Damage to sub much worse than navy let on last year


mentalfloss
#1



Damage to sub much worse than navy let on last year

Leaked photos of the Victoria-class submarine that struck bottom in Nootka Sound last year show a gaping hole in the boat's nose - damage much more severe than the Royal Canadian Navy initially let on.

The nighttime photos of HMCS Corner Brook, obtained by CBC, show a large gash shaped like an inverted triangle that pierces the rusty vessel.

The submarine ran aground on June 4, 2011, while conducting underwater manoeuvres 45 metres below the surface during advanced officer training. A navy board of inquiry found the crash was "avoidable" and that an inexperienced commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Paul Sutherland, had the sub more than 450 metres from its intended position.

But the navy report played down the damage, saying the boat "incurred damage to her bow and experienced minor leakage in a forward ballast tank."

Liberal Senator Colin Kenny, former head of the Senate defence committee, said he was taken aback at the level of damage.

"It was an incredible hole in the front of the boat and I was shocked at that," Kenny said in an interview Monday. "It looked about 10 or 15 feet high and maybe 10 feet wide."

The navy moved the ship from the waters of Esquimalt Harbour to the dry dock at night, and base policy prohibited CFB Esquimalt employees from taking photos of it. Media photos like the one accompanying this story captured the boat submerged in the harbour.

Kenny said naval officers have told him the hole is in the outer fibreglass shell, and does not affect the structural integrity of the submarine's crucial pressure hull.

Retired rear admiral Roger Girouard said "they are pretty ugly looking pictures, I'll grant you that." He added the torn fibreglass is similar to the plastic parts of a car that do not affect how the car runs.

HMCS Corner Brook is at the Esquimalt graving dock, awaiting repair by Victoria Shipyards.

Two submariners suffered minor bruises from the impact of the grounding, but Kenny said he's worried about the psychological repercussions for the 60 crew members after what must have been a traumatic experience.

The navy also played down the disruption in HMCS Corner Brook's training schedule. At the time of the crash, it said the boat was just three weeks away from extended maintenance period that would have it ashore until 2016.

Kenny said photos of the hole will add to the crisis in confidence Canadians feel over the submarine program, which has cost taxpayers about $900 million since the government bought four used Victoria-class vessels from Britain in 1998 for $750 million.

Not one of the four submarines is fully operational.

HMCS Windsor and HMCS Victoria are set to be certified and equipped with weapons by 2013. HMCS Chicoutimi, damaged by a fire in 2004 that killed one officer, is to be in extended maintenance until 2013 and certified a year later.

Girouard said that while it's important for Canada to have strong submarine capabilities, he can understand frustration at the growing price tag for ships sitting idle.

"For folks who aren't savvy about all the maritime issues at play right now, who already are in a place where they're not sure about the value of boats, I guess it does add to that," Girouard said.

Kenny said Canada's navy needs to ditch the battered subs and invest in new ones. Because the four boats are constantly undergoing repairs, there isn't a lot of opportunity for submariner training, Kenny said, which could lead to more serious accidents.

"Having two submarines on each coast goes a long way toward providing security for Canada. If these boats keep on having problems, we should get out of them and we should move onto something that works."

Damage to sub much worse than navy let on last year (external - login to view)
 
relic
#2
Did you see the dufus on the news,comparing the damage to a fender bender,because they drove it home.Now there's one in the water,can't dive or fire it's torpedoes,sounds like an expensive canoe.
We should sell them to the colombians,to haule coke in,get rid of the subs,the coke,the coke dealers........
 
Spade
#3
The pinnacle of British engineering!
 
Walter
+2 / -3
#4
Thread creator, why don't you start your own news digest a la Matt Drudge DRUDGE REPORT 2012 (external - login to view) (conservative American, he of Monica Lewinsky fame) or Pierre Bourque BOURQUE NEWSWATCH - TOMORROW'S NEWS NOW 2012 (external - login to view) (liberal Canadian) instead of stuffing this forum full of your Liberal newspaper clippings? It's very tedious. Besides, both of the aforementioned are making a good deal of money doing what they are doing.
 
WLDB
+2
#5
We should have build our own.
 
#juan
+1
#6
I think McKay said that the submarine fleet was "spotty". That has got to be the understatement of the decade.
Would you believe we don't have a single sub capable of firing a torpedo. This is after we spent several hundred
million on the damned things over and above the seven hundred and fifty million we spent to buy them. These
subs ar no good to us anyway. They don't have the range to go under the ice even if we could fire a torpedo.
 
mentalfloss
+1 / -1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by WalterView Post

Thread creator, why don't you start your own news digest a la Matt Drudge DRUDGE REPORT 2012 (external - login to view) (conservative American, he of Monica Lewinsky fame) or Pierre Bourque BOURQUE NEWSWATCH - TOMORROW'S NEWS NOW 2012 (external - login to view) (liberal Canadian) instead of stuffing this forum full of your Liberal newspaper clippings? It's very tedious. Besides, both of the aforementioned are making a good deal of money doing what they are doing.

