Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/5/2004 2:32:46 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/6/2004 2:20:30 PM EST by KA3B]
October 05, 2004

Canadian sub’s crew safe after fire breaks out on board

Associated Press



LONDON — A Canadian submarine that sent a distress call to the British navy surfaced safely off the Irish coast Tuesday after an electrical fire broke out on board.

A search and rescue helicopter was dispatched to assist the HMCS Chicoutimi some 100 nautical miles northwest of Ireland as the submarine surfaced.

A few of the 57 crew members aboard HMCS Chicoutimi suffered some smoke inhalation, said Canadian navy spokesman Mike Bonin.

“Everybody on board is safe,” Bonin said. “There was a small fire on board. It was quickly put out. The sub has surfaced and is awaiting a tug to take it to somewhere along the European coast.”

Bonin said there was no immediate word on how or where the fire started. He added Chicoutimi’s engines had been shut down as a precaution.

The Ministry of Defense said a British frigate and a supply vessel already in the area were being sent to the scene.

The Canadian navy acquired the diesel-powered patrolling submarine and three other submarines from the Royal Navy.

A renaming ceremony was held on Saturday at the Royal Navy’s Faslane base in Scotland and the Chicoutimi was headed to Halifax on Canada’s east coast.



LONDON, England -- Britain has launched a rescue operation to recover the crew of a Canadian submarine after a fire on board the vessel, the UK Ministry of Defense has said.

The ministry said the British Coast Guard received a mayday call Tuesday morning from the HMCS Chicoutimi, a diesel-powered submarine, saying there was a fire on board.

Nine people have been injured, but not seriously, according to a Reuters news service report.

The fire has knocked out power from the diesel engines and the sub is drifting without power.

Three ships are on the way to the submarine, which is about 160 kilometers (100 miles) northwest of Ireland, to pick up the 48-member crew.

The vessel -- which was just purchased from the Royal Navy -- was on its way to Canada when the fire broke out.

A senior Canadian official, speaking at 2:10 p.m. Ottawa time (1810 GMT), said a British towing vessel would take between 12 to 14 hours to reach the submarine.

"The boat is without power and has only limited means of communicating at this time," Navy Commodore Tyrone Pyle told reporters in Halifax, saying winds in the area were greater than 30 knots (35 mph, 55 km/h).

"The seas are rough and with the submarine on the surface they (the crew) are going to have some discomfort from rolling and tossing," Reuters reports Pyle saying.

However Pyle answered "no" when asked whether there had been any danger of losing the craft.

Although the fire was quickly put out, the submarine had to surface to get rid of the smoke. Nine crew members suffered the effects of smoke inhalation.

The Chicoutimi is non-nuclear powered and carries no nuclear warheads. Canada does not have nuclear weapons.

The fire is the latest in a long line of problems to hit the submarines, which have been plagued by serious mechanical mishaps such as cracks in the diesel exhaust valves and a number of leaks. They are mostly confined to port.

Ottawa insists it got a good deal when it agreed to buy the second-hand submarines from Britain for C$750 million ($595 million) in 1998. But opposition legislators say the purchase reflects incompetence by the Liberal government.

"I do not believe we purchased substandard equipment ... the price was very attractive to Canada," Reuters reports Canadian Defense Minister Bill Graham saying.

Graham admitted that the fire was an "important problem."
YA THINK????

"Other ships have had fires in the past and no doubt there will be fires on board ships in the future -- this is something that our professional mariners are capable of managing ... There are risks in being in our Navy," he told reporters.

Graham said the submarine would return to the Scottish port of Faslane for a detailed probe into the fire.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:35:37 PM EST
They have subs up there? Wow, what will those wacky kanucks think up next?

Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:36:22 PM EST
Canada has what, 55k soldiers or some crazy small number? Good men though, the ones I have met.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:41:00 PM EST
Found out about this around noon. I was just on her a month and a half ago. We're spending more on them "fixing" the things than we did to buy them. Corner Brook is still up in the camber and has been for a LOOONG time. The brits never could get them to work properly either, right full of bugs, propeller shaft seals like to leak as well. I've been on a fire in an engine room of a surface warship before, which was bad enough, but a fire in a sub (especially the smoke) downright scares the crapola out of me. Hope the guys who got smoke inhalation are alright, lord knows what kind of noxious fumes they inhaled.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:41:33 PM EST
No nukes! What is its function? Sounds like just another boat ride.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:44:32 PM EST
function? Coastal patrol, interdiction, reconnaisance, sneaking in quietly. We actually targeted one the CVN's with it, forget which one, maybe the Lincoln, after slipping through the protective screen. Diesel electrics are much quieter than steam powered nuke boats. Still wish we had nuke boats though.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:46:32 PM EST
I have seen a couple electrical fires while I was on my boat. I'll tell you what, I dont think I have ever moved that fast in my life. General Alarm while sound asleep to up and dressed in FFE/OBA in 2 minutes or so. Cant call the fire department and fire WILL kill you
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:46:46 PM EST
is this the submarine the torpedoes arent due to be delivered for until 2006?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:47:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:49:35 PM EST
Electrical system/propulsion built by Lucas?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:50:13 PM EST
Funny, (of course being a half breed my loyalties are divided) buuuuutttt........ we usually get you guys by the b _ _ _ s in the wargames. Of course, sheer numbers and attrition would wear us down, but that's where I'd use my training, and all that great american equipment I got and go guerilla on your hinies
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:52:30 PM EST
They had it four fucking days and it broke. I wonder if it has a warrantee?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:53:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By warlord:
Electrical system/propulsion built by Lucas?



Someone onboard forgot its a positive ground system...
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:53:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By RABID:
Funny, (of course being a half breed my loyalties are divided) buuuuutttt........ we usually get you guys by the b _ _ _ s in the wargames. Of course, sheer numbers and attrition would wear us down, but that's where I'd use my training, and all that great american equipment I got and go guerilla on your hinies




thats American to you.....eh
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:56:09 PM EST
sorry, I miss the caps sometimes P.S., I picked up (EH?) In (M)aine, what a steretype!
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:57:06 PM EST

Originally Posted By RABID:
function? Coastal patrol, interdiction, reconnaisance, sneaking in quietly. We actually targeted one the CVN's with it, forget which one, maybe the Lincoln, after slipping through the protective screen. Diesel electrics are much quieter than steam powered nuke boats. Still wish we had nuke boats though.



Your politicians said no to SSN's… the 'Upholders' were the next best option, and a very much better and more capable option the the german IKL variants… (look at all the problems Australia had with it's Collins Class IKL Design).

IIRC, there are plans to retrofit the subs with a air independent propulsion system at a later date.

Andy
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 2:58:20 PM EST

Originally Posted By Garand_Shooter:

Originally Posted By warlord:
Electrical system/propulsion built by Lucas?



Someone onboard forgot its a positive ground system...




Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:00:05 PM EST
Yup, they said no to SSNs, no to Abrams M1s (instead we spent MORE to retrofit the leopards than it would've cost to get the M1s!) Said no to perry class frigates, ect. ect. And the "griffon" helicopter (basically a UH1N) we get from italy for twice the price than if we got actaual UH1Ns from the states. Go figure??
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:00:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise:
is this the submarine the torpedoes arent due to be delivered for until 2006?



Any current 21" torpedo can be fired from these boats…

Andy
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:02:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By warlord:
Electrical system/propulsion built by Lucas?



No, Alsthom supplied the Motors and alternators… Alsthom are French…

Andy
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:02:11 PM EST
NOW NOW
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:12:53 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 3:13:23 PM EST by Orion_Shall_Rise]

Originally Posted By vito113:

Any current 21" torpedo can be fired from these boats…

Andy



ah yeah its the other subs they bought from the brits...

