Army.ca Forums

Navy.ca => Navy General => Topic started by: yoman on October 31, 2005, 22:03:51

Title: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: yoman on October 31, 2005, 22:03:51
A fire broke out today on HMCS Windsor off the coast of Halifax.

http://sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/10/31/chicoutimi-051031.html (http://sympatico.msn.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/10/31/chicoutimi-051031.html)

I wonder how much more controversy this is going to create. I hope nobody got hurt.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: Slim on October 31, 2005, 22:48:50
Lets hope it stays small and the media leave it alone.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: futuresoldier on October 31, 2005, 23:02:26
You've got that right. I remember right after the Chicoutami caught fire, i'll I heard was "the Canadian Military sucks!" and "why can't we afford good subs like the U.S.?" It caught a whole lot of media attention.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: Lost_Warrior on October 31, 2005, 23:14:41
Quote
You've got that right. I remember right after the Chicoutami caught fire, i'll I heard was "the Canadian Military sucks!" and "why can't we afford good subs like the U.S.?" It caught a whole lot of media attention.

That is exactly what we NEED.   Media attention on the $hitty stuff our government buys.  If enough people complain, b1tch and moan, the government will be pressured into getting us proper kit...

Not the death traps they bought off the UK...
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: Slim on October 31, 2005, 23:20:13
That is exactly what we NEED.     Media attention on the $hitty stuff our government buys.   If enough people complain, b1tch and moan, the government will be pressured into getting us proper kit...

Or they could suffer the same fate as the CAR and get sold off. Then Canada loses another military capability...
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: RecceDG on October 31, 2005, 23:26:39
Just made the National, although the report was pretty basic and short.

DG
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: Lost_Warrior on October 31, 2005, 23:40:18
Quote
Or they could suffer the same fate as the CAR and get sold off. Then Canada loses another military capability...

...or they can go they way of the Iltis and get replaced by something bigger and better...  ::)
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: geo on October 31, 2005, 23:55:15
Lost Warrior... you thinking for real?.... small ticket item VS big ticket item...

The CDS has a shopping list a mile long, already includes replacements for Destroyers, Frigates and the Supply vessels.... last thing in the world he'll want to hear about is Submarine!....

Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: Lost_Warrior on November 01, 2005, 00:00:25
So you advocate them "sliipping it under the rug"?

I disagree, but to each his own I guess.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: Fishbone Jones on November 01, 2005, 00:01:42
You've got that right. I remember right after the Chicoutami caught fire, i'll I heard was "the Canadian Military sucks!" and "why can't we afford good subs like the U.S.?" It caught a whole lot of media attention.


I think of this kind of thing as good press, why can't we? And why doesn't the Press "press" the issue until they get an answer?
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: DBA on November 01, 2005, 01:03:22
Without comparisons to the rates and types of small fires on other subs it's hard to tell if this indicates major or systemic defeciencies on the new subs. Equipment does occasionaly fail and the safety systems should be able to both put out the fire without major damage and exhaust any fumes in a timely manner. From the little information available it seems the safety procedures and systems worked and the fire was contained. Until we know the cause and how it relates to comparable rates of similar incidents on other subs I think it's more prudent to take a wait and see approach instead of passing judgement on the equipment.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: couchcommander on November 01, 2005, 01:52:29
I would hope that this goes away quickly. If the Liberals think these things are liable to keep causing them troubles (not the crew, pffft, bad press for the government), they are most likely going to quietly mothball them (not decommission, for the time being, just not send them out to sea, then forget to replace their crews when they start to leave, etc.).

I also hope no one was hurt (looks like everyone is ok so far...).
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: geo on November 01, 2005, 09:25:26
So you advocate them "sliipping it under the rug"?
I disagree, but to each his own I guess.
LW
that's not what I meant at all..... never said anything about slipping em under anything - they're too big and aren't that easy to hide.

I am thinking and talking in an entirely practical and financialy responsible manner... when the shopping list is soooo long and the cupboard ain't all that well stocked, decisions have to be made.... and buying a new fleet of subs isn't all that high on my list of priorities...
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: CFN. Orange on November 01, 2005, 09:51:31
Deffinatley my favourite line in the enitre article

"No sailors were injured and the Windsor remains at sea.

The vessel is the navy's only operational submarine."

When will they get smart and just buy something FIRST hand
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: armyguy62 on November 01, 2005, 10:52:34
That is exactly what we NEED.   Media attention on the $hitty stuff our government buys.  If enough people complain, b1tch and moan, the government will be pressured into getting us proper kit...

Frankly I don't think the majority of Canadians care (except those who are serving, have served, hope to serve or know someone in one of those categories). Most Canadians think the Canadian Armed Forces is strictly a "Peacekeeping" force. I have always advocated one approach to making the politicians take the military a little more seriously though... my experience when I was serving was that the vast majority of members voted in their home constituencies rather than in the community where they were posted. I strongly believe that if all serving members were to vote in the constituency of the base where they are posted you would see the politicians sit up and take notice. Very often the base provides the largest single employer in the area, but only the civilians vote locally, the majority of military members voting from BC to Nfld.  Politicians care about one thing and one thing only - VOTES. Maybe it is time that we start making those votes count.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: 3rd Horseman on November 01, 2005, 12:04:09
I'm dreaming of Marine Amphibious Assult ship..... escorted by 4 nuc subs..oh s#*t I thought the Conservatives won the election sorry moment of lost mind  :)
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: geo on November 01, 2005, 13:41:24
3rd.....
call me jaded but,. do you seriously think that the conservatives are going to do any better?....

As it stands right now, the CDS appears to be providing the Gov't with a shopping list of what he needs and in which order we should go about getting it.

If you leave it to politicians to decide & prioritize .... you're going to be one dissapointed dude IMHO
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: RecceDG on November 01, 2005, 14:03:00
Not to mention that the new Liberal doctrine "Responsibility to Protect" pretty much opens the floodgates to new military spending....

DG
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: geo on November 01, 2005, 14:08:20
Liberals, Conservatives, NDP & Block.... all the same, sigh.... all the same!
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: buckahed on November 01, 2005, 16:48:43
Now this is just getting stupid. Reporting an over heated control transformer as a fire?  The boat didn't even surface. This is just idiot PR people paranoid over being accused of a coverup.

