INtake of Sea Water May Have Caused Sub Fire

[Aaron]

CBC

OTTAWA - A top navy official said Thursday that the investigation looking into last week's submarine tragedy believes "an ingress" of sea water played a critical role in the disaster.

Commodore Jim Sylvester said at a news conference in Ottawa that "an ingress of an unspecified amount of water was followed by an electrical incident and then a fire." But he insisted no conclusions have been reached.

HMCS Chicoutimi last week
Investigators are not saying water led to a fire, but HMCS Chicoutimi did take on salt water while sailing on the surface in rough weather. Lieut. Chris Saunders later died from the effects of smoke inhalation from the fire and eight other crew members were injured.

The boat is powered by huge batteries and electricity, and if salt water got into the electrical system it could have caused serious problems, according to Lt.-Cmdr. Luc Cassivi who commands HMCS Victoria, Chicoutimi's sister ship.

"Salt water is conductive," he said. "The salinity induced conductivity, so it is a problem.

"It depends what equipment [is affected]. The equipment is built to a standard so that it can withstand some exposure to water," said Cassivi.

It is believed that the possible connection between the salt water intake and the electrical fire is what prompted the navy to tie up all four of the second-hand subs.

The opposition parties in Parliament claimed that the the government simply underfunded the submarine program.

"As we have seen repeatedly from the government, when it comes to our military spending, doing things on the cheap has its costs," said Deputy Conservative Leader Peter MacKay.

Defence Minister Bill Graham shot back that neither government nor the navy would risk lives to save money. "We support the navy. We support its efforts to make these subs safe and we will always give it the resources necessary to make them safe."

In another development on Thursday, RTE, Ireland's national broadcaster, reported that Master Seaman Archibald MacMaster and Petty Officer 2nd Class Denis Lafleur, the two submariners taken to hospital in Sligo last week along with Saunders, have been released and have returned to Canada.

Initially I was opposed to these subs, as they are used. But after some responses by Sea Skimmer and others, I have come to understand that they were the only fesabile option for the Canadian government. They just need to work the bugs out. You will notice that the oppostition is crying foul and that the government is not investing enough money in the sub service.

First they decry the used subs and then they say that the government isn't spending enough money on the sub service. Even though they spent 400 million on these ones, and apperently over a billion to bring them up to par. Do they have a point or are they just objecting because it will stick it too the Liberals?

[Aaron]

CBC

GLASGOW (CP) - Submariners from HMCS Chicoutimi angrily denied Thursday that the sub's crew had any hand in last week's fatal fire aboard their ship - a denial that came on a day when the Canadian military limited media access to the crew.

"It was not human error," one of the sailors, who asked not to be named due to the media clampdown, emphatically told The Canadian Press.

Earlier this week, the crew's statements that they were hunting a mysterious electrical ground fault led to speculation that loose wiring might have ignited the fire.

That suggestion is political dynamite in Britain, where concern about the quality of the submarine's refit and the possible impact on shipyard jobs has politicians, military officials and some media pointing the finger at human error aboard the sub.

A published report earlier this week quoted a "political source" familiar with the closed-door inquiry as saying the crew inadvertently left a hatch open. That could have allowed sea water to run down the inside of the conning tower and on to one of the electrical panels, which erupted in sparks and flames on Oct. 5.

In Ottawa on Thursday, the assistant chief of maritime staff told a news conference that "an ingress of an unspecified amount of water was followed by an electrical incident and then a fire."

But Commodore Jim Sylvester insisted no conclusions have been reached.

"Let me make this clear: at this point in time the navy does not know what caused the fire on HMCS Chicoutimi."

Seawater gets into submarines on occasion, added Lt.-Cmdr. Luc Cassivi, commanding officer of the Chicoutimi's sister sub HMCS Victoria.

Cassivi wouldn't comment on whether such leaks are typically caused by mechanical failure or human error. Nor would he speculate on whether a North Atlantic gale the day of the Chicoutimi fire could have contributed to seawater getting inside the hull.