Sub has no torpedoes[
Weaponry still two years away
By JEFFREY SIMPSON / Staff Reporter

HMCS Windsor will be without torpedoes until 2006, a high-ranking Canadian naval officer says.

"That's probably right," Capt. Dean McFadden, who commands Atlantic operations, told reporters Monday night on board the submarine as it conducted exercises off the coast of Nova Scotia.

The Halifax-based submarine, which was originally supposed to be ready for operations in July 2001, began a year of testing last spring.

While the sub is not yet armed with torpedoes, which will be its only external weapons, it has embarked on several official missions.

"This submarine has been engaged in domestic operational patrols, not exercises, since the spring," Capt. McFadden said.

Earlier this year, HMCS Windsor operated on the Grand Banks off Newfoundland, conducting surveillance and gathering information for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans while remaining undetected, Capt. McFadden said.

"That's commonly how we're tasked," he said. "We also do operations in support of the RCMP."

He declined to elaborate on details of the operations, in case the evidence gathered has to be used in court.

Canada's customs and immigration officials will also probably make use of the country's recently acquired submarines for their work, which doesn't require that the boats have external weapons, he said.

The submarine's ability to operate while remaining undetected for long periods of time and over great distances makes it an attractive addition to any naval force, he said. The sub is covered with special tiles to reduce its detection by sonar.

HMCS Windsor's counterpart on the West Coast, HMCS Victoria, is undergoing trials and working on preparing its weapons systems, Capt. McFadden said.

"So they're carrying the lion's share of that development," he said.

HMCS Windsor is developing its navigation and surveillance skills first and will integrate its weapons systems later.

HMCS Windsor is one of four diesel-electric-powered Victoria-class subs that were built in the late 1980s and early 1990s for the British navy, which mothballed them in 1994 when it decided to concentrate on a nuclear fleet.

Buying new subs would have cost $3 billion to $5 billion, and the Canadian navy figures it got a bargain by paying about $900 million.

"It's certainly more than my mortgage but a pittance compared to the cost of many defence resources," Capt. McFadden said. "We got them at an exceptional price."

The subs ran about three years behind schedule because of a series of technical glitches.

When the British brought them out of storage, they found cracks in some key valves. Repairs and tests to certify them safe to dive took longer than expected, with delivery of a remaining sub, still in England, expected next month.

All this delayed the process of installing Canadian equipment in the submarines, which usually last for about 30 years, he said.

"The capability that is going to be delivered will be delivered at a bargain-basement price compared to anybody else's ability to deliver," Capt. McFadden said.

Although the role of submarines has shifted since the Cold War, they will still have an important military presence, Capt. McFadden said.

"But every bit as important, Sept. 11 came along and our focus shifted to Apollo, to sending task forces to the Arabian Gulf," he said.

Cmdr. Dermot Mulholland said submarines, which the country has operated since 1914, are essential to keeping Canada safe.

"We just keep proving it over and over again," he said. "It adds a third dimension to our navy, which is essential for a medium-power navy like ours. "

HMCS Windsor carries a maximum of 59 people. Its top speed while submerged is just over 37 kilometres per hour, and it can dive to 200 metres.

Its diesel generators are used to charge the two main batteries, and it is usually quieter than a nuclear submarine, Capt. McFadden said.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:14:27 PM EST
BAN SUBMARINES!

<­BR>
ITS A TRAP!!!!!
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:21:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Any current 21" torpedo can be fired from these boats…

Andy



ah yeah its the other subs they bought from the brits...

Sub has no torpedoes[
Weaponry still two years away
By JEFFREY SIMPSON / Staff Reporter

HMCS Windsor will be without torpedoes until 2006, a high-ranking Canadian naval officer says.

"That's probably right," Capt. Dean McFadden, who commands Atlantic operations, told reporters Monday night on board the submarine as it conducted exercises off the coast of Nova Scotia.

The Halifax-based submarine, which was originally supposed to be ready for operations in July 2001, began a year of testing last spring.

