HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}

[geo]

read in the paper today that some Cdn ships are heading south for Spring break and some ASW fleet training with the US.
3 Frigates: HMCS Montreal, Ville de Quebec and.....?
1 sp ship:  HMCS Preserver
& 1 sub:    HMCS Victoria (balance are reportedly "on the beach")

 

[SeaKingTacco]

& 1 sub:    HMCS Victoria (balance are reportedly "on the beach")

You mean HMCS WINDSOR, right? HMCS VICTORIA is based in Esquimalt.

 

[Armymatters]

What is the source of your information?

I linked it to the DND report. It states the progress of the Submarine Capability Life Extension as of the end of March 2005, which also gives the status of the various ships.

 

[geo]

Uhhh.... don't think so SKT,
the article said something about the other 3 upholders being NS
guess that would suggest that someone is going on a long cruise

 

[Melbatoast]

If I remember correctly, the status are as follows:
HMCS Victoria (SSK 876): Partially operational, as she put to sea a while back in May of 2005, so I suspect all is ok with her, now.

Victoria is currently sitting in the ditch in Esquimalt Dockyard still on this side of a 72 week docking work period.  She's not going anywhere for a while.  She's a learning case for west coast Canadian dockyard workers, which is why it's going to be such a long period.

Word is either Cornerbrook or Windsor is going to RIMPAC this year (I don't remember which).  That would be some trip.

 

[geo]

Xpensive training aid MBT...

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/24/lead-submarine060224.html

Lead contamination found on military sub
Last Updated Fri, 24 Feb 2006 13:17:40 EST
CBC News
Repairs on one of the used submarines Canada bought from Britain have been suspended after unacceptable levels of lead contamination were detected. 
Navy officials say the contamination, detected in the officers' mess, may be from lead ingots in a ballast tank. They say they'll remove the lead as soon as possible.
In the meantime, the area has been quarantined.

As many as 75 people have been working on the sub on any given day, but officials say they don't believe anyone has suffered lead poisoning.
The 12-year-old submarine is one of four decommissioned Upholder class submarines purchased from Britain six years ago. It arrived at CFB Esquimalt three years after that.

The sub has been at sea for just over 100 days in the past five years because of a series of problems that led to Victoria being sent to drydock.
One of its sister subs, HMCS Chicoutimi, caught on fire in 2004 after leaving Britain, bound for Canada. A sailor died from the effects of smoke inhalation.
Eventually the submarine was sealifted to Canada aboard a Norwegian surface vessel.
The navy has now issued a warning about the lead contamination to those working aboard the other three subs.

Only one of the four is in good enough condition to go to sea.

 

[WCST]

First off, if you buy a lemon, expect lemonade.

The lead they found was no big deal. It's not like the tables are made out of lead or anything. They're OLD subs, and with old equipment comes cross-contamination from years of going from point A to point B without washing hands.

What I can't believe is the government buying subs they were TOLD over and over again were no good. I have a strong feeling that it was someone at HQ wanting to make their final PER a good one who rammed through the purchase.

Subs, choppers (bought, dropped and still paid for, then repurchased), ships, clothing... I see it happen all the time. When will the people who write the cheques realize that you get what you pay for? Murphy's Law of Combat Operations #4 clearly states: Your equipment was made by the lowest bidder. Why can't that be changed to Your equipment was made by the BEST bidder?

Ranting? Yes, I am. I walk by that sub EVERY day. EVERY day I see the scaffolding around it and talk to the boys who should be sailing in her. Every day I'm reminded at how ineffectual our purchasing processes are, despite all the hoops we're supposed to jump through.

It makes me wonder if the same people who bought these things do the same thing when it comes to THEIR personal purchases? I bet not.

M :brickwall:

 

[geo]

wonder if anyone would notice / care if we towed out a couple of them for use in gunnery practice?

if anyone hasn't mentioned it - maybe we should start thinking about the purchase of new subs..... maintain expertise with what we got and look ahead to the future...... PLEASE!!

 

[redleafjumper]

Several years ago I had a good conversation with the RAdm in charge of the new sub procurement project.  I was a rather blunt subaltern at the time and I was quite direct in telling him that the government wasn't going to buy the subs that his whole project was about.  He looked at me like I was quite naive and told me that he would know, as after all, he was in charge of the project.  Some 5 months later, the sub procurement project was dropped. 

I would suggest  that instead of engaging in yet another escalation of commitment, we sell/scrap these second hand subs and look at either building or buying some that will do the job. 


(edited to fix typos)

 

[geo]

creative suggestion (keep 1 running, 3 as hangar queens for the spares)
with 1 sub operational we can maintain and develop doctrine....... while looking into the procurment of something that's new.

 

[WCST]

That would be great if we only had 1 coast to defend. Without getting into Arctic Soveriegnty (sp), one on each coast would be ideal. It's the same song as the 280's - we had 4, they worked or didn't as the case may be, then they spend millions of dollars on a communications platform for one, while decommissioning the other one on the West Coast.