If eventually proven correct, an explanation of human error could take the heat off the Liberal government in Ottawa, which has faced a maelstrom of criticism over its $750 million lease-to-purchase deal for the used diesel-electric submarines.

But the suggestion that they were somehow responsible for crippling their own boat and consequently causing the death of their shipmate, Lieut. Chris Saunders, was vehemently denied Thursday by a group of submariners who agreed to speak as long as their names weren't used.

The crew leaves Glasgow for Canada on Friday night. Two of the injured sailors who were evacuated from the sub Oct. 6 with came back to Canada aboard a military aircraft Thursday and were reunited with their families, said Lieut.-Cmdr. Denise LaViolette in Halifax.

"They were well enough to travel and we sent an aircraft to pick them up," she said.

Master Seaman Archibald MacMaster, 41, of Port Hawkesbury, N.S., and Petty Officer Second Class Denis Lafleur, also 41, of Quebec, are both on medical leave and have requested some time alone with their families.

Over the last few days, chatty crew members have let slip some details that may be crucial to the military investigation into the fire that crippled their warship off the coast of Ireland last week.

Military officials apparently decided that the less said, the better. On Thursday, most media requests to interview submariners were being turned down, said Capt. Jason Proulx. There were plain-clothed military police and private security at the Glasgow hotel where the men are staying.

There's also been some concern among the tightly knit group of sailors about the publication of disturbing details surrounding the death of Lieut. Chris Saunders.

The submariners were privately told by Cmdr. Luc Pelletier, captain of Chicoutimi, that vivid descriptions of Saunders' lying unconscious on the deck during the crisis were "inappropriate."

The board of inquiry into the fire and the death of Saunders, a 14-year naval veteran, needs to "come up with an objective answer as to what happened," said Proulx.

He denied the gag order was an attempt to better stage-manage the battered reputation of the submarine program, adding that some of the crew are tired and need time to rest.

"This is in no way damage control," he said. "We've provided abundant access to our people following the incident."

The Ottawa news conference at National Defence Headquarters, described by DND as a technical briefing on the navy's safe-sub program, ended up lauding both the safety regime and the four Victoria-class subs in the fleet.

"We never send submarines and their crews to sea that are not prepared, checked and tested safe," said Sylvester.

Cassivi called the subs "absolutely a gem to handle at sea . . . leaps and bounds from the Oberon" class they replaced.

Found this on CBC.CA too. This article mentions a mysterious ground fault which the crew was trying to locate. Faulty grounding has been the cause of many electrical fires. And given the crew's description of exploding electrical panels, I'm convinced it was an electrical fire.

[Jalinth]

[quote="Cpl Kendall]

Initially I was opposed to these subs, as they are used. But after some responses by Sea Skimmer and others, I have come to understand that they were the only fesabile option for the Canadian government. They just need to work the bugs out. You will notice that the oppostition is crying foul and that the government is not investing enough money in the sub service.

First they decry the used subs and then they say that the government isn't spending enough money on the sub service. Even though they spent 400 million on these ones, and apperently over a billion to bring them up to par. Do they have a point or are they just objecting because it will stick it too the Liberals?[/quote]

The main question in my mind is does a submarine service in the Canadian armed forces make sense?

Remember, we need to replace our destroyers within 10 years at the outside - without these ships, we had no ability to form and control task groups. Frigates don't have the size to effective run task forces.

We are losing our reprovisioning vessels within 10 years as well - so Canada can't undertake any operations outside of home waters without freeloading on other navies.

I'm just not convinced that a submariner force is really that useful to Canada given all of our other military needs. Our surface forces are aging, our air force is downsizing, and the army has ancient equipment on average (some exception).

[LordShaithis]

Exploding panels?

Who designed these subs? Berman and Braga?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Exploding panels?

Who designed these subs? Berman and Braga?

