Rust hampers latest used sub

[McG]

Rust hampers latest used sub

Halifax Daily News
HALIFAX
(Printed in Edmonton Journal Wednesday 08 Sept 04)

Rust is delaying the delivery of Canada's fourth submarine, purchased used from the British Royal Navy after that country took the vessels out of commission in the 1990s.

The British Defence Ministry also scavenged the fourth vessel, HMCS Chicoutimi, for parts in an attempt to get the other three subs working, according to documents obtained by the Halifax Daily News under the Access to Information Act.

 

[NavyGrunt]

That doesnt really mean anything- ships are "hampered" by rust all the time. We need more info before we can condemn >

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

What the media fails to mention time and time again is the subs sat docked for over a decade and while the RN supposedly was t make sure they did maintenance on them apparently they did not so the process is taking longer. I dare say if you parked you car in your backyard and 10 years later tried to get it in working order you would run into the same problems we are having to reactivate the SSKs.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Over four years to get them rebuilt.  Way over budget.

To me, this  is another example of a waste of money.  All of this for training aids for the rest of the navy?  I'm sure the Navy could have spent this money on more useful items.  This along with reports that the Chicoutimi was "Huronised", parts stripped out to get the other subs running.

 

[ModlrMike]

It's not just as training aids for our navy. Canada is recognized as having the best diesel boat drivers in the world. Other navies regularly train(ed) with our Navy to improve their ASW capabilities.

There was a story floating around (no pun intended) that a Canadian sub was able to "shoot" a USN carrier while on ex ... very embarrassing for the yanks.

 

[DJL]

Over four years to get them rebuilt.  Way over budget.

To me, this  is another example of a waste of money.  All of this for training aids for the rest of the navy?  I'm sure the Navy could have spent this money on more useful items.  This along with reports that the Chicoutimi was "Huronised", parts stripped out to get the other subs running.

Even though the Vics are both not on time and over budget, we have still paid a fraction of what it would have cost to build or buy new. For instance, the RAN has spent over 4.5 billion dollars on the six Collins class subs, or 750 million per. Now IIRC, the Vic program is still under 1.5 billion, or under 400 million per sub, problems and all, we still got a bargin.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

They are more then "training aids" they will do a lot more then be training tools for the navy. The continual and casual discarding of capabilities is scary one that should be sending alarm bells throughout the entire military and former military community. As for Huronizing the Chi big deal every service does that to get systems up and operating. The Brits who are responsible of reactivating the boats are the ones that will make sure all parts removed are replaced. To lose our subs in the navy is like loosing tanks to the army. An incredibly stupid and irresponsible decision and the ones that support not having subs I tar with the same brush.
If anyone else is in touch with any actively serving CF Submariner that thinks not having subs is a great idea then please point them out to me.

 

[Lance Wiebe]

Yes, they are simply training aids.  For ourselves, and our allies for sure, but still training aids.

Submarines have one purpose in life, and that is to sink other ships.  To do that today, one would think that the sub would require a highly capable Fire Control, a high dash speed to get in/out, and the endurance to stay submerged for long periods of time.  All of which the Upholder lacks.  We did not upgrade/modernize the fire control, opting instead to wait until a rebuild down the road.  They do have a underwater dash speed of something like 20 knots, which will kill the batteries before they make it very far, or, I read, they can stay submerged for 80 hours, cruising at 4 knots.

While I do believe that the Navy requires training aids, I'm just not positive that this is the right way to go right now.  None of the subs are operational as of yet, and will require many tens of millions more to make them operational.  But, then again, as long as they can dive, they don't need to be fully operational, do they?

By the way, this all serves to remind me, what ever happened to the original pledge "These submarines will be returned to full operational readiness and undergo trials at sea before Canada will accept them. The Canadian navy will be fully involved throughout this process. Planned and corrective maintenance will be completed on each submarine, and all four will be fully certified for submerged operations."

 

[Genetk44]

Seems to me, only a civilian, that these subs are an accident waiting to happen that will cause severe regrets in the future. The Brits mothballed them almost upon completion, the Aussies turned them down.....2 good reasons right off the bat for us not to have bought them. I would have prefered to put our people in the newest,most modern subs available.....no not US made nuke boats either. But I've read that the Germans make a hell of a good boat, the Danes too, I believe.
Just my 2civvy cents worth.
Cheers
Gene

 

[DJL]

Seems to me, only a civilian, that these subs are an accident waiting to happen that will cause severe regrets in the future.

What do you base that assessment on?

The Brits mothballed them almost upon completion,

The reason being , the Royal Navy (like most of NATO) was faced with defence cuts at the end of the cold war.........it was either the four Upholders or two nukes.

the Aussies turned them down.....2 good reasons right off the bat for us not to have bought them.

I never knew that the RAN looked at or was offered the Upholders .......I know that the South Africans were intrested, and possably a couple of other European navies.

