It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fire on 2nd Canadian sub

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   
What kind of crap did we buy?




The Canadian navy has confirmed that the troubled fleet of submarines purchased from Britain has suffered another fire, slightly more than a year after a blaze crippled HMCS Chicoutimi and led to the death of one sailor.

...

The submarine rose to what the navy calls "a safe depth" and extinguished the fire.

No sailors were injured and the Windsor remains at sea.

The vessel is the navy's only operational submarine.

Three other Victoria-class submarines purchased by the Canadian navy from the Royal Navy in 1998 are in repair or retrofit.

In October 2004, a fire broke out on Chicoutimi as it was crossing the Atlantic, leading to the death of Lieut. Chris Saunders and injuring eight others.


www.cbc.ca...

At least nobody was injured this time. Man its time to spend some money in this country. Get some decent equipment for these guys already. Jeez.



[edit on 31-10-2005 by Dulcimer]




posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   


Fire on 2nd Canadian sub

What kind of crap did we buy?


Well, the report into the first fire found a whole chain of events led to the fire.

Initially, the decision of the Captain to leave two hatches open because an air vent's nut fell off.

This in turn led to over 2000 litres of sea water entering the boat, causing an electrical fire. Whilst the wiring should have had 3 insulation layers (according to Royal Navy Standards), it only had one layer and was still deemed Seaworthy by the Canadian Navy.

So a combination of poor maintainence (how hard is it to re-attach a nut?) and insufficient insulation, which was deemed good enough for the Canadian Navy but not the Royal Navy, caused the problem.

I would put my bets on this fire being down to poor maintainence as well. In no way am I saying that the crew are at fault, but the Canadian Forces aren't exactly famous for having an awful lot of money.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 09:05 PM
link   
those Upholder class submarines are a good buy. the boats use to be for the Royal Navy so the Brits would not sale some sorry boats if they did not use it for themselves for awhile.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 10:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy
those Upholder class submarines are a good buy. the boats use to be for the Royal Navy so the Brits would not sale some sorry boats if they did not use it for themselves for awhile.


Well, to be honest, they never entered service.

But...they were still built with full RN specs, apart from the first one, the Chiiqauuauau..whatever they called it....
.. that one didnt have the minimum RN specs for the wiring.

But...the canooks were happy with it and went sailing with the hatches open, knowing that the wiring was not well insulated....and also not bothering to re-attach the nut which would enable them to use the air vent and close the hatches...



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Well, to be honest, they never entered service.



they did entered service for the Royal Navy. just not for a long time though. dont know if dat was a good decision after just building the rest of the subs.



posted on Oct, 31 2005 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by deltaboy

Originally posted by stumason

Well, to be honest, they never entered service.



they did entered service for the Royal Navy. just not for a long time though. dont know if dat was a good decision after just building the rest of the subs.


Ahhh...you're right. Seems they had some trouble at first as well:



But within months it was soon revealed that HMS UPHOLDER, the first of class, had problems with her bow doors. Water had poured in during trials off the west coast of Scotland when the tubes were opened. This problem' later transpired to be a design fault which prevented UPHOLDER from firing any missile or torpedoes.

When HMS UPHOLDER eventually entered service in 1989, she was already a year late into service and had the distinction of being the first fighting vessel to join the fleet which could not, albeit for technical reasons, fire a shot in anger - her doors were sealed awaiting a refit to repair the problem.

At the time the Government had plans to build seven Upholders, but the initial option was scrapped and finally just four entered service. Projected in service completion costs had been forecast at £500 million. But by the time all four had undergone a refit to rectify the tube problem', the figure soared to £900 million.

Source



They fixed them and are now up to scratch, which is why the Canooks have only just taken delivery....



These vessels are packed with technology and are still widely regarded as being among the best of their type in the world, but despite serious misgivings from senior officers concerned about the decision to sell off the Upholders, they were withdrawn and berthed at Barrow in Furness to await a buyer.


[edit on 31/10/05 by stumason]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 12:41 AM
link   
God, this is almost as bad as the Airforce. Where's that 13 billion dollards we were promised was going to the military? At least that would bring SOME of the equipment up to part. Half our Sea Kings and a third of our CF18s are hangar queens as is.

