Canadian Subs tied up at dock

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-10-12 07:09pm

Lunky

Last Updated Tue, 12 Oct 2004 19:08:18 EDT

OTTAWA - The Canadian navy pulled three submarines out of service on Tuesday as a precautionary measure in the wake of the fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi last week.

The move came as the navy started an inquiry into the fire, which killed one crew member.

"Earlier today, the president of the military board of inquiry into HMCS Chicoutimi ... advised me of preliminary information which caused me to decide it would be prudent to keep all submarines alongside until more analysis can be done on the possible causes of the fire," Vice-Admiral Bruce MacLean said in a statement.

Defence Minister Bill Graham said the safety of the sailors was the first consideration. He didn't know how long the boats would remain at the dock.

The other three Victoria-class boats are are HMCS Corner Brook, Windsor and and Victoria. The first two are based in Halifax, while the Victoria is at the Esquimalt on Vancouver Island.

Liberal MP Keith Martin warned the navy might take that step earlier in the day.

The three boats are similar to the Chicoutimi.

The formal investigation began with the board taking a first-hand look at the scene of the blaze.

"I can tell you it was startling for all of us," said inquiry head Commodore Dan Murphy. "This was a major fire."

Murphy said there were actually two fires in three locations ... the commanding officer's cabin, an electrical space below the cabin and at an oxygen generator in a different location.

Lieut. Chris Saunders, 32, died of smoke inhalation and eight other crewmen were injured in the electrical fire, which broke out shortly after the submarine left port in Faslane, Scotland.

Murphy pledged that the inquiry will get to the bottom of events aboard the Chicoutimi.

"Make no mistake: This is not an exercise in relentless positivism," he said. "This is an inquiry and an investigation to uncover the facts."

Members of the inquiry also looked at the operations log as they began to sort out the sequence of events.

Murphy said he will begin interviewing witnesses in Glasgow, after which the inquiry will interview people in Halifax.

HMCS Chicoutimi was one of four mothballed British submarines bought by the Canadian government. There have been cost overruns and mechanical problems with the subs.

On Monday, Defence Minister Bill Graham said the naval inquiry could guide Ottawa as to future actions that might be taken against the British government.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-10-12 07:26pm

I wish they asked for the money back,but dumbass Bill Graham won't do it stupid asshole....we do not need subs

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-10-12 07:28pm

Montcalm wrote:I wish they asked for the money back,but dumbass Bill Graham won't do it stupid asshole....we do not need subs

I wouldn't be so confident. It's not likely, but many people in Britain were saying the same thing of carriers, the Royal Marines, and surface warships up to 1980, when Argentina decided to take a little expedition to the Falklands. The U.S. isn't always there to do everything for you.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2004-10-12 07:34pm

Does anyone know if the Canadian naval shipyard could built submarines?

It would be better having them built here instead of buying used British PoS

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-10-12 07:35pm

Maybe you should wait until the inquiry is done before leaping to conclusions about what caused that fire.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-10-12 07:46pm

Montcalm wrote:Does anyone know if the Canadian naval shipyard could built submarines?

It would be better having them built here instead of buying used British PoS

You could talk to Electric Boat. I'm sure they'd be glad of the business.

But I don't know if they still even build diesel subs, or if they've completely retooled for nuclear. Submarines aren't exactly my area of expertise.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-12 07:48pm

Montcalm wrote:I wish they asked for the money back,but dumbass Bill Graham won't do it stupid asshole....we do not need subs

Most of our surface warships are ASW oriented. They do need something to practice against...

Does anyone know if the Canadian naval shipyard could built submarines?

Properly retooled, the St. John's yard (which built the Halifax-class frigates) could have, but it's closed down now. I'm not sure if the Halifax yard could handle building new boats, although they are in charge of "canadianizing" the subs (like converting them to use Mk. 48 torpedoes rather than the Spearfish torpedoes they were originally designed to use)

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-13 09:30am

Montcalm wrote:Does anyone know if the Canadian naval shipyard could built submarines?

No.

It would be better having them built here instead of buying used British PoS

Yeah, it would be much better to spend several billion dollars, instead of about 300 million, so that your submarines can be built by a yard with no experience building them after it invests in a huge amount of equipment that will never be used again. That sounds like a great recipe for having trouble free submarines.

This is getting just retarded. There is nothing yet to show that this fire had anything to do with the material condition of the subs when they where bought and the fact that cannot be denied is that Canada got an extremely good deal on these submarines. They needed some work after having been mothballed, that happens. But the buying price for these four little used SSK's was less then a single one of them would have cost new. You can't beat that.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-10-13 10:49am

Rogue 9 wrote:
Montcalm wrote:Does anyone know if the Canadian naval shipyard could built submarines?

It would be better having them built here instead of buying used British PoS
You could talk to Electric Boat. I'm sure they'd be glad of the business. But I don't know if they still even build diesel subs, or if they've completely retooled for nuclear. Submarines aren't exactly my area of expertise.

EB hasn't built a diesel boat since the 50's IIRC. I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to do. They do have two seperate facilities, one each in Rhode Island and Connecticut.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-13 11:19am

Col. Crackpot wrote:
EB hasn't built a diesel boat since the 50's IIRC. I imagine it wouldn't be too hard to do. They do have two seperate facilities, one each in Rhode Island and Connecticut.

The last diesel boats built by the US where completed in 1959. One of the three (Barbel class) left service in 1988 (after what do you know, a fire) and the other two in 1990. There have been many proposals to rebuild the US capability to construct SSK's, both for supply to Allies and to provide ASW training targets for the USN but funding has always stopped the plans.

Ingalls did come close to assembling diesels subs for Israel from parts and hull sections built in German in 1988, but the program was canacled in 1990 as part of US defence cutbacks. After the Gulf war the program was brought back to life, but with funding only from Israel and German and with all work being done in a German yard.