Electricity + sea water = electrical mayhem. It doesn't need to be any more complicated than faulty seals or exposed wiring. Electrical fires can easily happen and also be fully fatal to the entire crew if out of control in confined spaces. If this had been near the torpedo stores then you'd also have the risk of a few tons of HE going up too without proper countermeasures.

[Aaron]

The main question in my mind is does a submarine service in the Canadian armed forces make sense?

Well the pirmary mission of our frigates is ASW, and they need something to train against. As well the subs can patrol the arctic and help maintain our claim of soveriengty over it. Our surface warships are incapable of operating in the arctic.

Remember, we need to replace our destroyers within 10 years at the outside - without these ships, we had no ability to form and control task groups. Frigates don't have the size to effective run task forces.

Indeed. There is a plan currently in the works to replace the DDG's. But given that the TCCCS system took 35 years to come to pass, I have no hope that our DDG's will be replaced within 10 years. They don't even have a design yet.

We are losing our reprovisioning vessels within 10 years as well - so Canada can't undertake any operations outside of home waters without freeloading on other navies.

See my above post, but substitute AOR's for DDG's. Although I believe there is an actual design on the boards.

I'm just not convinced that a submariner force is really that useful to Canada given all of our other military needs. Our surface forces are aging, our air force is downsizing, and the army has ancient equipment on average (some exception).

Well there are modernization programs for all the services equipment. It's just a question of how long it will take to complete. I can tell you from first hand experiance that the Army programs are well on their way. Now I'm not saying that I think they bought the right kit. But it's better than nothing.

[Aaron]

Remember, we need to replace our destroyers within 10 years at the outside - without these ships, we had no ability to form and control task groups. Frigates don't have the size to effective run task forces.

Actually our frigates and DDG's have virtually the same displacement. And the CPF's were designed to operate as command ships, as when they were designed the Tribals were a joke and there was some question as to whether or not they would be retainined. It was since decided to upgrade them to air defence ships. The only advantage the Tribals have over the Halifax's is their SAM's and the capacity to carry one more Sea King.

So a Halifax could lead a task force but unless there is a ship from another nation involved than there will be no long range air defence of the force.

[Sea Skimmer]

Well the pirmary mission of our frigates is ASW, and they need something to train against. As well the subs can patrol the arctic and help maintain our claim of soveriengty over it. Our surface warships are incapable of operating in the arctic.

You can't send a diesel submarine into waters too icy for surface ships, and the Upholders where never intended for an artic environment either. They lack such rather vital features as an under ice sonar that is quite necessary to avoid plowing into ice floes.

[Aaron]

You can't send a diesel submarine into waters too icy for surface ships, and the Upholders where never intended for an artic environment either. They lack such rather vital features as an under ice sonar that is quite necessary to avoid plowing into ice floes.

We've been told that they are to be refitted for arctic operations. The old Oberons operated in the acrtic all the time. Why would a SSK be unable to operate in the arctic? They just need to be able to find a clear spot to snorkel. I believe the Oberons used to punch through the ice and sit on the surface. Don't know if the Victoria's sails will be reienforced when they add the ice sonar though.

[Darth Wong]

The latest news is that the crew left a topside hatch open in rough seas, and water got in through the topside hatch. I wonder if the right-wing politicians in the Conservative party will be forthright enough to admit their mistake in rushing to judgement and blaming the government if it turns out that the fire was actually caused by that topside hatch being left open.

[Aaron]

The latest news is that the crew left a topside hatch open in rough seas, and water got in through the topside hatch. I wonder if the right-wing politicians in the Conservative party will be forthright enough to admit their mistake in rushing to judgement and blaming the government if it turns out that the fire was actually caused by that topside hatch being left open.

Jesus fucking christ! Why does human error continue to plague the CF? Do you have a link to the story?

I highly doubt that the PC will apologise. Even though they were out of line and should have waited for the final report to start pointing fingers.

[Aaron]

Never mind DW here it is.

GLASGOW (CP) - Submariners from HMCS Chicoutimi angrily denied Thursday that the sub's crew had any hand in last week's fatal fire aboard their ship - a denial that came on a day when the Canadian military limited media access to the crew.

