- yoo got to love them smelly, now their trashy Subs are all grounded; dear me, poor Canadian just have to take it up the noble butt hole....... all for the King and Country! ROFLMAO
(Source: Canadian Department of National Defence; issued Oct. 12, 2004)
OTTAWA --- Statement from Vice-Admiral Bruce MacLean, Chief of Maritime Staff and Commander of Canada's Navy:
"Earlier today, the President of the military Board of Inquiry into HMCS CHICOUTIMI incident, advised me of preliminary information which caused me to decide that it would be prudent to keep all submarines alongside until more analysis can be done on the possible causes of the fire.
With this information I consulted the Navy's Sub Safe organization and have subsequently ordered the submarines to remain alongside while we analyze this initial information."
HMCS VICTORIA is currently alongside in Esquimalt, B.C., while HMCS CORNER BROOK and HMCS WINDSOR are alongside in Halifax, N.S.
The Canadian decision to buy such outdated and inefficient and dangerous equipment from the UK was and is foolish.It has resulted in the needless deaths of soldiers.
When are they going to take action.Such a waste of money,but most importantly,such a waste of human life.
Does the path choose the walker or the walker the path?
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
BUT I agree it was a waste of Life and money. Should have built our own..."
- There is never "Free Lunch" in life; anytime, anyone given you FREE For Nothing! There must be a cons games; just liken these Smelly British Subs! It is a cons game!
Blame the Canadian goverment not us, don't you think they survayed the ships before they decided to buy them? Don't you think the DND had reps there and was involved with the re comissioning process? The problem is they had a Beer budget and they tried to pass it off to everyone else as Champaigne. They got at the end of the day what was paid for, I thought we had funding problems untill I looked at the way the Canadian goverment runs there Defence Department and I realised they wish they has our problems!
The Payment Plan
The financing for the Upholders is a blend of bartering, savings from early retirement of surface ships and submarines, adjustments to the navy’s operations and maintenance budget, and an eight-year, interest free, lease-to-buy arrangement. At the end of the eight-year term in March 2006, the Canadian government will pay a nominal fee of £1 for each submarine to complete the transaction and gain ownership.
The bulk of the money to finance the Upholders will come from a unique ‘bartering’ process whereby the "Canadian lease payments on the four submarines are exchanged for the costs charged to the UK for continued training of British Forces" at Canadian bases in Suffield and Wainwright, Alberta and in Goosebay, Labrador. However, this ‘barter’ arrangement is not the traditional form of bartering. The traditional type of ‘barter’ arrangement is simply not practical for governments that must accurately account for public funds; consideration must be given for the goods and services it receives. Consequently, there will be no change to the current arrangements with the UK training programs. The Department of National Defence will simply continue to collect monies from the UK and account for these monies as it always has. The monies received from the UK are separate from the arrangement for the Upholder purchase.
Confusion continues to exist, however, around the barter arrangement itself. One source states Canada will not pay the British any cash, however, this is not the case. Under the barter agreement, there is no change to the past practices; the UK continues to "reimburse the Department of National Defence for the full cost of all support provided [by DND] to its training programs." The UK reimburses only the actual costs incurred; there is no profit element built into the cost. Any net gain or loss is simply the result of timing differences between revenues and expenses – this is due to the cash-based accounting system used by the federal government; an accrual-based system would result in a different bottom line. The payments are then held by DND as departmental revenue. The unique aspect of the agreement is the circle of financial transactions that occur between the Canadian and UK governments. Funding from the Treasury Board Vote 5 (capital account) is placed in a bank account in Toronto, which is the submarine account, and each month DMMS deposits the lease payment for the Upholders. The Canadian government then bills the UK for training conducted at Canadian bases in Suffield and Wainwright Alberta and in Goosebay Labrador. The British then access the account in Toronto and uses that money to pay for the use of Canadian bases. This method eliminates the need for any funds to leave the country and eliminates any gains or losses due to fluctuating exchange rates. Additionally, this method allows DND to continue with current practices regarding revenue. "In addition to its annual appropriation, the Department is allowed to spend cash received by the Department for the provision of goods and services."
Among other evils which being unarmed brings you it causes you to be despised - Niccolo Machiavelli
"
Blame the Canadian goverment not us, don't you think they survayed the ships before they decided to buy them? Don't you think the DND had reps there and was involved with the re comissioning process? The problem is they had a Beer budget and they tried to pass it off to everyone else as Champaigne. They got at the end of the day what was paid for, I thought we had funding problems untill I looked at the way the Canadian goverment runs there Defence Department and I realised they wish they has our problems!"
