CanPol: Thread of the Year Edition

[notyoueither]

It's not as if DND, with the Liberals as masters, have never made a bad call, like on some slightly used submarines.

[Tingkai]

The subs will still prove a bargain compared to the cost of buying four new ones.

As for the article, the writer doesn't realize that we lease the Antropov's because it is cheap way to get strategic aircraft.

Yes, the C-103J have had performance problems, but that's not unusual for new equipment. We had problems with that on the subs, the Cougar AFVs (with the first batch, the doors tended to fall off when the gun was fired).

The article is misleading in describing the CF's Hercs as 40-years-old. We have one Herc that was built in the 60s. The others were built in the 70s and, IIRC, as recently as the 90s.

He also implies that those people in Ottawa are worried about what a Western reporter writes. What would be is likely more accurate is that the PR company for Lockheed Martin wants to react to any negative publicity. That's par for the course in journalism.

Airbus will also have former CF members and ex-civil servants on their sales staff. If they don't then they're incredibly stupid.

There is still a big if about whether Airbus can deliver the A400M on time. It's already four years behind the original schedule.

Besides, the A400m still requires a longer airstrip for tactical take-off and landing.

Airbus landing = 625m, C-130J landing = 427m
Airbus takeoff = 940m, C-130J takeoff = 549m

http://www.airbusmilitary.com/specifications.html

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-130j-specs.htm

As for the range of an aircraft, that is not a problem with inflight refueling or doing a couple of jumps rather than a direct flight.

There's also the fact that we use Hercs now so there will be a commonality in maintenance supplies and training.

Apparently Airbus is offering to provide refurbished C-130H as a stopgap measure. Presumably, Lockheed Martin will do the same. At first glance, the competition means a better deal for Canada.

But the problem is that this negotiation will further delay the purchase, and as we have seen with helicopters and subs, such delays can last years.

I think we should buy the Herc and then lease strategic transport like the C-17 or work a deal with our NATO allies for sharing the cost of the buying and using strategic transport aircraft.

I await your brilliant insight on this matter.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
The subs will still prove a bargain compared to the cost of buying four new ones.

Tell that to the parents of a dead sailor who served on a ship that wasn't fit for sea duty.

God you're pathetic.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
It's not as if DND, with the Liberals as masters, have never made a bad call, like on some slightly used submarines.

The decision to buy the C-130J was pushed by Hellier. The Liberals were initially against it.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither


Tell that to the parents of a dead sailor who served on a ship that wasn't fit for sea duty.

God you're pathetic.

You really don't know what you are talking about.

The reason that the fire started was because the sub was operating with both hatches in the conning tower open, and while work was being done on electrical wiring. It is normal procedure to only have one hatch open when such work is being done.

[Tingkai]

To further demonstrate your ignorage NYE:

From the investigation of the incident.

"The Board finds that the submarine was structurally, mechanically, technically sound and seaworthy to carry out the surfaced and dived transit to Canada."

"No defects affected the safety of the submarine or her ability to conduct her assigned mission."

"Human factors played a key role in the water ingress. The submarine was running opened up in marginal conditions such that both conning tower lids were open at the same time while repairs were being made to the upper lid vent. However a wave much higher than the four-meter sea state welled-up in the fin and overflowed the tower. There is neither evidence nor inference that anyone could have or should have predicted that water ingress would result in a serious fire two hours later."

http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/boi_chicoutimi/pubs/executive_e.asp

[notyoueither]

As for the range of an aircraft, that is not a problem with inflight refueling or doing a couple of jumps rather than a direct flight.

In flight refueling? By what tankers based where? We're talking about an ability to deploy Canadian Forces personnel independently of Uncle Sam. We don't need any new aircraft to continue sponging rides and scrounging gas.

There's also the fact that we use Hercs now so there will be a commonality in maintenance supplies and training.

The dog can't go far enough to hunt as is, so a newer dog that still can't hunt is the answer because it sleeps in the same kennel?

Apparently Airbus is offering to provide refurbished C-130H as a stopgap measure. Presumably, Lockheed Martin will do the same. At first glance, the competition means a better deal for Canada.

But the problem is that this negotiation will further delay the purchase, and as we have seen with helicopters and subs, such delays can last years.

We should rush to a bad purchase because a delay might lead to a better purchase?

I think we should buy the Herc and then lease strategic transport like the C-17 or work a deal with our NATO allies for sharing the cost of the buying and using strategic transport aircraft.

I await your brilliant insight on this matter.

Good, except the NDP want to 'work with other countries to develop replacements for NORAD and NATO.'

Is that a better plan from the other alternative?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai
To further demonstrate your ignorage NYE:

From the investigation of the incident.

"The Board finds that the submarine was structurally, mechanically, technically sound and seaworthy to carry out the surfaced and dived transit to Canada."

"No defects affected the safety of the submarine or her ability to conduct her assigned mission."