As for the people who want us to buy "new, good kit"...    what, like the newest Seawolf class sub in the US navy, the USS Jimmy Carter?

The one that just put back into port to replace electronics shorted out from taking a shower down the conning tower?

http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2005/10/carter-departs-for-new-homeport-twice.html#comments

An accident " similar" to the Chicoutimi, as taking water down the conning tower is  a "common phonomenom" in the USN.

Check out the followup post comments, heck check out the entire blog and links for an idea what  submariners do for a living. It will give you an idea why submariners get hazardous duty pay on top of sea pay.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: daniel h. on November 01, 2005, 17:33:15
That is exactly what we NEED.     Media attention on the $hitty stuff our government buys.   If enough people complain, b1tch and moan, the government will be pressured into getting us proper kit...

Frankly I don't think the majority of Canadians care (except those who are serving, have served, hope to serve or know someone in one of those categories). Most Canadians think the Canadian Armed Forces is strictly a "Peacekeeping" force. I have always advocated one approach to making the politicians take the military a little more seriously though... my experience when I was serving was that the vast majority of members voted in their home constituencies rather than in the community where they were posted. I strongly believe that if all serving members were to vote in the constituency of the base where they are posted you would see the politicians sit up and take notice. Very often the base provides the largest single employer in the area, but only the civilians vote locally, the majority of military members voting from BC to Nfld.   Politicians care about one thing and one thing only - VOTES. Maybe it is time that we start making those votes count.


I don't know about these subs, but is there anything stopping CF members from forming a lobbying group or participating in political action? I know they defend the government but in a democracy can't they participate?
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: Slim on November 01, 2005, 17:42:45

I don't know about these subs, but is there anything stopping CF members from forming a lobbying group or participating in political action? I know they defend the government but in a democracy can't they participate?

Don't go there bubba

That's the best way to get rid of the CF that I can think of...Giving people the impression that the military cannot be controlled is NOT a good idea.

Not sure but I believe its also illegal...
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: Monsoon on November 01, 2005, 18:48:49
Now this is just getting stupid. Reporting an over heated control transformer as a fire?  The boat didn't even surface. This is just idiot PR people paranoid over being accused of a coverup.
Such is the glory of the Significant Incident Report - some hack in a newsroom can start drawing conclusions about a piece of incomplete information he heard about what's happened on a submarine before the Admiral is even aware anything has happened.  It's comical to think that there are people who think PAFOs try to control the media and spin stories; they can barely spin their own headlines.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: geo on November 01, 2005, 19:09:36
makes my head spin.....
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: daniel h. on November 01, 2005, 23:03:07
Don't go there bubba

That's the best way to get rid of the CF that I can think of...Giving people the impression that the military cannot be controlled is NOT a good idea.

Not sure but I believe its also illegal...

Thanks for the response. That simplifies things.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: cobbler on November 02, 2005, 00:43:35
Quote
I don't know about these subs, but is there anything stopping CF members from forming a lobbying group or participating in political action? I know they defend the government but in a democracy can't they participate?

By joining the Military you are forced to give up some freedoms in order to protect those of others.
Part of what seperates developed democracies from "less stable" nations is that our militaries do not participate in political debate or openly lend support to a political faction.
It is very often frustrating yes, and it means some of the requirments for national defence are neglected, but its how things are kept democratic.
The top officers should be able to make comment on the needs of the forces, of course, but members can not be openly allowed to speak out politically or things could get ugly. It has happened in other countries.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on November 02, 2005, 15:36:12
Quote
that's not what I meant at all..... never said anything about slipping em under anything - they're too big and aren't that easy to hide.

A sub is very easy to hide otherwise they would not be of much use...
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: geo on November 02, 2005, 17:21:54
(only if they are able to submerge......)
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: Lost_Warrior on November 02, 2005, 21:46:48
buckahed, do you have any news articles to back that stuff up other than a blog?   Not that I don't believe it, but I have seen people lie on blogs (I once read a MySpace blog of some guy *or kid for all I know* who claimed to be in the CF special forces, and used to talk about driving M1A2's and firing sniper rifles, and flying fighter jetss.  Unless there's an all-in-one MOC that I don't know about, this guy was full of it)

Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: 3rd Horseman on November 02, 2005, 22:27:51
Good advise while in the CF you cant get political (in public with a stand) but you are supposed to vote. On that note there is a diff between Lib, Conservative, NDP and Block. They may not give you all the money you need but one party gives more..Conservative.
 Now with that said don't be jaded when you get out join a party...oh please pick the right one, and get involved we the veterans can have a strong voice and lobby group once we retire by being political. I helped a young RCR officer just last year who ran for the nomination of the Conservative party in Fredericton. He came in 3rd of 6 candidates and did a fine job, he lost because his fellow soldiers did not join the party and come to vote for him at the nomination. You can join a party and go vote at the nomination meetings please do you may like what you get on voting day.

  When I got out of the CF I ran for the nomination of the Conservative party in Fundy myself, out of 5 candidates I came in 2nd losing by one single vote. I would be sitting in Ottawa today if another soldier had joined and gone to the convention and voted for me. Think how interesting these posts would be had they been comming from an Army.ca guy in Ottawa.
  Go out join a party and vote...
I'm still dreaming of Marine Amphibious Assault boats and Nuc subs......
 
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: geo on November 02, 2005, 22:32:33
sweet dreams!
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: couchcommander on November 03, 2005, 03:02:29
heh...

(time for a cheap shot...)

The Conservatives would be too busy giving tax breaks to oil companies to "lower the price of gas", and major coorporations "to increase productivity" to spend much more than the liberals have on Defence (and I highly doubt that your salary would rise enough to keep on par with the added cost of private insurance for recently delisted health care items).

(Serious about the cheap shot though, I am not making this up. These are actual conservative policies (maybe not publically stating they'd delist health care items, but Ralph did it here in Alberta, Campbell is doing it in BC (he's really blue at heart), Harris did it in Ontario.....*pattern recognition enabled*)
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: daniel h. on November 03, 2005, 03:20:01
heh...

(time for a cheap shot...)