While the sub is not yet armed with torpedoes, which will be its only external weapons, it has embarked on several official missions.



Excuse me… just because the Canadians have not ordered the new Mk 48 torpedos for delivery till 2006 does not mean these boats cannot fire torpedoes.

I have been on HMS Upholder when she was in Royal Navy service, and he carried Tigerfish Torpedoes and Harpoon missiles. For purely financial/Political reasons the Canadians stripped out the fire contril system for the Harpoon and chose not to deploy the boats with torpedoes. The fact remains… load her up with 21" torpedoes and she can fire them.

ANdy
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:23:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Any current 21" torpedo can be fired from these boats…

Andy



ah yeah its the other subs they bought from the brits...

Sub has no torpedoes[
Weaponry still two years away
By JEFFREY SIMPSON / Staff Reporter

HMCS Windsor will be without torpedoes until 2006, a high-ranking Canadian naval officer says.

"That's probably right," Capt. Dean McFadden, who commands Atlantic operations, told reporters Monday night on board the submarine as it conducted exercises off the coast of Nova Scotia.

The Halifax-based submarine, which was originally supposed to be ready for operations in July 2001, began a year of testing last spring.

While the sub is not yet armed with torpedoes, which will be its only external weapons, it has embarked on several official missions.



Excuse me… just because the Canadians have not ordered the new Mk 48 torpedos for delivery till 2006 does not mean these boats cannot fire torpedoes.

I have been on HMS Upholder when she was in Royal Navy service, and he carried Tigerfish Torpedoes and Harpoon missiles. For purely financial/Political reasons the Canadians stripped out the fire contril system for the Harpoon and chose not to deploy the boats with torpedoes. The fact remains… load her up with 21" torpedoes and she can fire them.

ANdy




I think its time for the Canadians to start developing their own stuff. Problem solved.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:25:05 PM EST
OK so they suffered a "small fire" but they need a tug? Does anyone else not buy the "small fire" story?
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:27:43 PM EST

Originally Posted By Botch:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise:
Originally Posted By vito113:

A



Excuse me… just because the Canadians have not ordered the new Mk 48 torpedos for delivery till 2006 does not mean these boats cannot fire torpedoes.

I have been on HMS Upholder when she was in Royal Navy service, and he carried Tigerfish Torpedoes and Harpoon missiles. For purely financial/Political reasons the Canadians stripped out the fire contril system for the Harpoon and chose not to deploy the boats with torpedoes. The fact remains… load her up with 21" torpedoes and she can fire them.

ANdy




I think its time for the Canadians to start developing their own stuff. Problem solved.



They could have been delivered with Royal Navy Tigerfish or Spearfish Torpedoes, but the Canadians have ordered the US Mk 48… Of course if the USN was being 'nice' they could lend them a crate load of them till 2006…

Andy
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:28:52 PM EST
The Canadians used to have a very kick-ass military-industrial complex that developed some excellent weapons.


The Avro Arrow is one of them.

Then they turned ga-haay!




Originally Posted By Botch:

I think its time for the Canadians to start developing their own stuff. Problem solved.

Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:32:55 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Botch:

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise:
Originally Posted By vito113:

A



Excuse me… just because the Canadians have not ordered the new Mk 48 torpedos for delivery till 2006 does not mean these boats cannot fire torpedoes.

I have been on HMS Upholder when she was in Royal Navy service, and he carried Tigerfish Torpedoes and Harpoon missiles. For purely financial/Political reasons the Canadians stripped out the fire contril system for the Harpoon and chose not to deploy the boats with torpedoes. The fact remains… load her up with 21" torpedoes and she can fire them.

ANdy




I think its time for the Canadians to start developing their own stuff. Problem solved.