Come on Lee, it takes two to tango; British defense knows full well, that these subs were mothball(rusting) for years ...... and they are not safe for resells. Yet, in your good conscience; you sell these smelly subs to the Canadian for a good profit! Is that a friendly ways to treat them Canadian?
- These subs should have be junk yard and cut up for metal; Me heard that Canada is starting an investigation, they may even asking the British for a refund! Specially, in light of the British asking Canadian to reimburse for the cost of rescue operation of this damaged sub. What are friend for, is that how friends/allies treat each other? ROFLMAO
A published report states for 11 years the British Navy reportedly knew about wiring problems on the four submarines they leased to Canada. Earlier this month an electrical fire that broke out aboard the HMCS Chicoutimi claimed the life of a Canadian sailor.
Apparently the insulation on all four of the subs, HMCS Corner Brook, Victoria, Windsor and Chicoutimi, wasn’t upgraded and the British navy didn’t fully document the repairs and never clearly informed the Canadian Navy. The vessels were leased to Canada in 1998.
Some repairs were made, but high-voltage lines under the captain’s cabin weren’t fixed. That’s where the arcing purportedly sparked the Oct. 5 fire onboard the sub off the coast of Ireland that killed Lieutenant Chris Saunders of Halifax.
A military board of inquiry, which wasn’t open to the public, heard testimony from crewmembers aboard the vessel on the day of the fire earlier this month in Scotland.
October 30, 2004
EDIT: I couldn't stand that html error anymore so I tried my best to fix it.
This message has been edited by Diunei on Nov 12, 2004 4:49 PM This message has been edited by Diunei on Nov 12, 2004 4:47 PM This message has been edited by Diunei on Nov 12, 2004 4:43 PM This message has been edited by Dragon369 on Nov 12, 2004 4:32 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
- So, Comrade Lee; what have you got to say now! No more excuse liken the Canadian should have inspected the subs prior to taking over ownership! Did Ol' Boy just torpedoes(pun intended) your arguments? Haa! Haa!
BTW: would you care to bring your HMS RN Officer(JimLADY) to chat with Ol' farmer boy? ROFLMAO
"- yoo got to love them smelly, now their trashy Subs are all grounded; dear me, poor Canadian just have to take it up the noble butt hole....... all for the King and Country! ROFLMAO"
True the UK government is not at fault. either is the Canadian government. The UK puts of subs for sell and they know the condition they are in, so does the Canadian government, thats why they were so cheap.
Both knew but thought out cheap deal with repairs is worth to deal with the sub problem. The Liberals are at fault for sure, I say a clipping in the paper stating that 98% of the country believes the liberals are at fault for the decay in the military.
Wait for next election and wait to see the carrier group we will get if NDP come in.
Honestly though Dragon give it a rest with the Smelly British b.s. Dont cry too much
"An Invasion through Canada into the US would become a disaster, they are the only country that does not follow their doctrine, unpredictability and innovation is what scares the russian bear" - Russian Infantry Officer shortly after the cold war
This message has been edited by Western_Commander on Nov 13, 2004 2:43 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"True the UK government is not at fault. either is the Canadian government. The UK puts of subs for sell and they know the condition they are in, so does the Canadian government, thats why they were so cheap.
Both knew but thought out cheap deal with repairs is worth to deal with the sub problem. The Liberals are at fault for sure, I say a clipping in the paper stating that 98% of the country believes the liberals are at fault for the decay in the military.
Wait for next election and wait to see the carrier group we will get if NDP come in.
Honestly though Dragon give it a rest with the Smelly British b.s. Dont cry too much"
- This is why I love Canadian, you boys are really a noble bunch; with class, with humilaties and takes your lums with grace! Cheerios, since my good Canadian friends coming to the rescue of these British; we just have to find another stinky topics to mock them smelly! ROFLMAO
BTW: did you knows that Canadian are very favors inside China; for each small kids learn of Dr. Bethune and his work to save the Eight Army! You knows Dr. Bethune is a national hero inside China! Cheer!
Unlike The Smelly British, My Canadian Friend Are Well Respected By Chinaman!