"It was not human error," one of the sailors, who asked not to be named due to the media clampdown, emphatically told The Canadian Press.

Earlier this week, the crew's statements that they were hunting a mysterious electrical ground fault led to speculation that loose wiring might have ignited the fire.

That suggestion is political dynamite in Britain, where concern about the quality of the submarine's refit and the possible impact on shipyard jobs has politicians, military officials and some media pointing the finger at human error aboard the sub.

A published report earlier this week quoted a "political source" familiar with the closed-door inquiry as saying the crew inadvertently left a hatch open. That could have allowed sea water to run down the inside of the conning tower and on to one of the electrical panels, which erupted in sparks and flames on Oct. 5.

In Ottawa on Thursday, the assistant chief of maritime staff told a news conference that "an ingress of an unspecified amount of water was followed by an electrical incident and then a fire."

But Commodore Jim Sylvester insisted no conclusions have been reached.

"Let me make this clear: at this point in time the navy does not know what caused the fire on HMCS Chicoutimi."

Seawater gets into submarines on occasion, added Lt.-Cmdr. Luc Cassivi, commanding officer of the Chicoutimi's sister sub HMCS Victoria.

Cassivi wouldn't comment on whether such leaks are typically caused by mechanical failure or human error. Nor would he speculate on whether a North Atlantic gale the day of the Chicoutimi fire could have contributed to seawater getting inside the hull.

If eventually proven correct, an explanation of human error could take the heat off the Liberal government in Ottawa, which has faced a maelstrom of criticism over its $750 million lease-to-purchase deal for the used diesel-electric submarines.

But the suggestion that they were somehow responsible for crippling their own boat and consequently causing the death of their shipmate, Lieut. Chris Saunders, was vehemently denied Thursday by a group of submariners who agreed to speak as long as their names weren't used.

The crew leaves Glasgow for Canada on Friday night. Two of the injured sailors who were evacuated from the sub Oct. 6 with came back to Canada aboard a military aircraft Thursday and were reunited with their families, said Lieut.-Cmdr. Denise LaViolette in Halifax.

"They were well enough to travel and we sent an aircraft to pick them up," she said.

Master Seaman Archibald MacMaster, 41, of Port Hawkesbury, N.S., and Petty Officer Second Class Denis Lafleur, also 41, of Quebec, are both on medical leave and have requested some time alone with their families.

Over the last few days, chatty crew members have let slip some details that may be crucial to the military investigation into the fire that crippled their warship off the coast of Ireland last week.

Military officials apparently decided that the less said, the better. On Thursday, most media requests to interview submariners were being turned down, said Capt. Jason Proulx. There were plain-clothed military police and private security at the Glasgow hotel where the men are staying.

There's also been some concern among the tightly knit group of sailors about the publication of disturbing details surrounding the death of Lieut. Chris Saunders.

The submariners were privately told by Cmdr. Luc Pelletier, captain of Chicoutimi, that vivid descriptions of Saunders' lying unconscious on the deck during the crisis were "inappropriate."

The board of inquiry into the fire and the death of Saunders, a 14-year naval veteran, needs to "come up with an objective answer as to what happened," said Proulx.

He denied the gag order was an attempt to better stage-manage the battered reputation of the submarine program, adding that some of the crew are tired and need time to rest.

"This is in no way damage control," he said. "We've provided abundant access to our people following the incident."

The Ottawa news conference at National Defence Headquarters, described by DND as a technical briefing on the navy's safe-sub program, ended up lauding both the safety regime and the four Victoria-class subs in the fleet.

"We never send submarines and their crews to sea that are not prepared, checked and tested safe," said Sylvester.

Cassivi called the subs "absolutely a gem to handle at sea . . . leaps and bounds from the Oberon" class they replaced.

Damn I hope this isn't true.