They could have been delivered with Royal Navy Tigerfish or Spearfish Torpedoes, but the Canadians have ordered the US Mk 48… Of course if the USN was being 'nice' they could lend them a crate load of them till 2006…

Andy




BUT...they were willing to wait for the best. Mk 48ADCAP, when you need to kill every mother f'r in the ocean
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:35:41 PM EST

Originally Posted By dport:
OK so they suffered a "small fire" but they need a tug? Does anyone else not buy the "small fire" story?



Me neither… sound like a fire in the electrical control panel… a common enough place for a fire in Diesel Electric boats, and they can be bad fires, lots of juice, that would explain taking the motors offline.

Andy
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:35:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By CSM:
BAN SUBMARINES!
ITS A TRAP!!!!!



they are banned. Well, the good ones at least.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:42:09 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/5/2004 3:42:57 PM EST by vito113]

Originally Posted By Botch:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Originally Posted By Botch:
Originally Posted By vito113:
Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise:




BUT...they were willing to wait for the best. Mk 48ADCAP, when you need to kill every mother f'r in the ocean



Actually the Spearfish is as good as the Mk48, slightly faster in fact.

The hold up is not the torpedoes, for some reason, rather than use the standard fire control system (or having BAe fit the US system during refurbishment), the Canadians are ripping it out and fitting their own proprietary system in it's place after delivery…

Ex USS Wainwright being sunk by a British SSN firing a Spearfish torpedo.










Andy
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:45:44 PM EST
Still does not answer the question as to why Canada needs subs, with Naval helicopters waaaaay overage, obsolete tanks (Good God, they bought obsolete Leopards Germany was going to scrap to upgrade the ones they have!!), obsolete avionics in the CF-18, etc.


It is a joke to try to defend Canadian coastline. Just admit it, like Costa Rica. Noone's subs paid much attention to Canaidan sovereignty during the cold war anyways, according to rumors I heard.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:51:25 PM EST
True, we used to pick up both russian boomers and hunter/killers, and american ssbn's and attack boats in our waters from our argus's and aurora's (orion P3s) Now, if we found the need to engage....
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 3:58:52 PM EST
can it get any worse? on fire AND under water...yeesh
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 1:07:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/6/2004 7:09:35 AM EST by vito113]
Latest update…

Fire is now believed to have been an elctrical panel fire as I surmised last night. Boat is in no danger, but the crew are been thrown around very badly.

Two Royal Navy Frigates, HMS Montrose and HMS Marlborough, and a Replenishment Tanker RFA Wave Knight will be with her by noon along with two tugs. They are experiencing 30-40 foot waves and everybody is VERY sick, they may not be able to put a line aboard so the sub may head for port under her own power under escort. An Irish Navy Patrol Vessel which attempted to come to the Subs aid, LE Roisin, was forced to turn back to port after being damaged in the very heavy seas.


Also… Royal Navy senior Officers I spoke to this morning (including the Skipper of one of our SSN's who served on these boats) are a bit annoyed at the complaints about these boats. They have been out of Royal Navy service for over 10 years, two were never even in Royal Navy service. They were considered to be as good as an SSN except for dived speed and underwater endurance. They were a very popular and successful boat in RN service, fitted with torpedoes, mine laying gear, Harpoon Missiles and a swim out chamber for 5 Special Forces operators, and they did not want to lose them, it was a political decision to save money. Given the option they would have them back without hesitation.

Cracked diesel exhaust valves are common on any diesel electric boat, so no big deal there. Problem seems to be the Canadian Government wanted to refurbish them on the cheap and use some of their own proprietary equipment and it's come back to bite them. Once the bugs are ironed out they will be first class boats, they were before and will be again.

Andy

Update: 5.00PM UK time…

RN Frigate has arrived and now put doctor and mecic aboard submarine. Fire caused extensive damage to electrical switchboard and CO's cabin. It is thought the boat will not be able to restart main engines and will need to be towed, probably Friday when the weather moderates.



Stricken Ex-Navy Submarine 'Not Defective'

By Paul O’Hare and Victoria Ward, PA News


A stricken Canadian submarine that was among a second-hand fleet sold by the Royal Navy was not defective, a defence expert claimed today.