Well respected eh...thats good becasue no one i talk to respect the Chinese LoL. Especially my fellow soldiers.
Well then give it a rest. I am Canadian but my whole generations have been in either the British Air Force, Army or the Canadian Army.
"An Invasion through Canada into the US would become a disaster, they are the only country that does not follow their doctrine, unpredictability and innovation is what scares the russian bear" - Russian Infantry Officer shortly after the cold war
This message has been edited by Western_Commander on Nov 13, 2004 11:59 AM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"An Invasion through Canada into the US would become a disaster, they are the only country that does not follow their doctrine, unpredictability and innovation is what scares the russian bear" - Russian Infantry Officer shortly after the cold war
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"Well respected eh...thats good becasue no one i talk to respect the Chinese LoL. Especially my fellow soldiers."
- Oh yeah, wise guys; eh! If your Canadian force is so tough, coming and tango with our PLA and see how you lots will turn into messy! Oosh! I forgot; yoo Kanadian can't even afford transportation cost to come and fight us! ROFLMAO
"Well then give it a rest. I am Canadian but my whole generations have been in either the British Air Force, Army or the Canadian Army."
- So, you also have smelly root; yoo knows that Imperial British are real smelly, rights? Well, now the modern day British are not as smelly; that is true, but they still speak funny English! And don't talk about their Queen and Royal Family; what a bunch of jokers! Haa! Haa!
BTW: who is that chubby chick on your picture; the one wearing baggy military pant and spot the sun glasses? Is that you, don't tell me I am chatting with a Tom Boy, eh?
We would invite you over here but i am afraid of getting SARS or some other disease that lives over there.
So much hatred towards the Brits. Oh well. You have to much to talk about with your PLA but how do you know...are you in the military.. or Infantry that is. no, prolly not. Just another Military know it all who doesnt have enough balls to join up and fufill a passion.
Its not a chick in the picture.
"An Invasion through Canada into the US would become a disaster, they are the only country that does not follow their doctrine, unpredictability and innovation is what scares the russian bear" - Russian Infantry Officer shortly after the cold war
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
- That is the idea, thank you; hopefully me bring you entertainment value, sound reason, bit of information about China...etc. Me hopes you enjoy reading my daily trashy! Cheer!
"We would invite you over here but i am afraid of getting SARS or some other disease that lives over there."
- ROFLMAO; is that so, Ol' me is currently inside your neck of the wood! Enjoying your fine Canadian Winters, beer, woman, snow.....etc.
"So much hatred towards the Brits. Oh well. You have to much to talk about with your PLA but how do you know...are you in the military.. or Infantry that is. no, prolly not. Just another Military know it all who doesnt have enough balls to join up and fufill a passion."
- I give you that, me not in the military; but, rather spent my time and energy to pursue higher education in University. After all, military paid suchy big time! Besides, Ol' me is rather a rebel; not liken to take orders from Dumbo Sergeants who have low IQ and event lower in social humanity interactions. Lets put it this way, how much is your Major General makes per years in military; me dare say, me is doing better! And me don't have to shine shoes, nor toilets, nor marching liken apes in uniforms! ROFLMAO
- Me presume you are in the Canadian military; what do you do in your military? Do you match around during weekend as a Tom Boy; roughing it about in the woods and feel your macho side of things?
- Don't get me wrong, me no putting down the soldier boys profession; for many of yoo Canadian lots are doing the noble things, specially for the UN blue caps around the World.
- Just that, some people are cut out to the inside the military(Joe Blow followers liken yourself); some people are cut out to be in the private industry(Farmer Ol' boy liken me-self)! Haa! Haa!
"Its not a chick in the picture."
- Oh, me thinking that is some Tom Boy Chick in your picture; who dress up as an over-rated apes. Perchance, is that chubby boy your holy thyself? Just curious!
Under Developed IQ Apes On March! ROFLMAO
......... 1 2......... 1 2...... 3 4..... 3 4..... Let us kill them all!
..........1 2......... 1 2...... 3 4..... 3 4..... Let us kill them all.....
but, what the hell does the Canadian navy need diesel submarines for? In fact, what do they need ANY subs for?
Canada's navy should relegate itself to a surface/air fleet for protecting it's vast coastline. Reconnaisance aircraft like Orions and naval helicopters. Nothing bigger than a destroyer in the fleet. Subs are useless, in my opinion. Merely image.
E Tan, E Epi Tas!