[Darth Wong]

Here's another story on it, from the Toronto Star:

Hatches left open before blaze

Water filled room 90 minutes before panels exploded
Wave crashed over conning tower as crew fixed drain

GLASGOW, Scotland - A Canadian submarine had both tower hatches opened when a wave crashed above it, filling the control room in "ankle deep" salt water 90 minutes before electrical panels exploded, crew members say.

The decision to have both hatches opened — what submariners call "running opened up" — will likely be a subject of the Canadian military's board of inquiry into the fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi.

Crew members say keeping both hatches opened in the sub's conning tower, or fin, is not an uncommon procedure, even in the kind of rough waters that rocked the Chicoutimi in the North Atlantic on Oct. 5.

"There were many times during rough seas when we were running opened up," says a senior member of the Chicoutimi crew with experience on other subs.

No one on the Chicoutimi is questioning the decision by their commanding officer, Luc Pelletier.

Still, it left the control room beneath the opened hatches exposed to the wave that came crashing in at about lunchtime, when the crew was preparing to dive.

Sailors in the control room found themselves "ankle deep" in salt water, which also soaked the adjacent captain's cabin, says another crew member, who also didn't want to be identified. He described the amount of water as an "ingress" — more than a "leak" but less than what submariners call "a flood."

An electrical panel in the control room would later emit a machine-gun volley of sparks as a fire broke out, killing a Canadian sailor and leaving the 57 crew members drifting powerless for five days.

Asked if salt water making contact with electrical wires likely caused the fire, a crew member with technical knowledge said: "It doesn't sound like a big leap to me. Salt water touching electrical lines is never a good thing. But electrical lines are normally insulated and should withstand a certain degree of it."

Officials with the board of inquiry insist it's too early to say whether the water infiltration triggered the fire.

The crew frantically tried to mop up the water when it entered the control room. But so much had poured in that it cascaded to the lower deck, soaking everything in the crew lockers.

It also ran down a wall in the lower deck "ward," or lounge. On the other side of that wall was another electrical panel that within 90 minutes also ejected what has been described as "sparks the size of golf balls."

"I couldn't believe the amount of water that was coming down," said a sailor who witnessed the cascade onto the lower deck.

"Everything got soaked. We were mopping like crazy."

About an hour later, a light in the motor room indicated the submarine was experiencing a "grounding fault" — a flow of electricity to a spot where it shouldn't be going.

As the team searched for the fault, electrical panels on both decks started popping. Crew members describe fire racing down walls as though following the path of electrical wires.

What one sailor described as a "domino effect" of mishaps seems to have started with a water drainage problem on Oct. 4, the day the Chicoutimi set sail from a Scottish port on its first transatlantic voyage.

A wave brought water into the opened upper hatch of the conning tower, which accumulated in the compartment above the closed lower hatch. A drain that was suppose to evacuate that water failed to work.

So the crew had to open the lower hatch, allow the water to seep into the sub, and mop it up. The drainage system was then repaired.

The next morning, an engine kept stalling but was quickly repaired. And a defect was spotted that prevented the upper hatch of the conning tower from closing in a watertight way. A crew member climbed up to fix it.

Then the wave came.

The Chicoutimi is one of four second-hand, Victoria class subs that Canada obtained in a $750 million lease-and-buy deal from the British government. All have been plagued by glitches and accidents.

Canada has grounded them pending the outcome on an inquiry into the causes of the Chicoutimi fire, and the seaworthiness of the sub, which had been extensively refitted by BAE Systems, a British contractor.

The numerous glitches the Chicoutimi faced hours after it sailed raise questions about the condition of the second-hand submarine when it left the Scottish port of Faslane.

The Canadian navy's high command, and the Chicoutimi's crew, insists it could not have been in better shape.

The board of inquiry examining the causes of the fire, the seaworthiness of the Chicoutimi and the procedures followed before and after the blaze, is due to report by Nov. 30.

The board decided yesterday to interview 19 crew members it considers key witnesses to the five-day drama at sea.

Adam Thomas, a spokesperson for the British defence department involved in handing out the refitting contract, said the inquiry's conclusions will begin the process of deciding who is liable for the repair bill.

