Scrapping the Subs - Media Pressure has Begun

[Cloud Cover]

It seems as if the CBC have begun an all out campaign to influence decision makers to scrap the sub sub fleet by questioning the utility of these platforms in the role of sovereignty enforcement and peace keeping operations.

This afternoon, they interviewed Steven Staples from the Polaris Institute, about the value of submarines in Canadian service. It is important to note that Staples is held out by the CBC to be an expert in defence issues, and he may have some education in that area, probably at the doctorate level, but the simple truth of the matter is that he is a disarmament activist and who has a very close relationship with the NDP. Staples has a habit of getting small papers in the hands of key media personell on various military issues in a time appropriate manner. Often, they ask him questions about things they read right off his papers.

Here are some of the notes I made while listening to the interview:    


Notes:

The submarines are cold war relics.

The Brits had a litany of problems with the subs, they were withdrawn because they were technically unreliable and could not be made to function properly.

The sub design was an experimental hunter killer.

The Aussies looked at buying the subs, but rejected them because there were too many problems with them.

Navy lobbied Jean Chretien very hard for the subs, and that he relented under intense pressure.

The subs must be pulled out of service and laid up until the cause of the disaster is confirmed, so that other members are not needlessly put at risk.

Wants a full public investigation and inquiry.

The subs serve no real purpose in defending Canada.

The missions assigned to subs can be accomplished with our existing surface fleet, aircraft and shore based radars.

Hunter killer submarines designed for stealthy operations, they are not a sovereignty tool.

The US pressured Canada to obtain the subs so we could be used as target practice for their ships.

This is a cold war killing tool, not a peacekeeping tool. We don't need them, because we are peacekeepers.

************

Those are the notes I took ... look for all of those points to be pushed by the CBC et al. over the next few weeks. They smell blood, just like with the CAR, watch them go for the kill of another capability by taking advantage of a bad situation.

In addition, the CBC is supposed to bring out a lawyer this afternoon   who will lay out possible legal action that can be taken to sue the Brits for the costs of the subs and the loss of life, as well as "what steps can be taken to prevent this from happening again", whatever that means.

If anybody catches that info, please add it to this thread.

Over the next few weeks, look for the following condensation words from the media, so called defence experts like Staples, and more importantly, the defence minister and other political actors:

"questionable neccessity" ; "needless capability";    "hunter killer, not peace keeping" ;   "cold war relic" ; "public investigation" [as opposed to S.O.P of BOI] ; "other means to accomplish the job"; "billion dollar sub boondoggle"


Thx ...   W 601.        

* edit: added the term "billion dollar submarine boondoggle" to the list of terms. We will shortly see a comparison between these ships and the gun registry [already begun].  Has the military learned from the PR mistakes made during the CAR fiasco? Time will tell.

 

[Sheerin]

Polaris Institute - ...retooling citizen movements for democratic social change in an age of corporate-driven globalization. 

Taken right off their website.

I saw staples the other day on CBC immediately questioned his 'expertise' on defense. 

I hope your wrong about them scrapping the boats...

 

[winchable]

As it stands I think the subs are overdue and over budget, however they are not a waste of money considering the alternative.

Scrapping them would make them a colossal waste of money, manpower and time already spent on training crew and refitting the new subs.

I really, really hope they don't think about this as a viable option.

 

[McG]

I've notice the editorials in the paper seem to speak for one of two camps.  The first calls the subs cold war relics and calls on getting rid of them.  The second condemns the government for not having taken the Australian route and built our own new subs (some would even seem to suggest we could still go this route).

The subs do fill a role in coastal security (because you don't always want they guys you are watching to know about it) and in operations outside Canadian waters.  Building new now will cost substantially more than fixing our subs and we cannot predict a more successful product.

Anyone remember the Mulroney proposal for a nuclear sub that would have allowed us to operate under the Arctic?  There is a program we should have stuck too (but diesel is still the only route that can go completely silent).

 

[Inch]

Whiskey, I saw that interview today too.  What the hell does this guy know? Has he ever been in theater? Probably not, he played out the "Peacekeeper" role to his advantage. I have a feeling this guy doesn't know the first thing about being a peacekeeper, I've never been on tour but from what I gather, peacekeepers need to be combat trained troops, not mall security guards which I think this guy feels they should be like. Even the journalist asked "should we be relying on the Americans to protect our sovereignty?", which is when he brought up that Hunter Killers don't defend sovereignty, to which I disagree. Subs are stealthy, people are going to think twice before breaching our sovereign territory knowing full well they have no idea where our subs are. I've only seen this Staples guy once and already I think he's an idiot that has yet to wake up and smell the reality of our cruel world.

