Fire on Canadian Sub, Rescue Underway

[FlamesAllTheWay]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Oct 6 2004, 07:19 PM
Now I'm completely p*ssed. Our own government is more responsible for killing our soldiers then any enemy could be.

Eggleton the decision maker behind the purchase of these subs should be bought home and Keelhauled

Our chief of defense should be forced to resign his position and be booted out of the military, so should the head of our Navy.

What a joke, a young man died for no reason, no reason whatsoever.

We put our young men and woman in uniform, give them substandard and aging equipment, fail to give them the best possible chance for success and survival, and when they actually do succeed we cut thier budget further.

We decide to expand the military by 8000 men and woman but refuse to increase the budget.

Who in the $$$$ is running this country. Who in the $$$$ is making the decisions, really I want to know.

Who buys a submarine that we decommissioned by the British after 4 years, who the $$$$ decides to spend hundreds of millions on a useless helicopter thats incapable of performing its mission. Who the $$$$ decides to buy a tank with wheels so any lunatic with an RPG can kill men in the dozens.

I now officially hate the Liberals and what they've done to this country. I wish nothing but Ill will on every single piece of garbage in government.

They murdered this boy plain and simple. He's not the first, and he's not the last. We bought the Ill fated Iltis Jeep under the Liberals, and we saw how well those worked in protecting thier occupants. they continue to cut the budget and deprive our soldiers of proper equipment and living conditions, but they continue to demand more and more and more.

They murdered this kid so thier buddies in Quebec could run thier ad agencies. they murdered this kid so we could give away free Canadian Flags. They murdered this kid so we could have a non-enforced gun registry.

Am I wrong in my feelings. I don't see it.

Here here.

It's a sad day when our military has to fear it's own equipment first and foremost before fearing the enemy itself...

[Indi]

2nd submariner said to be nearing the critical stage with extensive lung damage...not the best source, but a source none the less

The Sun UK

[Shawnski]

It's a sad day indeed. My thoughts go out to those sailors and their families that have been impacted. God knows they did not deserve it.

I firmly believe in Total Quality principles. Do it right, or don't bother. The gov't has once again done something half @$$ed here by buying used, poor product. Shame on them. But do they care? Doubtful. They will spin it in many ways to avert attention to the fact that they skimped and have put Canadian soldiers in harms way... without even being in a conflict.

Sickens me, actually.

A mandate of continual (yearly) acquisition of key components for our military is significantly more appropriate than to wait until we hit a wall and have to "panic purchase" crap like we have. Helicopters, subs, Jeeps.... all of it. Set a plan and budget yearly to acquire new/retire old.

But that might cut into Adrian Clarkson's budget....

What a joke.

[Fuzzy McGillicuddy]

I am appalled the Prime Minister had the audacity to say this sailor died defending Canada. Defending us from what?

The biggest enemy facing our armed forces is the Liberal government in Ottawa. These politicians should be ashamed. :angry:

[I-Hate-Hulse]

Repair work on the fire-ravaged HMCS Chicoutimi won't start until 2010, leaving the Canadian navy short by one submarine and raising concerns about whether the vessel will ever be returned to service.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/natio...ub-060428.html

What a joke, by 2012 those subs will be even more obsolete than they are now and still probably be experiencing "teething problems".

Lets see if Harper actually does something about this - canning the whole program and not putting another dime into them would be a good start, in conjunction with starting & funding a search for a replacement. It's not like we're getting full usage out of the existing "fleet" anyways.

Haven't heard much about the new Cyclone program lately either....

[White Doors]

Canada really needs nuclear powered subs anyways. These diesel subs can't even go under the icepack to defend Canada's sovereignty in the North, which we are in danger of losing.

[HOZ]

Do we really need nuclear subs? I mean a nuclear tippped misslile tends to scare the chit out of europe. One threat ans they will stay away forever

[White Doors]

I think if any country needs nuclear powered subs it's Canda, yes.
Nuclear powered hunter-killer subs with conventional weapons. Why not?

[CaramonLS]

I don't even remember posting in this thread - I don't think you had to bring this out of a 2 year hibernation.

[Ironhorse]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I think if any country needs nuclear powered subs it's Canda, yes.
Nuclear powered hunter-killer subs with conventional weapons. Why not?

I agree with you, but for most complacent (lemming) Canadians, as soon as something has the word "nuclear" in it, they all freak out and think the world will soon end...

[White Doors]

I hear ya

[Looger]

Originally Posted by White Doors

I think if any country needs nuclear powered subs it's Canda, yes.
Nuclear powered hunter-killer subs with conventional weapons. Why not?

it's been illegal in this country since trudeau.

i'd look it up but it is one of the most well-known facts among the embittered legions of canadian military buffs.

[White Doors]

Illegal?

how's that now?

[STeeLy]

I don't see how it's illegal either..

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't think its illegal because the sub itself isn't a nuclear weapons platform in itself, and if we're buying 688's instead of 688i they don't have the nuclear capable tomahawk launch tubes. If you went by the letter of the law then the CF-18's would breech our non-proliferation treaty because they can carry low yield gravity bombs.

IF we could get the 688's for cheap enough they'd be a great addition to our navy and allow us to properly patrol the arctic.

[Claeren]

I was under the impression that todays cutting edge diesel subs offer very few limitations compared to the much more expensive (to build and maintain) and politically questionable nuclear subs??

I don't think the problem here is the platform - diesel makes sense for Canada - but rather the fact we are using second hand tech in second hand subs that all-in-all seem to have had a dubious history right from the start.


Claeren.

[Flashpoint]

Originally Posted by White Doors

These diesel subs can't even go under the icepack to defend Canada's sovereignty in the North, which we are in danger of losing.

Who gives a crap? Are we actually going to open fire on someone? Because in a war with anyone short of the Congolese navy, we are going to lose.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Claeren

I was under the impression that todays cutting edge diesel subs offer very few limitations compared to the much more expensive (to build and maintain) and politically questionable nuclear subs??

I don't think the problem here is the platform - diesel makes sense for Canada - but rather the fact we are using second hand tech in second hand subs that all-in-all seem to have had a dubious history right from the start.


Claeren.

As they are diesel, they have to surface to recharge the batteries. Thus, they are useless to go under the icepack. Canada has more icepack than any other country in the world in territory. There are competing claims on Canada's claims to sovereignty in the North.

Still think Diesel subs are a good investment for Canada?

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Flashpoint

Who gives a crap? Are we actually going to open fire on someone? Because in a war with anyone short of the Congolese navy, we are going to lose.

You are missing the point. We don't have to fire on anyone to make claim to sovereinty, we just have to have the ability to do so.

That's the point.

And congoloese navy? Canada had a great navy and still has a good one, albeit very small. Our Frigates were world class and are still right up there in terms of the most advanced despite being 15 years old.

We should have a medium sized navy. Look at the fisheries for cripes sake.

[Claeren]

So you are postive there is not a single model of diesel sub that can go under the ice pack for even a limited duration?

And what about the melting ice pack? Or our ice breakers?


I don't know but i imagine a cost-benefit between the two brings a modern diesel boat out above a nuclear one in all scenarios beyond having a fleet of them and the need for extreme capabilities - neither of which come into play here.


Claeren.