They also include a diagram of the situation.

[Aaron]

Well that's just fucking great. The CO decides to run with hatches open in rough goddamn weather. This is the shit that continue's to plague the CF, stupidity by it's officers. It's the same kind of shit that maimed me and killed my buddy.

[Admiral Valdemar]

While most systems will have a degree of waterproofing, I doubt that much water was ever going to be more than a problem for the systems. The hatch shouldn't be open if surfaced and in rough seas for obvious reasons.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Well that's just fucking great. The CO decides to run with hatches open in rough goddamn weather. This is the shit that continue's to plague the CF, stupidity by it's officers. It's the same kind of shit that maimed me and killed my buddy.

I'm sorry to hear that. I can't say otherwise about your situation, but I have heard the Canadian military, what it lacks in technological ability, it more than makes up in competence and training. I may be wrong, I hope I'm not.

[Aaron]

I'm sorry to hear that. I can't say otherwise about your situation, but I have heard the Canadian military, what it lacks in technological ability, it more than makes up in competence and training. I may be wrong, I hope I'm not.

That is mainly true. The training and competance of our NCO's is beyond measure. It's the officers that are fucked. They seem to lack all common sense, and refuse to listen to their Senior NCO's and learn from their experiance. Fuck I was in the army, but I can figure out that sailing with hatches open in rough weather=bad. And I was only a Cpl, what's this Captains excuse.

[White Cat]

I don't know if this is relevant, but apparently the Canadian government didn't have to directly pay for the subs. Rather, the cost was deducted from the rent the UK pays us for their use of a military base in Canada.

Oh, and there's another report quoting a retired navy guy who says that Canadian sailors aren't being trained well enough.

Canadian naval officials involved in the rescue of Chicoutimi spoke privately last night about chaotic scenes on the submarine during which few procedures were followed properly. "There were heroes in this, for sure, but if you add the whole thing up it doesn't make us look too good," an officer said.

Peter Kavanagh, a retired Canadian submarine commander who trained with many of those aboard HMCS Chicoutimi, said yesterday that Canada has rushed submariners into service in recent years before they had received adequate training.

As Canada desperately wanted to get the four submarines into service, Mr. Kavanagh told CTV's Question Period, some submariners received only about a week of at-sea training when they used to get as much as six months.

"We called it the great dolphin giveaway," Mr. Kavanagh said, in reference to the metal badge that submariners receive when they have gained all of their submariner qualifications.

[Aaron]

I don't know if this is relevant, but apparently the Canadian government didn't have to directly pay for the subs. Rather, the cost was deducted from the rent the UK pays us for their use of a military base in Canada.

That's correct. The British use CFB Suffield in Alberta to train their armoured brigades. I seem to remember reading something to the effect of what you claim in The Maple Leaf (the CF's newsletter).

As for the Dolphin giveaway. That's disgusting if it's true. That's yet another case of the CF knowingly allowing incompetance in it's ranks.

[Aaron]

The latest.

TORONTO - A short-wave radio operator's log of a transmission between two search and rescue aircraft on the day a fire broke out on HMCS Chicoutimi suggests that the Canadian submarine declined a British offer to have injured sailors airlifted from the submarine.

Three submariners who breathed in harmful amounts of smoke during the Oct. 5 electrical fire ended up being airlifted to an Irish hospital one day later. One of the crew members, Lieut. Chris Saunders, 32, died of his injuries.

Rescue operation from HMCS Chicoutimi
The account of the transmission, which was obtained by CBC News' Investigative Unit as part of an ongoing investigation, has not been verified. Canadian military officials refused to comment on its accuracy Friday.

The short-wave radio operator's account details a conversation between a British helicopter, referred to as R177, and a plane with the Kinloss Royal Air Force base in Scotland, identified as R51.

In the following quote from the account, recorded on the evening of the fire, the search and rescue aircraft are discussing whether they are being asked to airlift any of the nine injured sailors from HMCS Chicoutimi.