"Human factors played a key role in the water ingress. The submarine was running opened up in marginal conditions such that both conning tower lids were open at the same time while repairs were being made to the upper lid vent. However a wave much higher than the four-meter sea state welled-up in the fin and overflowed the tower. There is neither evidence nor inference that anyone could have or should have predicted that water ingress would result in a serious fire two hours later."

http://www.vcds.forces.gc.ca/boi_chi...xecutive_e.asp

Except it had to sail with hatches open and therefore got swamped on a transatlantic voyage.

You seem to be prepared to buy a large pile of whitewash. I am not.

[Tingkai]

NYE, you're piling ignorance on ignorance.

So you know what happened during the voyage, eh. Now you're an expert sailor boy and you accuse the Canadian Forces of lying.

Back up your wild conspiracy theories with some facts if you can, but of course you can't.

Oh, and I love your great aviation expertise too.

Aircraft typically use a huge amount of fuel to get airborne and up to cruising altitude. At that point they can be refueled.

For the aircraft at Trenton, that's a base in Southern Ontario where most of our transport aircraft are stationed, the planes can be refueled over BC or the Maritimes. Alternatively, they can land and refuel in Europe at bases belonging to our Nato allies.

And yes, we have air tankers.

I await your next brilliant remark.

[notyoueither]

The issue of range isn't within Canada. It is once we have to fly to Asia or Africa.

I would have thought this bit was obvious to even a moron, but I guess I was wrong.

[notyoueither]

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/18/submarine_glitch041118.html

Submarine had problems before voyage: report
Last Updated Thu, 18 Nov 2004 08:09:21 EST
CBC News
HALIFAX - Canadian naval officials knew of a number of problems on HMCS Chicoutimi before the submarine set sail for its maiden voyage to Canada, according to new information.

Photo taken from helicopter during efforts to help sailors aboard the crippled submarine.
Obtained by the Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, the documents show the submarine had a number of problems the navy knew about.

According to telex messages sent from the sub to naval headquarters in Ottawa, submariners reported:

The submarine couldn't "snort", or draw in fresh air, while travelling at full power during an emergency.
It couldn't dive to maximum depth.
Software problems prevented the sub's autopilot from working.
One submariner was killed and several more injured when the submarine caught fire off the coast of Ireland on Oct. 5.

The autopilot computer problem meant that someone had to steer the vessel at all times, while corrosion on the sub's hull made it vulnerable to collapse, preventing it from diving to maximum depths.

A spokesperson for the navy on Wednesday called the problems glitches, and said they had been reduced to a small number when Canada took possession of the refurbished vessel from Britain three days before the fire.

All of the problems outlined in the telex messages were discovered during sea trials last summer. None would have contributed to the fire, Maj. Tony White told CP.

The navy is currently holding a closed-door inquiry into the fire on board the submarine. A report is expected on Nov. 30.

Also Thursday, a House of Commons committee will arrive in Halifax as part of an inquiry into Canada's decision to buy the four diesel submarines from Britain at a cost of $810 million.

British officials mothballed the submarines after several months of use, deciding instead to purchase nuclear-powered submarines.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/11/24/chicoutimi041124.html

Refit of HMCS Chicoutimi didn't catch all problems
Last Updated Thu, 25 Nov 2004 11:35:12 EST
CBC News
TORONTO - Two technical problems onboard HMCS Chicoutimi, a submarine the British navy was supposed to have refitted to meet stringent safety standards, played central roles in the fatal fire that broke out on the vessel, CBC News has learned.

Shortly after the Oct. 5 fire that led to the death of Canadian sailor Lieut. Chris Saunders, officials from both the Canadian and British navies insisted the submarine was beyond blame.


Graphic of where the fire broke out on HMCS Chicoutimi.
They said a five-year, multimillion-dollar refit had ensured its technical soundness before Canada took delivery of the sub, formerly HMS Upholder, just three days before the fire.

The implication was that human error must have led to the tragedy.

But CBC's Investigative Unit has uncovered details of two equipment problems that remained after the refit:


An air vent in Chicoutimi's tower wasn't working because a nut had fallen off, just 24 hours into the vessel's first trip to Canada. Crew members had to leave two hatches open to fix the problem, and were working on it when a wave broke over the vessel, flooding the compartments below.
A series of electrical connectors in the captain's room that were soaked in the flooding had only one layer of waterproof sealant instead of the three layers that British navy specifications required.
On the day of the fire, crew members reported a short in the electrical connectors, then sparks the size of golf balls, and eventually flames.

Heavy smoke from the fire injured nine crew members, and Saunders died of smoke inhalation while being airlifted to hospital the next day.

More sealant advised for 'backup protection'

CBC has learned that back in the 1990s, the British navy upgraded its specifications for insulating those connectors in its four Upholder-class submarines, asking for two additional layers of sealant to provide what it called "backup protection."

Sealant was added on the other three British subs as they were being built, but not on the already-built vessel that would become HMCS Chicoutimi, senior officials in the Canadian navy told CBC.