I would have prefered to put our people in the newest,most modern subs available.....no not US made nuke boats either. But I've read that the Germans make a heck of a good boat, the Danes too, I believe.
Just my 2civvy cents worth.

I also would have prefered that (as I'm sure the crews), but in any event, it was most likely either the Upholders or nothing.

 

[Genetk44]

DJL......I base my comment about the subs being an accident waiting to happen on the problems that have been reported over the past 4 years, leaking valves, leaking hydraulic fluid into the boats etc. plus the fact the boats sat mothballed for 10 years. The sea is a harsh and corrosive environment at the best of times and even more so for a vessel that has to operate under it, not to mention for one that has sat dockside for ten years.
Also, I don't buy the "budget-cut" scenario as the sole reason as to why the Brits mothballed them.....granted thats just based on gut-feeling on my part but that combined with the problems we've had with the boats plus the problems getting them refurbished and
' recertified' plus the fact that the Brits couldn't offload them for ten or so years tells me that we bought 4 pigs in the poke that our guys don't deserve.
I hope I'm wrong but its my opinion.
Cheers
Gene

 

[nULL]

The Australian Collins class subs have had their share of problems too...

EDIT: ..and they cost about a billion each!

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/decline/collins.htm

 

[Born2Fly]

The RN wanted to unload the subs to a Commonwealth Navy. And as I understand it, we turned them down the first time.


It isn't even costing us that much money. We diverted some of the costs to the British in exchange for their army to come over and use our bases to train on. So, in the end, it's not even a money factor.


This is a great deal for Canada. Period. We didn't have to spend money on research, development, design, or maintenance. We bought off-the-shelf subs which are technilogically updated, at a really, REALLY cheap price. No matter how you look at it, we got a great deal.

 

[DJL]

DJL......I base my comment about the subs being an accident waiting to happen on the problems that have been reported over the past 4 years, leaking valves, leaking hydraulic fluid into the boats etc. plus the fact the boats sat mothballed for 10 years. The sea is a harsh and corrosive environment at the best of times and even more so for a vessel that has to operate under it, not to mention for one that has sat dockside for ten years.

Do you not think that those problems where associated with the fact that the Upholders were in mothballed since the early 90s?

Also, I don't buy the "budget-cut" scenario as the sole reason as to why the Brits mothballed them.....granted thats just based on gut-feeling on my part but that combined with the problems we've had with the boats plus the problems getting them refurbished and
' recertified' plus the fact that the Brits couldn't offload them for ten or so years tells me that we bought 4 pigs in the poke that our guys don't deserve.
I hope I'm wrong but its my opinion.

What does your "gut" tell you the real reason behind the Upholders being mothballed was then?

 

[Genetk44]

The money issue.....ie: too much cost or,alternativley too little cost doesn't concern me...I'm not a bean counter. I just want our personnel to have the best,most easily maintained,efficient war-fighting equipment we can give them. Sailors haveing to spend hours saveing and recirculateing hydraulic fluid or continually tightening valves that shouldn't need tightening dureing a crossing from the UK to Canada on one of our "new" subs just doesn't cut it.

 

[Genetk44]

DJL...re: the 10 years of mothballing......in my statement that you quoted I did say that mothballing for 10 years would have a negative effect on the boats condition.  BTW.....the hydraulic leak and valve leaks that I refered to,among other problems, occured on the voyage to Canada of one of the boats AFTER it had been refurbished in the UK.
As to my gut feeling telling me other alternatives for the UK takeing the subs out of service....it doesn't. Like I said its a gut feeling...no logic to it I admit......but I do find governments' use of " budget cuts" to pat and easy an excuse to waesel out of a problem or problems. I'm not very trusting of politricksters or bureaucrats 

 

[DJL]

DJL...re: the 10 years of mothballing......in my statement that you quoted I did say that mothballing for 10 years would have a negative effect on the boats condition.  BTW.....the hydraulic leak and valve leaks that I refered to,among other problems, occured on the voyage to Canada of one of the boats AFTER it had been refurbished in the UK.

Do you not think that incidents/accidents happan on the other ships in the fleet?

 

[Genetk44]

Of course other accidents/incidents  happen on other ships in the fleet........but a sub is not just another ship....an incident/accident that might be only minor/inconvenient on a surface vessel can be catastrophic on a sub.....the differences should be obvious!

 

[Sheerin]

Do a little search into the teething problems the Aussies have had with their Collins class boats. 
What it boils down to is new boats (and yes they are still new boats) will have problems.

 

[Genetk44]

Sheerin.....I did the search as you suggested. However I disagree with your premise.
1  they are not new boats they are new boats that sat at dock for ten years without proper upkeep
2  the Brits have 100 years of sub building under their belts, the Aussies?
3 the Upholder boats had problems comeing out of the builders yard from the get go, includeing leaking torp tube doors
4 The RN had the boats in service for a short time(a couple of years) and mothballed them.....and the problems are still there..DUH!
5 Finally....who cares what problems the Ozzies are haveing....we're talking about the 4 lemons we bought from the Brits.