"... R51, we require confirmation that 2 casualties require airlifting to hospital as we are getting conflicting information from the commander-in-chief that the 2 casualties do not require evacuation."

"... R51 from the C.O. [commanding officer] of vessel, all casualties suffering from smoke inhalation. Seven are fully recovered, the 2 serious casualties are returning to normal, the C.O. does not wish any casualties to be airlifted off, he is happy for them to stay on vessel, and he does not need any more oxygen."

It was not until 13 hours later, on the morning of Oct. 6, that the British frigate HMS Montrose arrived at the scene, dropping off a doctor and a medical technician on board HMCS Chicoutimi.

FROM OCT. 14, 2004: Fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi may be linked to intake of salt water

The three most seriously injured crew members were then airlifted off the submarine. They originally headed for a hospital in Londonderry, Northern Ireland, but the flight was diverted to Sligo, Ireland, when Saunders' condition suddenly worsened.

Saunders died of smoke inhalation and was buried in Berwick, N.S., late this week.

Two other Chicoutimi crew remembers spent about a week in the Sligo General Hospital, recovering from smoke inhalation.

Crew returns home

Meanwhile, about half of the crew members from HMCS Chicoutimi arrived home Friday night in Halifax. Military officials have forbidden the media from recording the crew's reunions with family members.

The sailors were no longer needed by a military board leading the investigation into the fire that killed Lieut. Saunders.

The remainder of the crew will stay in Scotland to provide information to investigators.

Well if this turns out to be true, than the CO is directly responsible for that LT's death. He will of course deny any wrong doing. I told you guys that CF officers were fucked in the head.

[Gothmog]

Well I have to agree about the state of Canada's officer core. I was in the CF for 7 years and looking back on it now the troops and NCO's were top notch, all they needed was the right equipment and better wages... but the brass always acted like they recieved a lobotomy when commisioned. The only thing that mattered was sucking up to the superiors and the next mess dinner.

[Aaron]

Well I have to agree about the state of Canada's officer core. I was in the CF for 7 years and looking back on it now the troops and NCO's were top notch, all they needed was the right equipment and better wages... but the brass always acted like they recieved a lobotomy when commisioned. The only thing that mattered was sucking up to the superiors and the next mess dinner.

You're spot on about the labotomy. At 2 Sigs in Petawawa we would often have Sigs Officer Cadets at our unit for OJT in the summer. And typically they were good, treated the troops well. But after they recieved their commisions and returned as full-fledged officers they were complete assholes, and lacked all commom sense. Never listened to the Senior NCO's, some of which had been Rad Ops since before these officers were born.

[MKSheppard]

I call now for the Canadian Forces to be absorbed into the US Military. Competence will skyrocket.

[Aaron]

I call now for the Canadian Forces to be absorbed into the US Military. Competence will skyrocket.

Actually only Officer competance will go up. NCO competance will go down drastically.

[Darth Paul]

You're spot on about the labotomy. At 2 Sigs in Petawawa we would often have Sigs Officer Cadets at our unit for OJT in the summer. And typically they were good, treated the troops well. But after they recieved their commisions and returned as full-fledged officers they were complete assholes, and lacked all commom sense. Never listened to the Senior NCO's, some of which had been Rad Ops since before these officers were born.

I think there is a huge breakdown in the training system, but I also think the CF is having huge problems attracting good leaders. IME the best officers were generally the NCMs who transitioned to officer from the ranks. A good friend of mine (who went this route) once told me about a course at RMC (Canada's military college) where the prof lectured the students about how NCMs (enlisted members) were lazy and stupid and would do anything they could to avoid work and/or screw the officers and system. I also got tired of seeing the best annual reviews go to the idiots who arranged the golf tournaments and mess dinners but did nothing related to their primary duties...

Actually only Officer competance will go up. NCO competance will go down drastically.

I dunno, I worked in a joint CF-USAF unit - I'm not so convinced the officer competence would go up either