The Conservatives would be too busy giving tax breaks to oil companies to "lower the price of gas", and major coorporations "to increase productivity" to spend much more than the liberals have on Defence (and I highly doubt that your salary would rise enough to keep on par with the added cost of private insurance for recently delisted health care items).

(Serious about the cheap shot though, I am not making this up. These are actual conservative policies (maybe not publically stating they'd delist health care items, but Ralph did it here in Alberta, Campbell is doing it in BC (he's really blue at heart), Harris did it in Ontario.....*pattern recognition enabled*)


Yup...another bunch of you know what...the scary thing is the Conservatives may be even worse than the Liberals.

The thing I can't get over is how people are convinced the majority of Albertans opposed the NEP because they hated Trudeau and think that "now we are getting the oil wealth". The truth is--foreign oil companies are getting our oil for nothing, as Ralph delists social programs that should be easily affordable in a boom like this.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: 3rd Horseman on November 03, 2005, 09:59:43
CouchComdr

    From your profile I see your a student, you views will change as you get into the work world. The Conservative policy you claim be hidden or not is not how the whole thing works. Reducing tax burdens or extra tax incentives to big oil do not have and cant have a correlation at the gas pump since gas is a commodity it trades at the world price not the oil company in Alberta or well head cost plus profit price. Delisting ahealth benefit at the provincial level is different than Fed politics and with out a specific case and a knowledge of why it was delinted if t all I cant comment.
   Remember the conservatives had a purchase in place for new helos the liberals cut them. A purchase of 4 nuc subs was in place the Liberals cut that. We still don't have the helos although we have bought a few stripped down versions of the same bird some 10 years later at twice the price.
  So I say get off the couch and get political, you get elected and make a difference or help some one to and get your ideas into Ottawa.
And For Daniel h.  I agree on your point about cutting social programs old Ralphy is doing that and we need a little more cutting of the fat if you ask me, I'm tired of paying my taxs to a welfare state.

Shot right back at you both
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: RecceDG on November 03, 2005, 10:27:13
The Liberals cutting the helo and sub programs had less to do with cost savings or screwing the military on purpose and more to do with screwing the patrons of Mulroney's Conservatives.

This happens every time we change governments - they screw the friends of their enemies and reward their own friends. This is independant of red, blue, or orange; it's how Canadian politics works.

The helo deal came back to bite the Grits in the *** because it was more than just Tory patronage - we really needed those choppers.

We now have a thing on the go where Gen Hillier is kicking *** and taking names, he has the PM on side, the PM is talking about new doctrine that requires us to step in to help failed states that can no longer protect thir own citizens, and we're talking about bypassing/shortening the equipment procurement process s we can get the badly neded kit faster.

I'm having MASSIVE deja vu to the "Challenge and Commitment" white paper that was trotted out in the late 80s. A bunch of folks paid a visit to CMR, we got a huge dog & pony show on the new frigates they wanted to build, with new helos, new subs, and they brought an ADATS prototype along too. Then the govenment changed, and the axe fell.

There is no doubt in my mind that if the Reform^H^H^HAlliance^H^H^HTories get in, that the axe will fall on "Responsibility to Protect" and everything that Hiller & the PM are trying to accomplish, and we will be back to square 1 YET AGAIN. Anything the other party was doing is de facto bad and must be cut - ostensibly to cut the pork barrel patronage, but really so they can screw the other guy's supporters.

In a sad, strange, twisted sort of way, a vote for Martin is a vote for Hillier and his plans going forward. Vote for anybody else, and you're pulling the rug out from under the CDS's feet.

DG
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: 3rd Horseman on November 03, 2005, 11:05:09
All very good points and I can agree with most it. The change of Gov will always effect past plans as you said but if you think the plan that Hillier has is good then get involved and ensurev your MP knows that you want it to remain the same. From my point of view as an Ex member and a candidate for the party Harper was very receptive to the needs of the CF. Had I been elected I know I would not stand for cutting programs that are good just to piss off the liberal pork, I would just fire the pork.

Good points you made I will relay them to the powers that be...owh the power of getting invovled.

Oh and please dont park your vote out of fear make an informed choice.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: RecceDG on November 03, 2005, 11:49:22
Just give a second to notionally remove my rank and uniform....

OK, just a citizen for the moment.

I'm REALLY not interested in getting into political debare here. There's enough polarity as it is, and... I work in the US. I find myself forced to spend a lot of time in the company of Americans. And Lord Tunderin' Jaysus you would not believe the level of personal acrimony a political discussion can generate. Feuds and vendettas get started that way.

But I think it is important that the messege get out there that being in the military does not automatically make you a Tory. There exist Liberal supporters in the CF.

I personally think that overall, the Grits have done a pretty good job running the country. Yeah, they cut a lot of military programmes, but as I mentioned earlier, that had more to do with the fact that power changed hands than any sort of anti-military bias. Yeah, they cut a lot of spending and social programmes, but the biggest enemy facing Canada in the 90's was the looming possibility of fiscal insolvency. The Grits solved that. Our economy is booming (being paid in US funds, I'm very much aware of the relative strengths of the US economy vice the Canadian economy, because it changes the value of my take-home pay) and the Grits had the wisdom to use those big surplusses they created to pay down the national debt. The more we reduce the cost of servicing the debt, the less likely we are to wind up bankrupted if the ecomomy slows, and the more money becomes availible to (for example) buy the Army goodies.

Ultimately, I think the Grits' financial policies saved this country - look at the US economy. There but for the grace of God go we.

I also really like that when it comes to military decisions, the Grits think like Canadians and not just American puppets. I *like* that we are in Afganistan. I *like* that we are not in Iraq. I *like* that we aren't chained to that missile defense system.

And I *really really like* "Responsibility to Protect" and that the Grits are letting the CDS run amok the way his is, instead of muzzling him. I get the feeling that some sort of Grit/military  corner has been turned, that the days of Trudeau (who was afraid the military wanted to take over, I swear to God) are over, and that the Grits now understand their responsibility to create and maintain a strong Canadian military.

Lord knows they haven't been perfect angels, but I think that the public peepee slapping they've been getting recently (a minority government and Gomery) serves to keep them honest.... or at least, to limit how outrageous the dishonesty gets.