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"An Invasion through Canada into the US would become a disaster, they are the only country that does not follow their doctrine, unpredictability and innovation is what scares the russian bear" - Russian Infantry Officer shortly after the cold war
This message has been edited by Western_Commander on Nov 14, 2004 5:59 PM
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
- Actually, me agreed with Landos; why wound you beaver boys needed subs, is not liken Canada going to use her subs to attack another nation. Me thinks Canadian are better serves to wear Blue Caps UN berets.
- Besides, your few British Stinky Subs really smelly and now is grounded! ROFLMAO
Submarines are an essential component of balanced, multi-purpose, combat- capable maritime forces, along with surface ships and maritime air forces. In order to effectively control what happens above, on and below the surface of' the sea maritime forces require a range of complementary equipment: no single type of vessel or aircraft is capable of responding across the whole spectrum of activity required to establish effective sea control. However, by operating the right mix of equipment. maritime forces achieve a cost-effective synergy that surpasses the sum of each component of the fleet operating by itself. One would not ask a carpenter to make a choice between using a saw or a hammer when building a house - clearly, he needs both in his toolbox. Similarly, the Navy needs the right mix of assets to meet Canadian defence objectives.
The Special Joint Committee on Canada's Defence Policy whose recommendations formed the basis for the 1994 Defence White Paper recognized the utility of submarines and urged the Government to explore cost-effective means, within the existing Defence capital budget, for acquiring three to six modern diesel-electric submarines. In the White Paper, the Government stated its intention to explore the option of acquiring four recently constructed Upholder-class submarines from the United Kingdom.
Submarines represent an effective, and comparatively inexpensive, naval platform. Submarines require relatively small crews and can operate for about 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the cost of major surface vessels. Submarines are an integral element of the Canadian Task Group and complement the operational characteristics of surface vessels and maritime aircraft.
Submarines make a unique contribution to maritime operations. They may be stationed in an area of interest either overtly or covertly, giving them an unparalleled freedom of action and independence. They may be deployed or withdrawn anywhere in national waters or on the high seas without diplomatic cost or commitment.
The nature of submarines makes them a strategic national military asset with an influence that transcends their cost. Due to its relative invulnerability, covertness and potential lethality, the submarine makes a superior deterrent. During the Falklands/Malvinas conflict in 1982, the presence of a British submarine virtually prevented the Argentine surface fleet from sailing, and the greatest source of concern to the Royal Navy throughout the campaign was the whereabouts of the Argentine submarines. Although we cannot be sure, the influence of Canadian submarines probably helped defuse the possibility of escalation between naval surface forces during the Turbot dispute of 1995.
A modern diesel-electric submarine can conduct sustained maritime patrols in all extremes of weather in any season. Typically, a submarine like Upholder, can remain on patrol far at least 45 days without refuelling or resupply. While on station, the unique surface and underwater surveillance capabilities of the submarine permit observation of an area about one-third the size of the entire island of Newfoundland.
While the submarine makes a strong contribution to military deterrence, it is equally effective as a maritime law enforcement tool. Both the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have benefited from the services of Canadian submarines. Canada has demonstrated the ability to use the result of covert submarine surveillance in obtaining convictions of fisheries violators and narcotics smugglers. Pictures of offending vessels, taken through a submarine's periscope, have been published in newspapers in Canada and abroad, and serve to highlight the commitment to maritime law enforcement. Indeed, the covert nature of submarine surveillance immeasurably enhances its effectiveness. Like the use of radar to enforce highway speed limits, submarine surveillance compels compliance with law by the mere possibility of its presence. By having a submarine service, a deterrent, military and civil, exists in Canadian waters regardless of the submarine's actual location at any given time.
Submarines are an important aspect of cooperation with our allies. Our allies expect Canada to maintain an effective degree of combat capability. Every nation is wrestling with national fiscal issues; however, for the principle of collective defence to be meaningful, each nation must be seen to be "pulling its own weight". Obviously, the political and economic benefits, separate from but associated with, participation in alliances, must be factored into any decisions to limit defence activity.
Submarines permit Canada to participate in the important arena of "waterspace management". By having submarines capable of conducting underwater surveillance and responding to intrusions, indeed, simply from a safety point of view for regulating underwater traffic, allied navies share information about the location and activity of their submarines. Without submarines, Canadian sovereignty beneath the sea would rely upon the goodwill alone of our friends. Clearly, there may be occasions when, although no harm is meant to Canada, it would be expedient or convenient for a neighbour to use our water without our knowledge. The suburban adage, "good fences make good neighbours" may apply.