The subs should never have been bought in the first place. But they were and now we're paying MORE money to get them working. Throwing good money after bad really. If the international community could be coerced into purchasing them off us, we would be better off selling them and using the money towards buying GOOD subs, ones that work off the block instead of going in for extended repairs and refits.

Bah. I'm too close to this to articulate well.

M :brickwall:

 

[Armymatters]

Didn't see that the CBC news report was posted here, but to add in my two cents, I don't think we can get much off the subs on the international arms market... maybe we can find a buyer on the international scrap metal market? lol.

 

[Sheerin]

I'm curious, is it the general consenus in the navy that the Vics are lemons?

 

[rvdklok]

who needs submarines when we got hundreds of thousands of canoes???  ;D

 

[zipperhead_cop]

who needs submarines when we got hundreds of thousands of canoes???  ;D

Yes, please feel free to sail your canoe at 300 m below the surface.  In the Arctic, for at least a week.

Not my normal lanes, but does Canada still have a cold war bone on against nuclear subs?  And if so, why, since we used to sell nuclear reactors and use nuclear power here? 

As far as why the old Brit subs were bought, that should be obvious.  Another Lieberal cash grab, since the lemons would of course need overhauling in yards and need parts from Lib friends.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Just a thought....why don't we volunteer to produce a run of (12) vessels with AIP - (4) for us, and (8) for Taiwan.

It gets the Taiwanese their submarines.

It gets us our submarines.

It rebuilds our lost shipbuilding infrastructure with Taiwanese subsidization (providing a lot of jobs in the process).

It gets the United States Navy out of the fear of producing an SSK on home soil when they want to maintain an all-nuclear sub fleet.

The only downside is the Communist Chinese would be peaved which personally I think is a good thing (and something I hope Harper actually initiates).  If they want to start a trade war they'll get hammered because we import a lot more of their goods into Canada than we export to them.  In addition, since we primarily only sell them natural resources it doesn't matter if they buy them from us or someone else.  If demand goes up, it affects market prices and our producers get the same prices anyway, we'll just be shipping to Europe or India instead of China.  We can also play the oil card.  Perhaps some regulartory issues with pipelines from the Oil Sands to the Pacific Coast as an example, or restricting their right to buy Canadian Natural Resource Companies until they allow us the same right in their country.

Short Version:  If we decide we're going to replace the Victorias sooner rather than later, it may be a serious win-win.


Matthew. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

who needs submarines when we got hundreds of thousands of canoes???  ;D

:

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The problem is we would have to import the expertise to build the subs, buy the license to build the sub, find the right design to build. Most economical is buy the subs straight from the country that makes them.

 

[Armymatters]

Just a thought....why don't we volunteer to produce a run of (12) vessels with AIP - (4) for us, and (8) for Taiwan.

It gets the Taiwanese their submarines.

It gets us our submarines.

It rebuilds our lost shipbuilding infrastructure with Taiwanese subsidization (providing a lot of jobs in the process).

It gets the United States Navy out of the fear of producing an SSK on home soil when they want to maintain an all-nuclear sub fleet.

The only downside is the Communist Chinese would be peaved which personally I think is a good thing (and something I hope Harper actually initiates).  If they want to start a trade war they'll get hammered because we import a lot more of their goods into Canada than we export to them.  In addition, since we primarily only sell them natural resources it doesn't matter if they buy them from us or someone else.  If demand goes up, it affects market prices and our producers get the same prices anyway, we'll just be shipping to Europe or India instead of China.  We can also play the oil card.  Perhaps some regulartory issues with pipelines from the Oil Sands to the Pacific Coast as an example, or restricting their right to buy Canadian Natural Resource Companies until they allow us the same right in their country.

Short Version:  If we decide we're going to replace the Victorias sooner rather than later, it may be a serious win-win.


Matthew. 

Your right about the fact that the PRC will be cheesed off. The Americans have proposed building conventional submarines for the Taiwanese in the past, and it got a very negative reaction from Beijing, hence it is part of the reason why the Americans are dragging their feet. The other reason the Americans are dragging their feet is local pressure from the US Navy not to build conventional submarines. There was some serious backlash against France and the Americans earlier for selling Mirage 2000 and F-16 jets, plus La Fayette class frigates to the Taiwanese in the late 1980's, early 1990's. Future arms sales from Europe due to pressure from Beijing are now highly unlikely due to this.

Canada signed recently many trade bilaterals between us and the Chinese, representing billions of dollars of trade for us, and we do not wish to risk them. Also, we signed in 1970, an agreement with the PRC, formally recognizing the PRC government, as the "sole legal government of China" and "takes note" of China's position that Taiwan is an "inalienable part of the territory" of the PRC, hence we will be breaking the founding communique that established PRC-Canada relations.

And playing the oil card with China will just get us brushed off by Beijing. The PRC does not depend at all on Canadian oil exports, they depend on mostly domestic and Russian energy imports. So that card is already in the trash can already. The Chinese can theoretically dump our markets with goods, which will not be good for Canada at all. And check the back of your computer or any electronic or consumer good you own; most likely, it came from China.