Neither BAE Systems, the British company responsible for the refit, nor the British navy would comment on the problems.

They referred CBC to the Canadian military's ongoing board of inquiry into what went wrong – an inquiry so secretive that it won't even say whether it intends to call British witnesses.

"It would be absolutely criminal not to go back, in fact, and revisit what work was done [and] how it was done," says Gerry O'Keefe, a former British navy electrician who once worked on Chicoutimi.

Appalled, he makes dark jokes about the British company that did the refit.

"Well, what can I tell you? It says a lot. What does it say? What it says deep down, if you want my opinion, is why buy the best if you can buy British? That's my answer to that one."

Officials insisted sub's condition was safe

After the disaster, defence officials from both sides of the Atlantic insisted the sub itself was beyond blame.

Tyrone Pyle, commander of the Canadian Fleet Atlantic, said Chicoutimi had gone through "an exhaustive process of engineering assessment, repair, overhaul and maintenance."

"Our own navy officials would not have allowed it to go to sea without that," said Defence Minister Bill Graham.

"We're extremely confident that when we sail these submarines they are safe," said Commodore Pyle.


The connectors that need triple insulation
Sub was running 'opened up'

Despite those reassurances, almost immediately, some familiar with the operation of the British submarines began to wonder.

"We question why she was running opened up in such rough seas," said Ken Collins, an employee of BAE Systems, which handled the refit. "That is one thing we do question."

"Running opened up" means a submarine is sailing with both of its hatches, located in a narrow tower in the fin of the vessel, wide open. That's how Chicoutimi looked the day the fire broke out off the west coast of Ireland.

The open hatches led to flooding when the wave broke over the fin, and ultimately to the fire.


INDEPTH: Fire on HMCS Chicoutimi

Interviews with nearly a dozen navy insiders revealed the second technical problem: the nut that had fallen off an air vent in Chicoutimi's tower, putting it out of commission and preventing the sub from diving.

No one on the vessel could believe it, including sub cook Romeo Jalbert.

"Well, what can you think about it?" he said. "You know, here we go again, it's another defect, another problem, you know, it's another problem that we can sort out ourselves and carry on. But it's like, another problem."

Yeah. me, CP, and the CBC are all one big tin foil hat wearing family.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by notyoueither
The issue of range isn't within Canada. It is once we have to fly to Asia or Africa.

Come on NYE, I know you're a bit slow, but you're not this ****ing stupid.

There's something called in-flight refueling. That's when an airplane loaded with fuel, called an air tanker, deploys a hose which connects to and refuels another aircraft.

This can be used on transatlantic flights to Africa or over to Asia.

Aircraft can also take off from Canada, land in Europe and refuel, and then take off again for places like Afghanistan.

If this is to complicated for you to understand, please let everyone know.

[notyoueither]

Incidently...

We need subs (an offensive weapons system) more than we need troops stationed near populous and disaster prone areas to aid civil authorities, or to put bases and presence in areas where third rate Euro powers like Denmark are attempting to steal Canada one rock at a time?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Tingkai



Come on NYE, I know you're a bit slow, but you're not this ****ing stupid.

There's something called in-flight refueling. That's when an airplane loaded with fuel, called an air tanker, deploys a hose which connects to and refuels another aircraft.

This can be used on transatlantic flights to Africa or over to Asia.

Aircraft can also take off from Canada, land in Europe and refuel, and then take off again for places like Afghanistan.

If this is to complicated for you to understand, please let everyone know.

From exactly what aircraft do we refuel over the middle of the Pacific or Atlantic? Canadian ones? Based out of where? Your ass?

[Tingkai]

The investigation tells the full story. You should read it. But then you would find out how little you know.

From the report:

"The defect in the tower vent mentioned at the beginning of this sequence of events was reported mid-morning on 5 October. There had previously been a problem with the vent during the early days of the sea trials, and BAE Systems had repaired the vent to the satisfaction of the MOD and the crew. The vent had also successfully passed the vacuum test conducted as part of the pre-sea checks.

"Given the intention to dive the submarine within a few hours, repairing the upper lid vent was very important. A repair party consisting of two Marine Engineering Technicians gathered their tools and assembled in the Control Room. In order to repair the vent the upper lid would have to be left opened. Two options presented themselves at this point, either leave both lids open and run the submarine opened up or shut the technicians out of the submarine by shutting the lower lid while they affected repairs to the vent. After considering all of the factors involved, the Commanding Officer ordered the main engines shutdown, therefore propelling the submarine via the main batteries, and ordered the tower to be opened up at 1052.

"After working on the vent for approximately 25 minutes, one of the repair party proceeded below to get another tool. Just as he was transiting through the conning tower, a wave hit the submarine causing water to well-up in the fin over the level of the conning tower upper lid, resulting in a significant ingress of water into the submarine. The exact amount of water is unknown; however, based on testimony received it is believed to have been approximately 2,000 litres."