And Harper.... I don't trust the man AT ALL. I think he'll say whatever it takes to get elected, and once he does, the mask comes off and whatever is really in there comes out. I don't for a second think that he'd carry on with "responsibility to protect", I think he'd cut the CDS off at the knees, and I think he'd outsource all our military planning to Washington. I, for one, am a CANADIAN soldier first and foremost. I work for the Queen and for my fellow Canadians, not Georgie Bush.

So anyway, I don't think it is any way disloyal to the military to support the Grits, and these days, my honest opinion is that our fortunes are better served with the Grits than with anybody else.

Y'all are free to disagree, and if you do, I won't argue.

DG
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: 3rd Horseman on November 03, 2005, 12:09:14
Well said  the jist of the comments I was making was get involved and vote. For who is not the issue although I would prefer you vote for me. That said the Lib did not pay down the debt with the surplus they stole from us as tax payers. The debt relief and surplus came from Tory policy that the Libs used as a windfall. Remeber it takes 10 years for a policy to generate subtance on the national seen so go back 10 years and find out who don it. As for this current Gov we will see as there policies started to come to full visability today forward.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: geo on November 03, 2005, 13:03:38
ayup...
the problem with any party coming to the top after an election that throws out someone else is..... (drumroll) that they will stop everything & look at everything before returning to the business of running the country....
At least thats how it appears to my poor little eyes.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: daniel h. on November 03, 2005, 13:42:29
And For Daniel h.   I agree on your point about cutting social programs old Ralphy is doing that and we need a little more cutting of the fat if you ask me, I'm tired of paying my taxs to a welfare state.

Shot right back at you both


I'm not surprised by this individualist attitude, but it is silly in practice because if Ralphie the corporate lackie were charging oil companies ROYALTIES and if the feds were forcing the biggest corporations to pay more than their usual 0% (with loopholes) to at most 28 or 29%, then YOU would not be paying so much.

Nobody is asking you to pay for social programs with increased taxes--corporations used to pay about 50% of the taxes in Canada, now they pay under 10% of Canada's taxes. THAT is why people like yourself are overtaxed.

Also, our government is not forced to borrown money at prime interest rates, but they do. This interest eats up our surplus and a quarter of our budget every year. Debt payments are another reason you are overtaxed.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: daniel h. on November 03, 2005, 13:47:45
Just give a second to notionally remove my rank and uniform....

OK, just a citizen for the moment.

I'm REALLY not interested in getting into political debare here. There's enough polarity as it is, and... I work in the US. I find myself forced to spend a lot of time in the company of Americans. And Lord Tunderin' Jaysus you would not believe the level of personal acrimony a political discussion can generate. Feuds and vendettas get started that way.

But I think it is important that the messege get out there that being in the military does not automatically make you a Tory. There exist Liberal supporters in the CF.

I personally think that overall, the Grits have done a pretty good job running the country. Yeah, they cut a lot of military programmes, but as I mentioned earlier, that had more to do with the fact that power changed hands than any sort of anti-military bias. Yeah, they cut a lot of spending and social programmes, but the biggest enemy facing Canada in the 90's was the looming possibility of fiscal insolvency. The Grits solved that. Our economy is booming (being paid in US funds, I'm very much aware of the relative strengths of the US economy vice the Canadian economy, because it changes the value of my take-home pay) and the Grits had the wisdom to use those big surplusses they created to pay down the national debt. The more we reduce the cost of servicing the debt, the less likely we are to wind up bankrupted if the ecomomy slows, and the more money becomes availible to (for example) buy the Army goodies.

Ultimately, I think the Grits' financial policies saved this country - look at the US economy. There but for the grace of God go we.

I also really like that when it comes to military decisions, the Grits think like Canadians and not just American puppets. I *like* that we are in Afganistan. I *like* that we are not in Iraq. I *like* that we aren't chained to that missile defense system.

And I *really really like* "Responsibility to Protect" and that the Grits are letting the CDS run amok the way his is, instead of muzzling him. I get the feeling that some sort of Grit/military   corner has been turned, that the days of Trudeau (who was afraid the military wanted to take over, I swear to God) are over, and that the Grits now understand their responsibility to create and maintain a strong Canadian military.

Lord knows they haven't been perfect angels, but I think that the public peepee slapping they've been getting recently (a minority government and Gomery) serves to keep them honest.... or at least, to limit how outrageous the dishonesty gets.

And Harper.... I don't trust the man AT ALL. I think he'll say whatever it takes to get elected, and once he does, the mask comes off and whatever is really in there comes out. I don't for a second think that he'd carry on with "responsibility to protect", I think he'd cut the CDS off at the knees, and I think he'd outsource all our military planning to Washington. I, for one, am a CANADIAN soldier first and foremost. I work for the Queen and for my fellow Canadians, not Georgie Bush.

So anyway, I don't think it is any way disloyal to the military to support the Grits, and these days, my honest opinion is that our fortunes are better served with the Grits than with anybody else.

Y'all are free to disagree, and if you do, I won't argue.

DG


I agree with your opinions that we should be working for the Queen and not automatically support U.S. adventures, but I strongly disagree about the Liberal Party. They are corrupt, have no vision, and have to resort to upping the number of immigrants they take in just to stay in power due to the immigrants voting Liberal.

The Liberals have gutted our social programs to pay the banks with debt-servicing in the form of interest and corporate tax cuts for the biggest coroporations at the expense of small business, they have gutted our military, they have angered Quebec to the point of separation, they have allowed our infrastructure to go down the tubes.

They also have no vision for Canada--unless making  Canadian taxpayers pay for refugee to live in subsidized housing is a vision for Canada. I'm not saying the other parties are better--but the Liberals are embarassing.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: 3rd Horseman on November 03, 2005, 14:57:28
DH you appear to blast me but then in your last post agree with me, as you have no profile I cant tell what your background is to have your opinion. All that said I want a nuc sub. Not to say the current lot we bought are not fine they are british and if youve ever tried to fix a brit piece of eqpt you know it aint easy.
It would appear the news on this has died down.
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: daniel h. on November 03, 2005, 16:02:27
DH you appear to blast me but then in your last post agree with me, as you have no profile I cant tell what your background is to have your opinion. All that said I want a nuc sub. Not to say the current lot we bought are not fine they are british and if youve ever tried to fix a brit piece of eqpt you know it aint easy.
It would appear the news on this has died down.


