Scrapping the Subs - Media Pressure has Begun
- Thread starter Cloud Cover
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Navalsnipr said:
Especialy with the "threat" of an opened Artic passage. what better way to patrol it then to have Subs, no need to worry about ice or weather.
Someone will hang, someone always does it just depends on who plays CYA better.
- Reaction score
- 1,710
- Points
- 1,160
Wizard of OZ said:
"Patrolling" also leads to the inevitable problem of "discovery" and the ability to do something about. What about the ability to deploy and recover mines as an additional deterrent?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
We don't use mines anymore. That thingy they signed i can't recall if it included sea mines but i think it did i will have to look it up.
Doing something, you bet we will we will have the politicans bitch and scream and then ask us to do somehting and then they will remember we need money to do things so then they will say never mind it was not that important anyway. ;D
Doing something, you bet we will we will have the politicans bitch and scream and then ask us to do somehting and then they will remember we need money to do things so then they will say never mind it was not that important anyway. ;D
- Reaction score
- 7,949
- Points
- 1,160
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/04/landmine.wrap/
http://www.icbl.org/tools/faq/treaty/cover
http://www.icbl.org/tools/faq/treaty/notcovered
AFAIK the LAND mine treaty only prohibits the use of anti-personnel mines. By definition SEA mines would be occluded. As are anti-tank mines and even anti-tank mines with anti-handling devices. Both of those are still permitted.
As to SEA mines - What is mine?
How about a self-powered, inactive, intelligent torpedo or UUV (uninhabited underwater vehicle) lying dormant on the sea-floor?
Is that a mine, a torpedo, or a UUV?
Would it be useful to establish control and sovereignty?
Centrally commanded? Remote command from a submarine outside of the ice zone? Occasionally relocated?
Self-recovering for service? Built in sonar? Capable of advertising its presence? Retransmission of data? Working with long-life sonobuoys?
The purpose of the exercise is to let folks know that you are there and that they can proceed only with your permission. The converse to that is that if permission is granted you must be able to guarantee risk free passage.
Don't want things going boom under keel of well heeled tourists photographing nice polar bears. Not good for business.
http://www.icbl.org/tools/faq/treaty/cover
http://www.icbl.org/tools/faq/treaty/notcovered
AFAIK the LAND mine treaty only prohibits the use of anti-personnel mines. By definition SEA mines would be occluded. As are anti-tank mines and even anti-tank mines with anti-handling devices. Both of those are still permitted.
As to SEA mines - What is mine?
How about a self-powered, inactive, intelligent torpedo or UUV (uninhabited underwater vehicle) lying dormant on the sea-floor?
Is that a mine, a torpedo, or a UUV?
Would it be useful to establish control and sovereignty?
Centrally commanded? Remote command from a submarine outside of the ice zone? Occasionally relocated?
Self-recovering for service? Built in sonar? Capable of advertising its presence? Retransmission of data? Working with long-life sonobuoys?
The purpose of the exercise is to let folks know that you are there and that they can proceed only with your permission. The converse to that is that if permission is granted you must be able to guarantee risk free passage.
Don't want things going boom under keel of well heeled tourists photographing nice polar bears. Not good for business.
- Reaction score
- 16,342
- Points
- 1,010
Kirkhill,
That capability already exists. It is called the MK60 Captor mine and is based on the Mk46 torpedo.
See Link:
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk60.htm
That capability already exists. It is called the MK60 Captor mine and is based on the Mk46 torpedo.
See Link:
www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/mk60.htm
- Reaction score
- 4,028
- Points
- 1,120
A surface ship (destroyer, frigate, etc) is a visible means of power projection. People see them, and KNOW that you have a physical presence in the area.
A submarine is an invisible means of power projection. All it needs to do is be seen in the area ONCE, and then you don't know when it's NOT there anymore.
Subs should not be scrapped, they should be supported. Knowing some of the crews, they're hard working and dedicated. My boss was one of the Pall bearers at LT(N) Saunder's funeral, and I knew 2 of the other Pall bearers as well.
A sad day, but one to learn from, so that things get corrected. Not a day to shut down the shop and send them to the scrap heap.
NavyShooter
A submarine is an invisible means of power projection. All it needs to do is be seen in the area ONCE, and then you don't know when it's NOT there anymore.
Subs should not be scrapped, they should be supported. Knowing some of the crews, they're hard working and dedicated. My boss was one of the Pall bearers at LT(N) Saunder's funeral, and I knew 2 of the other Pall bearers as well.
