18, p. 113.

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,280
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #260 on: June 29, 2006, 19:36:55 »
What's the big deal, so what if they use it for spare parts right now?  The parts are right there!  So take them!

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

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

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

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

Offline cobbler

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 164
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #261 on: June 29, 2006, 23:22:25 »
When you buy second-hand, you are often buying other people's problems. 

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

Offline geo

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 26,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,643
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #262 on: June 30, 2006, 08:57:39 »
The Brits commissioned the ships between '90 & 93
and mothballed them in '93.
The "DEAL" with Canada was announced in '98.... so the ships were, by most standards "like new" BUT it would appear that some of the people involved in the mothball process didn't go about their tasks in "bristol" fashion.  If memory serves me right, think that one of the subs had it's ballast tanks filled with saltwater for the 5 years "on the beach".... not good.

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

Offline Armymatters

  • The Armchair General
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • -90
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 498
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #263 on: July 01, 2006, 01:03:24 »
I don't think second hand is the problem, what is the problem is the time spent sitting and collecting dust. About a decade of doing absolutely nothing will create these sorts of problems.

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

Offline ENGINEERS WIFE

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 334
  • Sarcasm......one of the services offered here.
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #264 on: July 30, 2009, 00:32:44 »
Submariners' health to be tracked over long-term
Updated Wed. Jul. 29 2009 5:54 PM ET

The Canadian Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



 
Support Our Troops!!! SOT

If I was getting smart with you, how would you know?

Common sense is not always common.

Beer: Helping white guys dance since 1867!

Stupid is not a crime, so you're free to go!

"Engineers think of how many lives they are saving, not of the one they risk."
MCpl Mark Isfeld

Offline Antoine

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 352
  • Achieving singularity and paradigm shifts
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #265 on: July 30, 2009, 21:54:17 »
I have a naive question:

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

Just wondering.

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

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

And also:

Submarine air Quality: Monitoring the air in submarines, National Academy press, Washington D.C. 1988
« Last Edit: July 31, 2009, 02:53:19 by Antoine »
The Future Is Coming Sooner Then You Think - 2007 U.S. Congress study by the Joint Economic Committee
The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom - Isaac Asimov
We risk continuing to fight a 21st-century conflict with 20th-century rules - John Reid, British secretary of state for defence
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity

Offline Navy_Blue

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 348
  • Dolphin Code "32"
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #266 on: August 05, 2009, 10:56:35 »
On a Diesel powered sub we get a lot of our air when we charge.  Most gets sucked in for the diesel the rest is ours.  When we are dived and if it’s a long time we monitor the atmosphere and if it gets to low we burn a O2 candle and turn on our C02 absorption unit.  If we have a fire or our air is contaminated and we can’t come back up for what ever reason we have emergency breathing masks.  Running out of air is really the least of our worries.

Kirk: "do you always estimate your repair times by a factor of four?" Scotty: "Aye sir how do you think I keep my reputation as a miracle worker."

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 175
HMCS Chicoutimi - current deployment
« Reply #267 on: December 22, 2017, 08:04:54 »
An update on her current deployment

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

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

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 161,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,751
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi - current deployment
« Reply #268 on: December 22, 2017, 11:22:32 »
I'd love to know if she managed to 'sink' their carrier during this exercise!

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

*Beret though - wedge is too thick and I only have 1 muskrat hat  :nod:
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 175
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi - current deployment
« Reply #269 on: December 22, 2017, 12:59:44 »
If they release any info like that to the media, I'll eat my hat*.

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

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

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,280
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi - current deployment
« Reply #270 on: December 22, 2017, 13:18:04 »
I don't think that we'd want to embarrass our Japanese ally if we did or ourselves if they managed to 'sink' us.....but I'm sure the story will be making the rumour mill once they are back home.

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






Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 127,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,940
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}
« Reply #271 on: December 22, 2017, 20:23:53 »
I suspect both sides tried their best to sink each other and learn from it, regardless of who got who.