Just my thoughts.

Cheers

 

[Cloud Cover]

Anyone remember the Mulroney proposal for a nuclear sub that would have allowed us to operate under the Arctic?   There is a program we should have stuck too (but diesel is still the only route that can go completely silent).

I was in the Navy at the time in question, and can remember the surprise being expressed by many admirals over the proposed fleet. But, the idea was quickly embraced with almost religious fever by all ... imagine, Canada with SSN subs, and the capability and respect that goes with it!! I believe the proposed fleet size was an even dozen of the Trafalgar variety, or perhaps a French design as a runner up.

 

[Sheerin]

Okay I've just done some research on staples (i'm skimming through his 2002 paper "Breaking Rank: a Citizens review of Defense spending") and this is what he has to say about the military and their expenses (http://www.polarisinstitute.org/polaris_project/corp_security_state/publications_articles/breaking_rank.pdf)

Canada has too many frigates,
which has prompted some defence officials to suggest mothballing a number of
ships to redirect funds to other projects.

(Staples, 2002:22 30 in the PDF)

Oh here is another doozie

While
much media attention has been paid to the need to replace the aging Sea Kings,
there has been little public scrutiny of why the forces need helicopters with antisubmarine
warfare capabilities designed to find Russian submarines, given that
Russia is now an ally and cannot even afford to deploy submarines. Furthermore,
if the patrol frigates themselves have no clear mission, then why should Canada
spend so much on equipping all twelve ships with new helicopters?

(Staples 2002:23 (31 in the PDF file))

These submarines have no clear purpose in Canadian defence needs that cannot be
met by existing surface vessels â “ especially considering that the submarine threat has
disappeared, thereby removing the need for an anti-submarine warfare capability. In
fact, their most important function seems to be to allow the Canadian Navy to participate
in war games with U.S. and British nuclear submarines, which are operated by crews
that need to spar with quieter diesel-electric submarines like the Upholders.

(Staples 2002: 24 (32 in PFD))

I also noted he quoted a journalist's artilce "Why Australia rejected Canada's new subs".  Anyone have a copy of that article?

However, the Canadian Forces has no plans to purchase this stealthy and offensive
warplane [F-35], and is already spending nearly $1.2 billion to upgrade its existing fleet of CF-18s.

Staples 2002: 24)

and I found this towards the end of the artilce, this is his discription of the following image

Three Canadian ships in a U.S. battlegroup near Afghanistan. New
missiles on Canadian ships could be targetted and fired by the
U.S. commander aboard the U.S. destroyer.

The CBC should do their homework a little better or at the very least inform people of this mans bias.  But I kinda doubt they care.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Hey Inch and Sheerin, Happy Thanksgiving!!! Staples is emerging with near God like reverence by the CBC on defence issues. He wrote a small book a while ago for the Center For Policy Alternatives, [or something like that], to counter the CDA's publication on defence. In the book, he complained about us taking part on the WOT, on Canada having offensive systems etc., NATO membership, NORAD issues etc. Strangely, he is now advocating the use of CPF's and Aurora's [presumably] to conduct sovereignty missions. These are the very systems he has previously advocated scrapping, or rendering useless by removing weapons systems.  

But make no mistake about it, many people will jump on his bandwagon on this issue. Will DND effectively neutralize this turkey and his CBC students? I strongly doubt they will, they will simply ignore him and leave it up to others to counter his momentum, to the detriment of the submarine service.  

Thanks for the link Sheerin ... good quick research!!!    

 

[McG]

Scrapping subs unlikely, Graham says
By ALLISON DUNFIELD
Globe and Mail Update

Defence Minister Bill Graham played down a suggestion Monday that Canada would scrap its submarine program because of the fatal fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi.

"I certainly would wait until the board of inquiry told us what was the cause of this accident," he said. "My own view, based on the advice of the navy, is that submarines are an integral and an important part of the strategic role that the navy plays and that these were the submarines they wanted and they were operating them.

He did not, however, reject the idea entirely.

"I would rule nothing out at this time. As I said before, I would rule nothing out, but I also don't engage in speculation about things that are not likely to happen," Mr. Graham told reporters in Faslane, Scotland, where the crippled Chicoutimi arrived on Sunday after a five-day towing operation following Tuesday's fire aboard the submarine.