A sad day, but one to learn from, so that things get corrected. Not a day to shut down the shop and send them to the scrap heap.
NavyShooter
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Kirkhill said:
My recollection is that Tom Clancy described an attack using active mines by the Chinese to generate an incident in order to generate public support to get the US Fleet out of Taiwan or something.
The only reason I mention it is because after reading that part of the book, I was left scratching my chin and asking myself "How the hell do you defend against that?"
I think it was 'The Bear and the Dragon', but that was a number of years ago so I cannot be certain.
M.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 260
Excellent post Navy shooter it is as true as the sky is blue.
But we have a problem with that as the government ends up making the final decesion on all of our "pressence minded duties".
I think we may see them gone and replaced with smaller costal defence ships that could be used for S&R as well.
Not the best option but one that will have less teeth in it, you know how the liberals like us. All snarl no bite.
But we have a problem with that as the government ends up making the final decesion on all of our "pressence minded duties".
I think we may see them gone and replaced with smaller costal defence ships that could be used for S&R as well.
Not the best option but one that will have less teeth in it, you know how the liberals like us. All snarl no bite.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Tue, March 1, 2005
Probe in sub fire restarted
By CP
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/03/01/945968-sun.html
NAVAL board of inquiry reconvenes behind closed doors tomorrow in Halifax, taking crucial testimony that will help to determine who -- or what -- is to blame for the fatal fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi. The investigation was paused halfway through last month as the submarine's skipper and two senior officers sought legal advice.
Cmdr. Luc Pelletier is expected to be the star witness at the hearing into his decision to leave one of two conning tower hatches open as repairs were conducted on a stuck vent.
The opening of the hatch is believed to be an important link in a series of events that led to the electrical fire which claimed the life of Lieut. Chris Saunders, 32, and left the submarine powerless and bobbing on the ocean surface.
Some members of the navy, who spoke anonymously, have said they were worried Pelletier, who is a popular figure in the tightly knit submarine community, was being set up to take the fall for what they claim might be poor workmanship by British shipbuilders.
No one, however, is being singled out for blame at this stage of the investigation, a military spokesman was quoted as saying Monday.
Probe in sub fire restarted
By CP
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/News/2005/03/01/945968-sun.html
NAVAL board of inquiry reconvenes behind closed doors tomorrow in Halifax, taking crucial testimony that will help to determine who -- or what -- is to blame for the fatal fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi. The investigation was paused halfway through last month as the submarine's skipper and two senior officers sought legal advice.
Cmdr. Luc Pelletier is expected to be the star witness at the hearing into his decision to leave one of two conning tower hatches open as repairs were conducted on a stuck vent.
The opening of the hatch is believed to be an important link in a series of events that led to the electrical fire which claimed the life of Lieut. Chris Saunders, 32, and left the submarine powerless and bobbing on the ocean surface.
Some members of the navy, who spoke anonymously, have said they were worried Pelletier, who is a popular figure in the tightly knit submarine community, was being set up to take the fall for what they claim might be poor workmanship by British shipbuilders.
No one, however, is being singled out for blame at this stage of the investigation, a military spokesman was quoted as saying Monday.
I remember the "Mulroney Plan" for acquisition of nuclear submarines - part of a team of consultants
contracted to find alternative ports on the East Coast of Canada to support the vessels, away from
the naval base and Port of Halifax NS. We focused on Port Hawkesbury NS, Sheet Harbour NS,
Stephenville, Newfoundland etc. The "Mulroney Plan" had much merit, and was in the very advanced
stages when the plan was abandoned, much to the regret of Canadian, British and U.S. navy people
of the period. It would be a serious blunder to eliminate Canadian submarine resources, and the
problems with the ex RN boats will be resolved in typical "Hearts of Oak" fashion by the Navy of course
- the CBC in my opinion is no friend of the Canadian Forces and is a propaganda vehicle for the very
fuzzy left in Canada, but for some reason have the support of certain key Liberal Federal cabinet
ministers, a sad situation. MacLeod
contracted to find alternative ports on the East Coast of Canada to support the vessels, away from
the naval base and Port of Halifax NS. We focused on Port Hawkesbury NS, Sheet Harbour NS,
Stephenville, Newfoundland etc. The "Mulroney Plan" had much merit, and was in the very advanced
stages when the plan was abandoned, much to the regret of Canadian, British and U.S. navy people
of the period. It would be a serious blunder to eliminate Canadian submarine resources, and the
problems with the ex RN boats will be resolved in typical "Hearts of Oak" fashion by the Navy of course
- the CBC in my opinion is no friend of the Canadian Forces and is a propaganda vehicle for the very
fuzzy left in Canada, but for some reason have the support of certain key Liberal Federal cabinet
ministers, a sad situation. MacLeod
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 360
Slim said:
I saw the article this morning. I am disgusted with the way it is being handled. Witch hunts anyone?