Stephen Saunders, editor of Jane’s Fighting Ships, said if there had been any material problems with HMCS Chicoutimi, they would have been picked up during extensive trials.……

………The incident happened just over a week after The Times claimed Canada might sue Britain over the purchase of four second-hand submarines – including the Chicoutimi – after they had been plagued by “serious malfunctions and corrosion”.

Mr Saunders said it was not unusual for problems to occur after a vessel had been reactivated but he defended criticism of the submarines.

He said: “There is not something inherently wrong with the class of submarines.
“They underwent extensive trials and if there were any material problems, they would have spotted them by now.
“This is not the first time it (Chicoutimi) has gone to sea.
“If there was a mistake, it was possibly setting an ambitious timetable.”

Mr Saunders said he could not yet be certain what caused the incident.
He added: “As far as we know, it was probably a switchboard fire, which would account for the fact they lost power throughout the submarine.
“It could be a material error or a drill error.
“We don’t know and I would not suggest it was one or the other.”

On the public relations impact of the episode, Mr Saunders said: “It is a serious incident. I would not class it as embarrassing but it is unfortunate.”



news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=3591164

ANdy
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 2:22:00 PM EST
Canadian sailor dies of injuries
Last Updated Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:13:44 EDT

OTTAWA - A Canadian officer, injured in Tuesday's fire aboard the HMCS Chicoutimi, has died while being transferred to hospital in Ireland.

INDEPTH: Canadian Military

A Canadian sailor arrives at a hospital in Sligo, Republic of Ireland. (Photo Courtesy RTE)
Prime Minister Paul Martin made the announcement to a hushed House of Commons late Wednesday afternoon. Martin said Lieut. Chris Saunders, from Saint John, New Brunswick, died after being injured in the fire. "He gave his life serving his country and we owe his family our deepest condolences," Martin said.

Saunders was one of nine submariners who suffered smoke inhalation while putting out a fire aboard Chicoutimi on Tuesday. The sub was on its maiden voyage from Faslane, Scotland to Halifax. It was the last of four subs purchased by the Canadian navy from Britain.

Chicoutimi was left dead in the water, without its normal communications systems. An initial news release from the Department of National Defence in Ottawa said, "The crew is safe. Several sailors experienced smoke inhalation but do not require evacuation from the submarine."

But after a physician from the Royal Navy arrived aboard on Wednesday, Saunders and two others were transferred by helicopter to hospital in Ireland. At first they were to be airlifted to Londonderry, Northern Ireland, but that order was changed after the condition of one of the patients worsened, and they were sent instead to Sligo, in the Republic of Ireland.

The prime minister gave no explanation for the sudden change in Saunders' condition and the chief of defence staff, Gen. Ray Henault blamed poor communications. It was only after the doctor arrived and better communications links were established that "the situation became clearer." Henault said the incident ended "a little more tragically that we expected."

HMCS Chicoutimi, photographed off the coast of Ireland Wednesday. (AP photo)
But Henault could give no explanation why Saunders' family was given such poor information about his condition.

In an interview with CBC News at her home in Saint John's Kingston Peninsula, just hours before news of his death, his mother Debbie Saunders said that the Department of National Defence had told his wife that "everybody had been treated and everybody was fine."

"The navy assured them that everybody was fine, so I'm sure they are. They wouldn't tell them otherwise. I am sure they would tell his wife if they were injured worse than they were."

Saunders, who suffered smoke inhalation, leaves a wife, Gwen, and two young children.

When asked at a news conference in Ottawa if he was still in favour of the acquisition of the four used subs, which have been plagued with technical problems, including leaks, bad valves and a big dent in one hull, Henault said, "Absolutely."

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/10/06/saunders041006.html

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Opposition blasts 'obviously inferior' subs
Last Updated Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:49:55 EDT

OTTAWA - As HMCS Chicoutimi's 57 crew members continued to brave inclement North Atlantic weather aboard a powerless, damaged submarine, the search began in Ottawa for someone to blame over Canada's latest embarrassing naval mishap.