One sailor, Lieutenant Chris Saunders, died a day after the blaze when he was being airlifted to hospital for treatment for smoke inhalation. Two other crewmen are in hospital in Sligo, Ireland, where they are receiving treatment for smoke inhalation but are making "good progress," the submarine's captain, Commander Luc Pelletier, said Monday at a separate news conference in Scotland.

Mr. Graham also would not speculate on whether Canada would seek compensation from Britain following the incident.

Chicoutimi was one of four used submarines purchased from Britain in 1998. They have been plagued with delays, cost overruns and mechanical problems, including leaks.

"There is a board of inquiry. That will tell us what future action we will take between the United Kingdom and ourselves. Anything else is pure speculation," Mr. Graham said.

At a later news conference in London with both Mr. Graham and British Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, Mr. Graham was asked whether the subject of compensation from Britain came up with Mr. Hoon.
"When we know the cause...we'll work this out as allies and friends....let's just see the facts before we can talk about such things. This is just speculation. I don't know why everybody's so busy speculating until we know what the facts are."

Mr. Hoon was asked by a reporter whether Canada's purchase of the subs were a case of "buyer beware."

Mr. Hoon did not answer the question directly, saying that fires at sea are among the most dangerous conditions aboard a vessel. "That's why in recent years, members of the Royal Navy and members of the Canadian navy train in a particularly vigorous way to deal with [and] confront fires."

"I think it's important to give proper respect to the people that fought the fire so hard," Mr. Hoon said.

During his earlier press conference in Scotland, Mr. Graham commended Britain for helping Canada out in the naval emergency. Several British vessels and a helicopter were sent to assist the submarine as it was towed back to land.

"My first duty is to thank them on behalf of Canadian navy for their help in these circumstances," Mr. Graham said.

He said he would not consider asking for any compensation until the board of inquiry concludes and the facts are known.

"We are a great ally of the United Kingdom. We work together closely on many, many fronts and we'll work this out as friends do."

Liberal ministers have always defended the purchase of the diesel-electric vessels as a bargain, while the military has not lost faith in the submarines that have been a constant cause of embarrassment.

Last week, after the incident occurred, the Liberals were criticized by the opposition, who said the government put lives at risk by purchasing second-hand subs that were not up to par.

While acknowledging that it took longer than expected to re-commission the vessels, Mr. Graham said that "as in any military equipment purchase, you must work your way through these problems." you've got to work your way through these problems."

It's up to the navy whether to dock the rest of the fleet, Mr. Graham said.

He took a tour of Chicoutimi in Scotland and told reporters that he saw firsthand the severe damage the vessel suffered.

"I can tell you that, in the captain's cabin, the heat must have been incredible. I can tell you that the crew members told us that it was a matter of seconds they had ... to be able to react to this.

"What I saw led me to believe there was extraordinary courage and extraordinary professionalism on board that submarine."

He seemed disturbed by the level of damage, describing it as an "unimaginable degree."
He said it was more extensive than he imagined and after hearing what the crew went through, he was amazed that no one else was killed.

A funeral will be held for Lt. Saunders on Wednesday. His body was returned to Canada on Sunday.

The rest of the crew of Chicoutimi are not expected to return from Scotland until later this week.

With a report from Canadian Press

 

[Inch]

Thanks mate, you too.  ;D

I truly hope this weenie just goes by the wayside.  I wonder if he feels it necessary for cops to carry guns anymore since gun registration has taken care of all the illegal guns without serial numbers. I'll go back to my mall security guard example again, sure you show your face, but if someone is bound and determined to break the law, what's going to stop them? Sovereignty patrols without weapons? "You stop! Or we'll send Celine Dion to do a concert in your country!" I sure wish I lived in this guy's happy happy world on lollypop lane.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a war monger, but I believe that there are some bad people out there and they only speak one language, it's called "if you don't stop what you're doing I'm going to stick this missile up your ***"

 

[Michael Dorosh]

As it stands I think the subs are overdue and over budget, however they are not a waste of money considering the alternative.

Scrapping them would make them a colossal waste of money, manpower and time already spent on training crew and refitting the new subs.

I really, really hope they don't think about this as a viable option.

Sea King replacement.  Cormorant.  "Cadillac".  Penalty payments.  We've seen it before.

 

[Cloud Cover]

He did not, however, reject the idea entirely.