Dear Walter,

Please stop astroturfing.

Kind regards,

mentalfloss™
 
EagleSmack
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

I think McKay said that the submarine fleet was "spotty". That has got to be the understatement of the decade.
Would you believe we don't have a single sub capable of firing a torpedo. This is after we spent several hundred
million on the damned things over and above the seven hundred and fifty million we spent to buy them. These
subs ar no good to us anyway. They don't have the range to go under the ice even if we could fire a torpedo.

This can't be true... Canada doesn't have a sub capable of firing a torpedo? They must be able to launch missiles though right?
 
lone wolf
#9
They took out the torpedo tubes to install the screened-in veranda.
 
mentalfloss
#10
Guys, it's a fender bender.

Relax.
 
Spade
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

This can't be true... Canada doesn't have a sub capable of firing a torpedo? They must be able to launch missiles though right?


I think the British installed trebuchets.
 
mentalfloss
+2 / -1
#12
Uh ohs.

I gots a -1 from Waaaaaaaaaaahlter.
 
gerryh
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Uh ohs.

I gots a -1 from Waaaaaaaaaaahlter.


congratulations.
 
TenPenny
+4 / -1
#14  Top Rated Post
I'm pretty sure that getting a -1 from Walter the Costco Greeter means that you are a human being.
 
Walter
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Uh ohs.

I gots a -1 from Waaaaaaaaaaahlter.

See thumbs thread.

Quote: Originally Posted by TenPennyView Post

I'm pretty sure that getting a -1 from Walter the Costco Greeter means that you are a human being.

See Thumbs thread.
 
gerryh
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

This can't be true... Canada doesn't have a sub capable of firing a torpedo? They must be able to launch missiles though right?


Armament: 6 21 in (530 mm) torpedo tubes
18 Mark 48 torpedoes (external - login to view)


So, that would be a no.
 
#juan
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Armament: 6 21 in (530 mm) torpedo tubes
18 Mark 48 torpedoes (external - login to view)


So, that would be a no.


The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is today reporting that one of our submarines had an unfortunate encounter with the seabed last summer. HMCS Corner Brook apparently ran into the ground while on manoeuvres in the Pacific last June, just off British Columbia. As the photos obtained by the CBC show, the damage was severe. Or, as Canadian Senator Colin Kennedy put it, "horrific".

Corner Brook is one of four Victoria-class subs the now Royal Canadian Navy purchased from Great Britain back in 1998. All were used (or previously-owned, if you'd prefer), and the deal was sen by many observers - including myself - as bad. Think about getting an old AMC Gremlin or Hyundai Pony: cheap to buy, hell to maintain.

To date, none of the RCNs subs have been deemed combat-ready for deep water patrols, the only thing that makes them an effective part of Canada's maritime defence apparatus. HMCS Chicoutimi caught fire while transiting to Canada from the UK, killing an officer, and remains in dry dock in Halifax. The Victoria has a dented hull, with her sailing operations restricted. And HMCS Windsor entered dry dock in Halifax in 2007, where she still remains. As the CBC report states, "Not one submarine is capable of firing a torpedo."

You really do get what you pay for with these marine versions of the Iltis (external - login to view) jeep that once plagued the Canadian Army. And the fact that the Department of National Defence and the RCN have been so quiet about the problems with these vessels makes one think they are taking the term 'silent service' to a new level.

Cut and run, suits and stripes. And do it right now, because this current situation does a great disservice to the lengthy experience Canadian submariners have acquired over at least the last half century.
Posted by Daniel Sekulich (external - login to view) at 5:12 PM (external - login to view)


 
EagleSmack
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by SpadeView Post

I think the British installed trebuchets.

Well the trebuchet is a step up from a ballista or catapult. You'll be able to chuck big azz rocks over castle walls from a further distance.

Quote: Originally Posted by #juanView Post

As the CBC report states, "Not one submarine is capable of firing a torpedo."

Yikes.
 
Spade
#19
They are considering using abandonned cars to catapult.
Most powerful trebuchet in the world - YouTube (external - login to view)
 
BruSan
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Well the trebuchet is a step up from a ballista or catapult. You'll be able to chuck big azz rocks over castle walls from a further distance.



Yikes.

Yikes is putting it mildly. For those of us of previous RCN experience it's a real dyed-in-the-whool cluster-****!