I didn't mean to blast anyone, I agree the average person is WAY overtaxed, I just think there are other ways to find the money without eliminating our services and infrastructure. I hate the Liberals but would probably hate the others just as much.

I am an amature, not a memeber of the CF--that's why I didn't give myself a title.

Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: couchcommander on November 03, 2005, 18:01:00
CouchComdr

      From your profile I see your a student, you views will change as you get into the work world. The Conservative policy you claim be hidden or not is not how the whole thing works. Reducing tax burdens or extra tax incentives to big oil do not have and cant have a correlation at the gas pump since gas is a commodity it trades at the world price not the oil company in Alberta or well head cost plus profit price. Delisting ahealth benefit at the provincial level is different than Fed politics and with out a specific case and a knowledge of why it was delinted if t all I cant comment.
     Remember the conservatives had a purchase in place for new helos the liberals cut them. A purchase of 4 nuc subs was in place the Liberals cut that. We still don't have the helos although we have bought a few stripped down versions of the same bird some 10 years later at twice the price.
   So I say get off the couch and get political, you get elected and make a difference or help some one to and get your ideas into Ottawa.
And For Daniel h.   I agree on your point about cutting social programs old Ralphy is doing that and we need a little more cutting of the fat if you ask me, I'm tired of paying my taxs to a welfare state.

Shot right back at you both

Hey 3rd Horseman,

Your point about the gas prices was exactly correct. That is why I was pointing out that the consertives plan to cut taxes for oil companies has no real basis.

Yes you are right delisting health services is a provincial responsibility, but the enforcement of the Health Care Act is a federal responsbility, and passed experience tells me that a conservative government would not be so quick to ensure that it's tennants are followed (ie vital services don't start becoming delisted).

The helo thing has been already taken care of.

And re: the enter the workforce, I've actually been running my own IT Consulting biz on the side as a part time job since I was 16, I'm a certified tech.

re: get political... I'm actually a member of federal and provincial parties (bet you can't guess which one?), and I speak with the canidates in my area as well as my MP if I have issues I want address (as I mentioned in another thread, just two weeks ago I had one of the Liberal canidates over for drinks and pressed him on the need for increased defence spending).
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: geo on November 03, 2005, 22:10:40
S/B talking submarines here guys...................
Title: Re: 2nd fire on a Canadian submarine
Post by: couchcommander on November 04, 2005, 02:15:38
sorry.

They sure do look kewl, eh?

More seriously, are there any estimates for repair times out yet?

Title: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: Crown-Loyal on October 10, 2006, 14:16:44
Hello navy guys,

 I was watching CBC The National last night and the host ( peter was away ) showed a clip of another CBC guy aboard HMCS Windsor and showed what he called paratroopers on board with him. They said that special segment was coming on the National soon, but wouldn't say when. I scoured the CBC website but found nothing. I DO NOT want to miss that, it looks very interesting indeed, so if you hear anything please post or PM me.

  And it wouldn't be a post without a more navy related questions....sooo... what do you guys think about letting a reporter on a sub, which is obviously training for "special insertion" with special forces? I think it is neat to see, but should it be shown?
Title: Re: CBC guy Aboard HMCS Windsor
Post by: Journeyman on October 10, 2006, 14:23:30
It's not OPSEC. Pathfinders have practiced submarine insertion in the past, and now that submarines are periodically available again, it's just another skill set to practice. In this case, the Pathfinders parachuted TO the Windsor during an exercise this August.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/6_1_1.asp?id=1205
Title: Re: CBC guy Aboard HMCS Windsor
Post by: Crown-Loyal on October 10, 2006, 16:30:47
Thats an interesting article. The clip on TV made it seem like the sub was cruising around with these troops. It showed the soldiers loading their weapons so I figured they were going to go insert them somewhere. But that article makes it less intense. So the purpose of this would be to train to drop pathfinders from a plane into hostile territory then once they have completed the mission they swim out to the ocean where they get picked up by a sub?  Because what good would it be to drop troops by plane into the ocean to be picked up by sub? would it be to THEN take the troops and insert them somewhere quietly. Just curious.
Title: Re: CBC guy Aboard HMCS Windsor
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 10, 2006, 19:00:07
Do you know how hard it is to detect a sub? Thats your answer....
Title: Re: CBC guy Aboard HMCS Windsor
Post by: 17thRecceSgt on October 10, 2006, 19:23:28
Do you know how hard it is to detect a sub? Thats your answer....

Hey Jonesy from "The Hunt For Read October" was pretty good at it...that was real wasn't it?  ;D
Title: Re: CBC guy Aboard HMCS Windsor
Post by: Journeyman on October 10, 2006, 20:51:40
Just curious.
Pathfinders have the skill sets to deploy from submarines, and to be recovered by submarines. Details? Scenarios? They're very high-speed. Just know that good, high-speed  troops have a mindset to do what needs doin'

Title: Re: CBC guy Aboard HMCS Windsor
Post by: warspite on October 10, 2006, 21:17:34
I was watching CBC The National last night and the host ( peter was away ) showed a clip of another CBC guy aboard HMCS Windsor and showed what he called paratroopers on board with him. They said that special segment was coming on the National soon, but wouldn't say when. I scoured the CBC website but found nothing. I DO NOT want to miss that, it looks very interesting indeed, so if you hear anything please post or PM me. 
Great now I have to devote part of my night to watching the national until this is shown ;D
Title: Re: CBC guy Aboard HMCS Windsor
Post by: Ex-Dragoon on October 11, 2006, 12:24:50
Hey Jonesy from "The Hunt For Read October" was pretty good at it...that was real wasn't it?  ;D

Oh we are so funny..... ::)
Title: Re: CBC guy Aboard HMCS Windsor
Post by: Crown-Loyal on October 12, 2006, 00:31:08
It was shown tonight. Pretty cool little segment. I'll be sure to send my application to the navy very soon :o   ahh the power of tv over a youths mind......
Title: Re: CBC guy Aboard HMCS Windsor
Post by: 17thRecceSgt on October 12, 2006, 00:36:26
It was shown tonight. Pretty cool little segment. I'll be sure to send my application to the navy very soon :o   ahh the power of tv over a youths mind......