Under the influence of restraints on defence spending, the United States and the United Kingdom have elected to employ only nuclear-propelled submarines, and depend upon their allies, including Canada, to provide diesel-electric submarines for training and, should the need arise, for operations. In return for this division of labour, the allies share many forms of intelligence and information. Consequently, in addition to the national benefits deriving from a submarine service, Canada receives access to a broad range of information that would be unaffordable within Canadian means alone.
Provision of diesel-electric submarine training services to our allies, primarily the United States and the United Kingdom, acts as a form of revenue generation that can be offset against military expenditure in other areas on a quid pro quo basis.
There is a specious argument that the submarine threat disappeared at the end of the Cold War. However, the proliferation of submarines around the world clearly shows that this is not true. At the present time there are 47 countries operating more than 600 submarines around the world. By the year 2006, the number of countries is expected to increase to 49, although modernization by the big operators (United States, United Kingdom, Russia) will result in a modest decrease in the overall numbers. Clearly, the utility of submarines is evident to other countries, like Canada, that operate medium to small navies. It is obvious too that Canadian well-being may not be foremost in the national objectives of all of these countries.
There is another ostensible, but equally inaccurate argument that breakthroughs in technology have rendered the submarine obsolete. Scientific advances have been made but the oceans remain opaque and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Radar, lasers and infra-red energy cannot penetrate the sea surface beyond a few metres. Under ideal conditions, radar satellites have detected the wakes of submarines operating at high speeds near the surface: but satellites are limited in their ability to provide real-time information processing. Satellites cannot provide continuous coverage of large geographic areas, particularly in polar regions. For example, the Canadian Government's RADARSAT, operated by the Canadian Space Agency, has a revisit time in the order of three days; hence, a constellation of satellites would be required to provide continuous coverage of Canada's ocean areas. Moreover, the cost of one radar satellite exceeds the cost of the four Upholders. In short, satellites have a role, but they are not the whole solution to the problem, and they are not a cost effective alternative to submarines.
In hockey parlance, the best defence is a good offence. In the world of submarines, the best anti-submarine weapon is another submarine. In addition to the requirement for submarines for training above water forces, surface and air, submarines are needed to exercise the whole range of anti-submarine warfare. Clearly, NATO has held the advantage in this field for years, due in no small part to the contribution of the Canadian Navy; however, it is a complex and perishable skill. Analysts can demonstrate that if ASW capability were allowed to erode, it would take far less time for a new submarine threat co emerge than it would to resurrect the necessary combination of equipment and training necessary to combat it.
Arctic surveillance is difficult. Fixed arrays have some utility, but they are expensive to install, difficult to maintain, have limited flexibility and do not have any inherent ability to respond to intrusions. Up until recently, only nuclear- propelled submarines had any capability for under-ice operations. However, this is changing. Emerging technologies, of which Canadian companies like Ballard Industries are leading proponents, may soon be viable which will permit non-nuclear submarines to patrol the ice-covered expanses of our polar seas.
Submarines are not a specialized capability. Rather, they are an essential part of a balanced maritime force. They are cost-effective and affordable.
Among other evils which being unarmed brings you it causes you to be despised - Niccolo Machiavelli
"is not liken Canada going to use her subs to attack another nation"
In a civilized world...you would use your military to defend the nation...not attack others....
in a country as big as mine, you should have a large military to protect it.
"An Invasion through Canada into the US would become a disaster, they are the only country that does not follow their doctrine, unpredictability and innovation is what scares the russian bear" - Russian Infantry Officer shortly after the cold war
Scoring disabled. You must be logged in to score posts.
"In a civilized world...you would use your military to defend the nation...not attack others....
in a country as big as mine, you should have a large military to protect it."
- Please tell, who and which nation is going to attack Canada? Besides, if Canada is being invaded; don't you thinks your big brother American will comes to help and save your skin? Oh well, me lied; if the Yankee is the one who is going to attack Canada; then all you beavers are shiita out of luck!
- Oh, well; just have to become the 53 States! Start practise to sing the Star Spangled Banner. I am sure, you Canadian will makes good American shoe licker boys! ROFLMAO
E Tan, E Epi Tas! on loan! 