"I would rule nothing out at this time. As I said before, I would rule nothing out, but I also don't engage in speculation about things that are not likely to happen," Mr. Graham told reporters in Faslane, Scotland, where the crippled Chicoutimi arrived on Sunday after a five-day towing operation following Tuesday's fire aboard the submarine.

So ... given the opportunity to reject the notion as foolish, ""the door is ajar", so to speak.  He should have simply taken affirmative steps to stomp out speculation right then and there, but I suspect he doesn't really know or care about the value of enhanced fleet security provided by submarines.    

 

[Sheerin]

It is somewhat worrying that left the door open for scrapping the subs. 
This whole situation is troubling. 

No problem Whiskey it seems the Polaris Institute is quite proud of the work done by Mr. Staples and as such had the paper displayed in a prominent position.

and happy thanksgiving to you as well. 
Oh and on a side note, I decided to send an email to CBC expressing my displeasure with the selection of Mr. Staples as a "defense expert".  You know, it would be nice if he participated in a Q&A session.  Of course I won't get anything back.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Here is a letter I just emailed to the editor of the CBC:

Attention: Editor in Chief, CBC News.

As a former member of the the Canadian navy, I am sending this email to you to express my disgust and outrage at the CBC for holding Steven Staples out as some sort of defence expert, especially with respect to the use and value of submarines. The man is nothing less than a activist of the Michael Moore variety, the only difference being he actually has some education. And to follow through with the subject of education, a post graduate degree of any sort is not a proper qualification that warrants the solicitation of the opinion of a person lacking the skill and expertise to form and express a well rounded opinion on any subject matter, much more in the operational arena of national defence issues.   Tell me, does Mr. Staples have any such skill and expertise beyond the campus?

On todays television interview with Mr.   Staples, he made countless errors of fact and outright misrepresented the role and value of submarines in Canadian use. If you want factual information, stick to primary sources such the navy or perhaps ex-submariners themselves. Anything else is simply irresponsible speculation. If you want to use my tax dollars to solicit an opinion on a military issue, please use sources who have a proper understanding of the issues you are investigating and reporting on. A publicly funded media organization ought not to be engaged promoting activist points of view on such serious issues. A sailor lost his life in the service of his country, and already your organization appears to be advocating a course of action that could seriously weaken the defensive posture of our country.

Raising the issue of scrapping the fleet by asking the question "what value are the submarines" to sovereignty and peace keeping simply reinforces the complete ignorance of attitude about defence issues that pervades the CBC. By bringing individuals on air such as Mr. Staples to present their biased and meritless opinions about defence issues raises the question of whether your organization is biased itself.

Frankly, I find myself seriously questioning the values, ethics, and indeed the utility, of your organization which rejoices in the notion of freedom of the press to gleefully undermine the efforts made by our fighting forces to defend your rights. Please stick to reporting the news, you have some competency in that, but please do not try to create news, your incompetency shines in that respect.
   
Yours truly,

Fred XCXCX

***********
Like you, Sheerin, I do not expect a reply!!

 

[Inch]

Amen to that! Well written Fred, kudos.

 

[Sheerin]

Well you made my letter look bad  

That was an excellent letter and hopefully with any luck you will a get reply. 

CBC's selection of Staples really makes we wonder if the producers actually looked into what he wrote or if they had him on to push their own agenda. 
My brother used to work as a producer with CTV news and aparently whenever they needed an 'expert' 9 times out of 10 all they would  do is look a list of people given to them by the various Think Tanks and select one.  Most of the time they have no idea who the individual is or what the goal of his organization is.  Part of me hopes that this is the case with CBC and not them trying to take funding away from the military.

 

[McG]

I expect you'll now be invited if the CBC hosts a town-hall show on the issue of the subs.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

How much money actually changed hands here?  Didn't we give them access to training area's and such as oppossed to all the money quoted?

 

[Kirkhill]

A great letter Whiskey.

I see that in Britain there are rumours of breaking up the CBC.  Gave me thought.  Maybe what we could do is split the CBC budget in two and two networks funded.  One would be administered by a Government oversight committee.  The other by the official opposition.  Maybe then we could get a balanced debate on public policy.

 

[Sheerin]

Never will we ever get a balanced agency, unless of course we use Robots, but then the programmers of the robots bias would be a problem...
Okay bad humour.

I somehow doubt the CBC will hold a Town Hall meeting about the subs.  Maybe if the Chicoutimi went down with all hands then maybe CBC would do something like that. 
Did we pay 750 million or does that figure include the costs associated with the Brits using our bases?