Then hour plan is verking....
Title: Re: CBC guy Aboard HMCS Windsor
Post by: Crown-Loyal on October 12, 2006, 14:13:34
good accent  ;D
Title: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: GRACE OMALLEY on February 19, 2016, 19:04:08
HMCS Windsor's return to Halifax has been delayed due to a battery cell malfunction, a spokesman from Maritime Forces Atlantic said Friday.

On Monday, crew members discovered a battery cell on the submarine had started to spread discharge to another cell, Capt. Cameron Hillier said. The batteries help propel the vessel.

"It was quickly isolated and contained," Hillier said.

"There was no fire or anything like that. Essentially, the issue was identified and immediately isolated."

'Minor mechanical incident

Link to full article:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/hmcs-windsor-battery-1.3456176
Title: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 02, 2016, 08:28:57
The Halifax Chronicle Herald have a short video onboard HMCS Windsor at sea.  They interview two of the crew and it will give you a small taste of the Submariner lifestyle.  It's like the old Keith's IPA slogan, "those that like it, like it a lot".

Story and video (http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1369058-video-diesel-gets-in-your-blood-submariners-a-rare-breed-in-canadian-forces)
Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: mariomike on June 02, 2016, 08:48:46
Thanks for posting JJT.

When I was a little kid, a neighbour who was in the Navy told us he slept in the torpedo tubes!  :)
Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 02, 2016, 09:06:08
Very nice JJT.

One small correction to the article. Unless things have changed drastically (and I doubt it), no one goes down on a submarine unless they volunteer for it: So it's not a majority but all of the crew that is volunteers.

And diesel gets into more than just your blood: It get's everywhere. On Ojibwa, a friend of mine (British exchange officer) tried the following experiment on a three weeks deployment: On the jetty, he took out a clean submariner sweater (turtle neck thick woven cotton), wrapped it in heavy plastic, then immersed the sweater into a bucket of clean water, sealed the bucket and it was taken to sea for the duration. When they came back, they unwrapped the sweater on the jetty, and Lo and Behold!  It smelled of diesel.  ;D
Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: Lumber on June 02, 2016, 09:28:10
Very nice JJT.

One small correction to the article. Unless things have changed drastically (and I doubt it), no one goes down on a submarine unless they volunteer for it: So it's not a majority but all of the crew that is volunteers.

Things certainly have changed OGBD, at least for Officers. About the time I was wrapping up my tour as the AWWO (all 9 months of it), the subbies around the fleet who had just passed their boards were being pressed into the submarine service. Basically, if the course for the D-level you wanted was full, they weren't letting you just consolidate for 6 months until the next course started, they sent you off to be a submariner. I can't say for certain, but I think 5 of the 6 Officers on the BSQ that started about the time I left had NOT volunteer to be on that course.

Even more scary, and I can't confirm this as truth, just a rumour, but apparently they were so desperate for Submariner officers that the students on the AWWD and UWWD were told "if you fail, you don't get a second shot at this course, you're going Subs...".
Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 02, 2016, 10:02:46
Well Lumber, that is a sad state of affairs.

However, telling people on D-level to pass or else you're going sub is something that's been around forever - but to my knowledge never carried trough.

To me it would not be a threat ... but a treat  :nod:
Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: Dolphin_Hunter on June 02, 2016, 10:31:33
I loved my sub time.  I have nothing negative to say about my experiences as a submariner.

I'd probably still be there had there not been the hiatus after the Chicoutimi incident.    A posting ashore just wasn't challenging enough, so I made the jump to the RCAF. 



Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: Lumber on June 02, 2016, 10:50:52
I loved my sub time.  I have nothing negative to say about my experiences as a submariner.

I'd probably still be there had there not been the hiatus after the Chicoutimi incident.    A posting ashore just wasn't challenging enough, so I made the jump to the RCAF.

And now you hunt the subs...
Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 02, 2016, 10:54:07
Very nice JJT.

One small correction to the article. Unless things have changed drastically (and I doubt it), no one goes down on a submarine unless they volunteer for it: So it's not a majority but all of the crew that is volunteers.

And diesel gets into more than just your blood: It get's everywhere. On Ojibwa, a friend of mine (British exchange officer) tried the following experiment on a three weeks deployment: On the jetty, he took out a clean submariner sweater (turtle neck thick woven cotton), wrapped it in heavy plastic, then immersed the sweater into a bucket of clean water, sealed the bucket and it was taken to sea for the duration. When they came back, they unwrapped the sweater on the jetty, and Lo and Behold!  It smelled of diesel.  ;D

When I was having my tour on VIC in April, I was being conducted around by the Fire King, who was more or less sent there because as a Stoker his platforms were gone and he had already done his CPF time.  They wanted to round him out, so off he went.  I also know of ETs that were sent in that direction as well as there was a need and a poor response for volunteers.  But yes, most of the gang are volunteers.

Back when I was a meathead, I was asked to pick up a young OD off one of the O Boats who had been flown into Shearwater by SeaKing for a family emergency and needed transport.  They had only been out for 4-5 days, but my unholy god, the stench coming off him.  I had all the windows rolled down and it still made me gag.  Sweat, diesel, food and some other unmentionable smells were appalling.  I apologized for gagging but he said he understood. 

Later as a Tanker HT I was used to being all diesel smelling as I was the fuel custodian and was playing in it all week long.  Diesel's not too bad and you get used to it, but the rest they put up with.  No, no, no...
Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 02, 2016, 11:31:28
I protest ... Submariners are not smelly ... well, at least not to one another after a couple of hours  [:D.

First hour back home routine: A long shower. First wash: soft dishwasher soap (you know, the one you manicured your fingers in  :nod:) followed by a long soaping with Irish Spring or Zest! Then triple dose of Head & Shoulders.  After that, my wife would agree to talk to me, but I still had to do my own laundry.  ;D
Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: Colin P on June 02, 2016, 14:51:15
Did she set up  a tent, wading pool, sprinkler on the lawn and make you go through a decontamination routine?