I think Slim is right - the Federal Government is looking for a scapegoat, which will mean a General
Court Martial for a least one and possibly more of the vessels's officers - that is why currently the
hearing into the fire at sea and subsequent events are "in camera" in Halifax NS. But having said
that, the Captain of a naval vessel in any circumstance involving loss of life or heavy damage to
a serving ship, would normally face an Enquiry and a Court Martial - a traditional and wise course
for the Navy to establish responsibility and encourage changes focused on prevention. But the
retention of our submarine capability must continue - I have always been impressed with the
dedication and professionalism of the submariners in the Canadian Navy, and their dismissal from
the Fleet would be a very serious blow to naval morale. MacLeod
Court Martial for a least one and possibly more of the vessels's officers - that is why currently the
hearing into the fire at sea and subsequent events are "in camera" in Halifax NS. But having said
that, the Captain of a naval vessel in any circumstance involving loss of life or heavy damage to
a serving ship, would normally face an Enquiry and a Court Martial - a traditional and wise course
for the Navy to establish responsibility and encourage changes focused on prevention. But the
retention of our submarine capability must continue - I have always been impressed with the
dedication and professionalism of the submariners in the Canadian Navy, and their dismissal from
the Fleet would be a very serious blow to naval morale. MacLeod
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
Scapegoat? I don't think so, bottom line both hatches were open, and water got in. Both hatches should not be open, the boat was not designed for that. It is common practice to open them before diving, to get as much fresh air through the boat, and it also allows for the bringing down equipment from the bridge to go more smoothly.
Sure the junction box was in bad shape, but if the hatches were not open then the water wouldn't have gotten in.....
Someone made the decision to open the hatches, and we all know what the end result was.
The Captain is in charge of his vessel, unlike the army which can out the blame on a private and get away with it, really blame the private, that was a mess, and it makes me sick to my stomach just thinking about it...
I couldn't imagine blaming some Ordinary Seaman for such a fcuk up........
Sure the junction box was in bad shape, but if the hatches were not open then the water wouldn't have gotten in.....
Someone made the decision to open the hatches, and we all know what the end result was.
The Captain is in charge of his vessel, unlike the army which can out the blame on a private and get away with it, really blame the private, that was a mess, and it makes me sick to my stomach just thinking about it...
I couldn't imagine blaming some Ordinary Seaman for such a fcuk up........
- Reaction score
- 1,710
- Points
- 1,160
Well Sub Guy, you hit the nail on the head. Someone's going to get blamed, it won't be the OS or the skipper. How long has it been since a chief has been hung out to dry?
There goes my blood pressure again. The inquiry was not "paused half way through last month as the submarines skipper and two senior officers sought legal advice". The inquiry was finished, Ottawa rejected the findings and ordered the decision to run opened up re-investigated. So much for an "independent inquiry".
It is the arrogance that gets to me.
As for you, Sub Guy, what kind of boat were you on? Not designed for it? There is no way you can run normal sub ops without risking an occasional shower down the tower. Not being able to run open up would put a serious operational restriction on the boats. And for your information, the design calls for those splices to be water proof, not "water resistant" cause they are going to get wet.
It is the arrogance that gets to me.
As for you, Sub Guy, what kind of boat were you on? Not designed for it? There is no way you can run normal sub ops without risking an occasional shower down the tower. Not being able to run open up would put a serious operational restriction on the boats. And for your information, the design calls for those splices to be water proof, not "water resistant" cause they are going to get wet.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 460
Occasional shower yes, did you see the video footage of the Chicoutimi flopping around in the waves? The boat is not designed to be opened up in that weather. Ripping around the straits yes, not being able to run open up doesn't restrict the boat at all.
Also if you follow procedure properly it would be nearly impossible for that much water to get in. I assume you know how the tower is designed, and the procedure for using it...... Yes in calm waters it is common for both to be open, but in rough weather, I wouldn't expect to see both open.
We don't know what was going on out there, and if the procedure was followed for going up to the bridge was followed, we probably wouldn't be discussing any of this. It is all speculation.
Yes the splices should have been water proof which makes sense. The Chicoutimi should have been in the best shape as she had all new parts... The other boats got Chi parts. I don't think the boat should have sailed when it did, 6 more months in the UK would have been beneficial for the crew and the boat.