FROM OCT. 6, 2004: One submariner in 'critical' condition

Graham retorted that this was not the time to ask such questions, given the Liberal government's preoccupation with the welfare of the "incredible" sailors aboard HMCS Chicoutimi.

"The navy believes they were the best they could get at the time," he later said, calling the four Victoria-class submarines a "big asset."

Canada has spent an estimated $900 million since 1999 to buy four diesel-electric submarines from Britain and refit them to current standards.

The Canadian military took ownership of the last of the submarines on Saturday. However, two fires broke out as HMCS Chicoutimi was heading back to Halifax for its scheduled modernization.

The vessel is now rolling in heavy seas off the northwest coast of Ireland. It has little power and is waiting to be towed to land by British rescuers.

Prime Minister Paul Martin told the House of Commons Wednesday that the submarine's crew faced "no problems in terms of heat and food," and that towing would commence as the sea was calm.

The Conservative party had been quick to seize on the issue as another example of what it claims is perennial Liberal neglect of Canada's armed forces.

"They wanted a military capability on the cheap. This is a pattern with the Liberals," Conservative defence critic Gordon O'Connor, a retired army general, told reporters on Tuesday.

Graham has characterized the incident as a "small setback," but is nonetheless ordering a naval inquiry on the Chicoutimi affair.

Controversial from the start

The navy's submarine program has been controversial since Ottawa agreed to pay Britain $750 million for the four Victoria-class submarines in 1998.

Britain had mothballed the submarines, built in the early 1980s, when it decided to go all-nuclear in the 1990s. Reactivating the boats and adapting them to Canadian requirements added about $150 million to the total cost.

Retired rear-admiral Ken Summers, a Canadian military analyst, said on Wednesday that the vessels still represented good value, costing a lot less than comparable new boats.

Commodore Tyrone Pile, commander of Canada's Atlantic Fleet, has been at pains throughout the crisis to stress that fires and other problems can occur on any ship, at any time, and that the navy and its sailors were well prepared to deal with those issues.

But the series of delays, cost overruns and technical mishaps – including leaks on most of the subs – has raised the question of whether Canada got a good deal from Britain's Royal Navy.

British navy Commander Steve Upright said Wednesday that it was too early to start laying blame.

"I think the submarine that was handed over was examined and was found to be in acceptable condition for handover," he said. "The source and the cause of this fire will have to be established once we're able to assess the conditions on board."


http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/10/06/subs041006.html
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 3:42:07 PM EST
This is starting to sound more like it happened to a Russian sub than a Canadian one.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 3:46:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By Botch:

Originally Posted By vito113:
Originally Posted By Botch:
Originally Posted By vito113:
Originally Posted By Orion_Shall_Rise:




BUT...they were willing to wait for the best. Mk 48ADCAP, when you need to kill every mother f'r in the ocean



Actually the Spearfish is as good as the Mk48, slightly faster in fact.

The hold up is not the torpedoes, for some reason, rather than use the standard fire control system (or having BAe fit the US system during refurbishment), the Canadians are ripping it out and fitting their own proprietary system in it's place after delivery…

Ex USS Wainwright being sunk by a British SSN firing a Spearfish torpedo.
img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/0002073001dx.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/0002073001ex.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/0002073001fx.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/0002073001gx.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v133/macandy/0002073001ix.jpg

Andy



Which Wainwright was that? The DLG/CG?
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 4:32:33 PM EST

Which Wainwright was that? The DLG/CG?


Yup...There has been only one USS Wainwright in the last fifty years, that is DLG/CG 28. At the time of her decomiisioning in her homeport of Charleston, SC, in the Spring of 1993, she was the most decorated ship in the Navy. She had just won the coveted Ney award for being the best overall feeder in the Fleet.

Top Top