We had a Chief on the R class who served on the subs both the O boats and predecessors. He lived on hotdogs and buttermilk and never ate in the mess, nice guy, odd duck.
Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: Nuggs on June 02, 2016, 19:41:14
Most are still volunteers, there has been some volunteers recently, MARS and Tech stokers

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: mariomike on June 02, 2016, 19:48:47
I protest ... Submariners are not smelly ... well, at least not to one another after a couple of hours  [:D.

First hour back home routine: A long shower. First wash: soft dishwasher soap (you know, the one you manicured your fingers in  :nod:) followed by a long soaping with Irish Spring or Zest! Then triple dose of Head & Shoulders.  After that, my wife would agree to talk to me, but I still had to do my own laundry.  ;D

I read that U-Boat crews wore black underwear. 
https://www.google.ca/search?q=black+underwear+u-boats&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=0LZQV9S8OeyM8Qe914nIDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=%22black+underwear%22+u-boats

Time to re-wind Das Boot!
Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 03, 2016, 13:39:33
I guess it is important to distinguish between vapours from unburned diesel oil and the composition of burned diesel and diesel exhaust. Both have some health consequences under prolonged exposure. I am curious if occasional blood testing is performed on submariners for various hydrocarbon toxins, and I am thinking of submariners specifically and not other operators of diesel equipment since submariners are exposed to vapours in a pressurized "tube" for prolonged periods of time?
Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 03, 2016, 13:56:08
I have never heard of submariners being screened for exposure to diesel oil or fumes; exposure to radiation if you are on a nuke boat, sure, but for diesel? Never.
Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 03, 2016, 14:00:18
I read that U-Boat crews wore black underwear. 
https://www.google.ca/search?q=black+underwear+u-boats&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=0LZQV9S8OeyM8Qe914nIDQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=%22black+underwear%22+u-boats

Time to re-wind Das Boot!

I understand that submariners only wear black underwear when it's lacy.
Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 03, 2016, 14:19:33
I have never heard of submariners being screened for exposure to diesel oil or fumes; exposure to radiation if you are on a nuke boat, sure, but for diesel? Never.
Me either, I was just raising the question. I do know there are very good air filtration systems on board.   
Title: Re: Diesel get's in your blood, what it's like on a Submarine
Post by: Dimsum on June 03, 2016, 14:27:42
I understand that submariners only wear black underwear when it's lacy.

 :boke:
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: milnews.ca on June 06, 2016, 05:41:15
And back she comes (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/hmcs-windsor-supercharger-halifax-repairs-1.3617052) ...
Quote
For the second time in four months, HMCS Windsor is heading back to Halifax so crews can find out what went wrong with the sub.

The latest issue arose on Friday when the supercharger on one of its two generators broke — possibly delaying the submarine's participation in a NATO exercise in Norway this month.

Early Friday morning the sub picked up and dropped off personnel in St. John's, said Capt. Jamie Clarke, commander of Canada's submarine fleet.

The crew started the sub's diesel generators, but one of them shut off without warning. They tried again and the problem persisted ...
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: Lumber on June 06, 2016, 09:08:48
At this point I can't tell if we really did get a crap deal on these subs, or if we are just really bad at submarine maintenance...
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 06, 2016, 09:24:26
After my time at FMF, I am of the opinion that we got a bum deal.
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 06, 2016, 09:28:03
Or neither of these things.

Superchargers crap out. It happens, even with brand new ones some times.

I remember a NATO ex where the steamers had to replace four turbo's between the three of them. Two of them were brand new.
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: Underway on June 08, 2016, 11:15:51
At this point I can't tell if we really did get a crap deal on these subs, or if we are just really bad at submarine maintenance...

More likely every little niggling thing that goes wrong with the subs gets reported as it feeds the narrative.  Don't see much about the consistent problems that other platforms are known for.  If a sub dives the press are likely to report it as sinking at this point.  Hence the new media blitz to save the sub force.
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: milnews.ca on June 13, 2016, 07:35:17
On her way back to the NATO ex (https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/06/12/hmcs-windsor-back-at-sea-after-engine-woes.html) ...
Quote
The Canadian sub HMCS Windsor is back at sea following engine repairs and navy commanders are confident the maintenance woes won’t imperil its participation in NATO exercises later this month.

The sub had embarked on its trans Atlantic crossing just over a week ago when problems with an engine supercharger forced a return to port in Halifax for repairs.

Rear-Adm. John Newton, commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic, praised maintenance crews for the quick turnaround and said the cause of the supercharger failure remains under investigation.

“It is not like other failure modes we have witnessed over the years,” Newton told the Star in an email Sunday.

But he said in the repair and engine trials, crews took a “hard look” at related equipment to assure themselves that there were not other problems with the sub before heading back to sea ...
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: Old Sweat on June 13, 2016, 07:43:52
And she has been doing other "things" as well, as this story from The Toronto Star reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act indicates:

Submarines and special forces soldiers are front line in stealthy warfare
A daring parachute drop last fall by Canadian special forces soldiers underscored their growing relationship with submarines.


By BRUCE CAMPION-SMITHOttawa Bureau
Sun., June 12, 2016

OTTAWA—Far off the coast of Portugal, the Canadian special forces soldiers vaulted themselves out the back of a military Hercules transport plane with nothing but empty ocean below.

Well beyond swimming distance to the coast, it seemed like an act of dangerous derring-do, even for special forces soldiers.

But as the troops descended under their parachute canopies, a black mass broke the ocean surface — the Canadian submarine HMCS Windsor — for a carefully choreographed ocean rendezvous.

The soldiers clambered on board the sub, down the hatch and boat sank back below the waves.

“It takes a lot of courage to jump out the back of an airplane when all you see is water around you and just trust that something will pop up. It was pretty amazing,” Maj-Gen. Mike Rouleau, commander of Canadian Special Operations Forces Command said in interview.

“The submarine offers a really useful tool to be able to insert or extract from,” Rouleau said.

Indeed, with its new passengers on board, the submarine moved closer to the coastline, unseen below the waves. It surfaced again and the soldiers broke out their specialized gear — fast boats and outboard motors — that had been carried onboard the sub from Canada in a watertight compartment below its main deck.

“My job is to get them on target. They just drop into the big blue ocean and trust that we are nearby,” Rear-Adm. John Newton, commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic, told the Star.