Also if you follow procedure properly it would be nearly impossible for that much water to get in. I assume you know how the tower is designed, and the procedure for using it...... Yes in calm waters it is common for both to be open, but in rough weather, I wouldn't expect to see both open.
We don't know what was going on out there, and if the procedure was followed for going up to the bridge was followed, we probably wouldn't be discussing any of this. It is all speculation.
Yes the splices should have been water proof which makes sense. The Chicoutimi should have been in the best shape as she had all new parts... The other boats got Chi parts. I don't think the boat should have sailed when it did, 6 more months in the UK would have been beneficial for the crew and the boat.
Ooookay, they tell me I can't discuss op details on a public board and the moderators have expressed a firm desire that participants remain polite and not say things like "where did you get your dolphins, out of a CrackerJacks box" but you are making it real hard, Sub_guy.
I hauled out my file of clippings so I can keep this strictly within what has been released to the public.
1. Yes, I saw the Chicoutimi flopping around like a OS after his first visit to the Rue Sau Paulo. A video taken the day after the fire, after the gale had moved in, of a sub dead in the water and broadside to the waves. That has nothing to do with the conditions at the time of the ingress. Conditions were worsening but the gale had not reached Chicoutimi. SOP had been followed and the OOW had confirmed no greenies had reached the fin for 15 minutes prior to opening up. They took a rogue wave which can happen even in calm conditions. From the accounts of the OOW and lookout the boat was opened up for several hours after the fire with the tower acting as a chimney so they could not get below. Even dead in the water and rolling they did not report any more ingresses of water.
2. Your name and previous posts imply you are serving on a boat. It should be very easy for you to find a EOOW or senior greenie to explain to you the restrictions caused by running shut down.
3. The boat was designed with the designers knowing that the boat would be opened up in extremely bad weather. Man Overboard and Recovery ops have an inconvenient habit of happening in extremely bad weather. Having the diver and rescue party lock in and out is not a serious option.
4. The RN had the cable splices upgraded on the other three boats and in the Chicoutimi's engine room because of earthing problems. There has been no explaination of why the Chicoutimi's cable splices in the captains cabin were not upgraded.
5. The cables had not been renewed during the activation. Cannabalizing the Chicoutimi to activate the other three boats and then not doing a complete refit is ........to be polite and mild, not good engineering pratice. Knowing 52 million was cut out of the maintenance budget does not inspire confidence in NDHQ's version of events.
I have no brief for Pelletier. I don't remember if I sailed with him or not. There were so many ringknockers rotating through the wardroom I never bothered learning all their names. The bottom line is the probability of those cable splices being immmersed in water sometime during the boats lifetime is 100%.
I hauled out my file of clippings so I can keep this strictly within what has been released to the public.
1. Yes, I saw the Chicoutimi flopping around like a OS after his first visit to the Rue Sau Paulo. A video taken the day after the fire, after the gale had moved in, of a sub dead in the water and broadside to the waves. That has nothing to do with the conditions at the time of the ingress. Conditions were worsening but the gale had not reached Chicoutimi. SOP had been followed and the OOW had confirmed no greenies had reached the fin for 15 minutes prior to opening up. They took a rogue wave which can happen even in calm conditions. From the accounts of the OOW and lookout the boat was opened up for several hours after the fire with the tower acting as a chimney so they could not get below. Even dead in the water and rolling they did not report any more ingresses of water.
2. Your name and previous posts imply you are serving on a boat. It should be very easy for you to find a EOOW or senior greenie to explain to you the restrictions caused by running shut down.
3. The boat was designed with the designers knowing that the boat would be opened up in extremely bad weather. Man Overboard and Recovery ops have an inconvenient habit of happening in extremely bad weather. Having the diver and rescue party lock in and out is not a serious option.
4. The RN had the cable splices upgraded on the other three boats and in the Chicoutimi's engine room because of earthing problems. There has been no explaination of why the Chicoutimi's cable splices in the captains cabin were not upgraded.
5. The cables had not been renewed during the activation. Cannabalizing the Chicoutimi to activate the other three boats and then not doing a complete refit is ........to be polite and mild, not good engineering pratice. Knowing 52 million was cut out of the maintenance budget does not inspire confidence in NDHQ's version of events.
I have no brief for Pelletier. I don't remember if I sailed with him or not. There were so many ringknockers rotating through the wardroom I never bothered learning all their names. The bottom line is the probability of those cable splices being immmersed in water sometime during the boats lifetime is 100%.
Similar threads