DE



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 02:51 AM
link   
Glad to see that nobody was injured this time.

I really wish that Canada would not buy second hand equipment sometimes, I know they have to because of budget restrictions but all too often the maintaining of old equipment causes unneeded injuries and even deaths. Buying second hand does have advantages but they have drawbacks too. The money is there but the Canadian government lacks the will to put the needed money into the military. Maybe they are listening to the Polaris InstituteCanada spends too much on defence
I just think that Canadian sailors, soldiers, and airmen deserve the best possible equipment to do their job, it's not like Canada is a poor country. Lets hope that if the proposal by the Canadian Navy to acquire some amphibious assault ships(possibly two San Antonio class) goes through that the Canadian government does not screw that up as well.More info here



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
not to mention the Canadians went to Afghanistan with green BDUs instead of the desert camo version. dat also reveals wats goin on with Canada's limited budget where the Canadian forces have to deal with equipment provided to them with limited number of funds.

[edit on 1-11-2005 by deltaboy]



posted on Nov, 1 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   
Should have purchased those new U-212 class subs from Germany, I believe they are regarded as the non-nuke attack sub class leader.

If the Germans build it, you can be sure it will work as advertised, their engineering skills are incredible.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 06:51 AM
link   
Well, I don't know about their subs as such, but I've never seen a VW, Audi, BMW, Mercedes etc etc on the roadside. I think the Upholder class was a good buy, but I think considerations should have been made and the time taken to fix the problems it had. I think the skipper made a bad call putting to sea if some of the technical aspects weren't up to RN spec. The spec is there for a reason, and it's a terrible shame when stuff goes wrong and people lose their lives for nothing.

It's like buying a second hand car that's cheap because you know the brakes are dodgey, then rather than spending the money you saved on fixing the brakes, driving anyway.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   
I think part of the issue is that the Navy has neither the manpower nor the parts to really fix any of this. Total Canadian forces (air, sea,land) is about 57,000 people. The military receives 1.1% of the GNP. I very much doubt the subs are the problem- there's a reason brittania ruled the seas. There's a problem with understaffed, underpaid and undertrained seamen.

DE



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Why don't you guys buy some Ohio class submarines from us?

I promise we'll preprogram the locations of Canadian cities into the Trident missiles



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 02:56 PM
link   
We need more boats to patrol the coasts not Subs or Amphibious attack vehicles. It's going to have to be done if Global Warming truely does open up our third coast.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
We need more boats to patrol the coasts not Subs or Amphibious attack vehicles. It's going to have to be done if Global Warming truely does open up our third coast.


That is an excellent note.


We will need to patrol that area.



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Seriously, does/would the U.S. sell any nuclear-powered submarines or other ships to allies like Canada or Britain if they wanted to buy them?



posted on Nov, 2 2005 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Should have purchased those new U-212 class subs from Germany, I believe they are regarded as the non-nuke attack sub class leader.

If the Germans build it, you can be sure it will work as advertised, their engineering skills are incredible.

Yeah, they make the best deisel engines and the best turbo chargers acroding to my teacher at the college.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   
There is nothing inherintly wrong with these subs...granted, the first (the Chicciwitiititisi..whatever) wasn't up to spec, but the others where.

The Upholder class are top-of-the-line attacks subs and a good buy, but you need to maintain them. The RN was gutted when the Treasury canned them, as they were brand new and really good. The Canadians should count themselves fortunate to have them, but like any complicated machine, it needs looking after.

Even an Ohio Class would end up unsailable after a few weeks of not having proper spares or proper maintainence. Probably sooner.

If a transformer catches fire (like in this second one), it'll be one of two things...A Faulty part or poor maintainence.

Even if the part was faulty, the maintainence crews, through regular testing, should have picked up on it and swapped it out. Chances are that they either didn't detect it, it was poorly maintained or they just didn't have the parts.



posted on Nov, 5 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   
No parts, I'm guessing. There's a reason that 80% of our airforce is on the ground.

DE



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join