This training happened last fall during an extended mission by HMCS Windsor in European waters, where the sub participated in a number of exercises with allied nations. While the military said publicly that those drills also involved working with the special forces soldiers, the exact details were never released.

Yet the daring parachute drop out of the Canadian C-130J Hercules highlights the growing relationship between the two shadowy elements of Canada’s military — special forces and the submarine fleet.

More and more, Canada’s four submarines are exercising with special forces soldiers — at least when the subs can be put to sea. Currently, only HMCS Windsor is available for operations and in recent days it has been sidelined in port with engine troubles.

“We’re operating a lot with the SOF (special operations forces). We really like working with them. It’s one of the coolest things we do ... That’s movie stuff,” said Lt.-Cmdr. Peter Chu, commander of HMCS Windsor.

Indeed, when French special forces found out about the exercise they too wanted to train with the sub though that didn’t happen because of scheduling challenges, Chu said.

Special forces soldiers are at the forefront of changing warfare, from large-scale confrontations to small teams training local militaries to conduct missions or carrying out those missions themselves.

Newton says there are natural synergies between sub crews and special forces troops — the stealthy aspect of their missions, working in the shadows.

“They are ... built for each other in how they think and act,” Newton told the Star.

Both Newton and Rouleau were on hand when trials were done earlier last year off the coast of Nova Scotia. Rough seas made getting onboard the submarine a challenge for the 10 soldiers who dropped into the water that time.

“Swimming onboard a submarine sounds fun. It’s anything but,” Newton said.

But they learned lessons from that experience — like flooding the sub more so the stern sat lower in the water, making it easier to get onboard.

Special forces soldiers have been working with the navy to hone their capabilities for maritime events such as ship hijackings, combating pirates, covert insert and extraction from coastal locations, intelligence and surveillance.

Canada’s special forces units have two dedicated depots — one on each coast — that store equipment and are equipped with briefing rooms and communications suites to serve as a hub in the event of a maritime emergency.

In return, the navy has tapped the expertise of special forces troops, notably to help train new so-called “enhanced boarding parties.” These teams of sailors are specially trained to tackle situations with greater risk than might confront a conventional boarding party. The 10-person teams will be deployed on ships bound for risky areas.

Special ops soldiers also advised the navy in the purchase of new fast boats for those boarding teams.
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: milnews.ca on June 13, 2016, 07:49:33
Yeah, funny how stories from last fall are starting to seep out during the Defence Review ...
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: Underway on June 13, 2016, 09:31:24
Yeah, funny how stories from last fall are starting to seep out during the Defence Review ...

It's like the military decided that Canadians actually need to know what we are doing  :nod:.  I always thought that we were overly secretive with regards to these capabilities and could do better advertising. 
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: Old Sweat on June 13, 2016, 10:01:36
And the airborne regiment recce platoon and FOO parties (-) from the airborne battery were inserting from a West Coast submarine as early as circa 1969 or 1970. I believe they embarked before sailing, at least originally.
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 13, 2016, 10:39:33
I remember watching the Pathfinders exercise with WIN from the deck of PRE in 06.  Was an interesting show. 

Link/material removed in accordance with site policy (http://army.ca/forums/index.php?topic=99046.0). -- Milnet.ca Staff


Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 13, 2016, 10:49:44
I think you are thinking of an urban legend, Old Sweat.

First of all, inserting one or two spies/special operatives/agents by submarines goes back to WWII, but the idea of inserting rather larger numbers of special forces and loading their equipment on a submarine is rather much more recent idea, which occurred only when nuclear boats made the room required available.

HMCS GRILSE and HMCS RAINBOW were very small submarines. There would not have been enough room onboard for more than a couple of "visitors" and absolutely nowhere near room for a platoon of people. Moreover, there was absolutely no room onboard for any of these peoples equipment or for boats to carry them ashore.

In fact we would have been hard pressed to carry more than four or five extra people and their equipment - if they travelled light - on the "O" boats.

The Victoria class boats are not only roomier, have a smaller crew, but were designed with the possibility of landing special forces in mind to start with.
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: Old Sweat on June 13, 2016, 11:13:59
I think you are thinking of an urban legend, Old Sweat.

First of all, inserting one or two spies/special operatives/agents by submarines goes back to WWII, but the idea of inserting rather larger numbers of special forces and loading their equipment on a submarine is rather much more recent idea, which occurred only when nuclear boats made the room required available.

HMCS GRILSE and HMCS RAINBOW were very small submarines. There would not have been enough room onboard for more than a couple of "visitors" and absolutely nowhere near room for a platoon of people. Moreover, there was absolutely no room onboard for any of these peoples equipment or for boats to carry them ashore.

In fact we would have been hard pressed to carry more than four or five extra people and their equipment - if they travelled light - on the "O" boats.

The Victoria class boats are not only roomier, have a smaller crew, but were designed with the possibility of landing special forces in mind to start with.
Actually I saw a clip of it in a DND film at CFHQ in circa 1972 and recently have also interviewed an individual who did it onto Vancouver Island at the time for the airborne gunner history. Agreed that it was only done to land a very small number of troops because of the size of the submarines. Sorry for the impression that the complete platoon landed.
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 13, 2016, 11:24:32
OK.

A few soldiers (say 3 to 5 max.) makes sense. Even then, I hope none of them suffered from claustrophobia  ;D.
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: milnews.ca on June 13, 2016, 11:26:11
It's like the military decided that Canadians actually need to know what we are doing  :nod:.
Or their bosses have stopped keeping them from saying so ...
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: Colin P on June 13, 2016, 11:37:40
Only the bad news was getting out, so holding back was clearly shooting themselves in the foot. Some people are going to say that it's propaganda, but as long as both the good and bad comes out, then it's balanced. When it comes to explaining bang for the buck to Canadians, the military has generally failed in that mission.
Title: Re: All Things HMCS Windsor (merged)
Post by: PuckChaser on June 13, 2016, 13:41:22
Or their bosses have stopped keeping them from saying so ...
I don't think it's that way. Squeaky wheel gets the grease. Afghan is over, daily stories about the CAF stopped. Likely led to less public backlash over cuts. The more we can push to the media, especially "sexy" but usually classified stuff like SOF and subs, gets to keep the CAF writ-large in the public eye.