Perrin Beatty as Defense Minister proposed Nuker's back in the day but was laughed out of the house then. IF ONLY!!

Who knew global warming would open northern channels?
Who knew resource-rich Canada would become interesting to folks like the Danes and Russia claiming northern rights?
Who knew we would one day crave a capability of sustained underwater surveillance and defence patrol under the northern ice?

Then along comes some shortsighted politician that decides we need subs, any subs, to be able to provide a level of security to an operating fleet (something else we don't have) while fulfilling our role within NATO of anti-submarine warfare. This politician along with his naval contacts get all excited over these retarded Brit cast-offs 'cause they're CHEAP totally ignoring the reason the Brits weren't using them was because the things were not only useless but UNSAFE.

Here's the deal on the fire: While operating with conning tower hatch open in moderately rough weather, sea water intrusion invaded a high voltage panel and set the damned thing on fire - -. Hellooooo; Subs designed to operate only in a DRY environment? Hmmm.

The way we've approached ANY military procurement here in Canada I swear would have better served our men and women in the forces if we had simply blindfolded a baboon and let him throw darts at pictures of stuff on a wall. The baboon would have got at least 50% of it right.
 
L Gilbert
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

This can't be true... Canada doesn't have a sub capable of firing a torpedo? They must be able to launch missiles though right?

lol I wouldn't count on it.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post




Damage to sub much worse than navy let on last year

Yawn. Bring it here, I'll fix it.

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

They took out the torpedo tubes to install the screened-in veranda.

.... with a 152" plasma tv.

Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

Well the trebuchet is a step up from a ballista or catapult. You'll be able to chuck big azz rocks over castle walls from a further distance.



Yikes.

What yikes? Canadian subs are sneaky. They never get caught so why would they need to shoot things? lol
 
BruSan
#22
Takes me back to the days when the HMCS Grilse left dry dock after an extensive refit and promptly settled to the bottom (ergo: sank) in the harbour and it was a group of sea cadets training on the sailng sloop Oriole who lifted the emergency receiver on the periscope to hear: "uh, could you notify someone we have a spot of bother here?".
 
gerryh
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by BruSanView Post

Takes me back to the days when the HMCS Grilse left dry dock after an extensive refit and promptly settled to the bottom (ergo: sank) in the harbour and it was a group of sea cadets training on the sailng sloop Oriole who lifted the emergency receiver on the periscope to hear: "uh, could you notify someone we have a spot of bother here?".


She needed a refit in the 5 years she was on loan to us?
 
SLM
+1 / -1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmackView Post

This can't be true... Canada doesn't have a sub capable of firing a torpedo? They must be able to launch missiles though right?

Maybe if they got out and threw it?

Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

They took out the torpedo tubes to install the screened-in veranda.

I heard there were problems with leaks though.

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Uh ohs.

I gots a -1 from Waaaaaaaaaaahlter.

Well don't whine about it! Off to the Thumbs thread with you!
 
BruSan
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

She needed a refit in the 5 years she was on loan to us?

When it arrived I believe it went straight to dry dock for necessary work to gain conformance. It was in there while I did time at Naden. The sinking part may have been urban legend but much fun was made of this old thing by the ERA's of the day.

It would seem not much has changed in the intervening 50 years or so.
 
gerryh
#26
Here's some history on her.

USS BURRFISH (SS-312) (SSR-312) / HMCS GRILSE (SS-71) - SHIP'S HISTORY (external - login to view)
 
shadowshiv
#27
Hopefully they'll finally decide to just build some new subs rather than continually sink money into these money pits.
 
gerryh
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by shadowshivView Post

Hopefully they'll finally decide to just build some new subs rather than continually sink money into these money pits.

50 years of history........ I don't think they are mentally capable of doing anything else.

They have had better luck with american castaways, so I think they should dump the brits and go with "made in america" boats.
 
shadowshiv
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

50 years of history........ I don't think they are mentally capable of doing anything else.

They have had better luck with american castaways, so I think they should dump the brits and go with "made in america" boats.

Also, it would be easier to send them back if they were lemons.
 
damngrumpy
+3 / -1
#30
Getting a thumbs down from Walter is like receiving a badge of honor. The military is so
lacking in competence they are likely being trained by the RCMP. It is a good thing they
can't fire missiles hell they can't even maneuver in their own waters without hitting bottom.
I think we should have an accounting of the damage after all we paid for them didn't we.
As for a useful sub, the only working one last I heard was in the Edmonton Mall on display
and its hundreds of miles away from the sea.
 

Similar Threads

20
Can it get any worse?
by #juan | Mar 31st, 2006
28
Royal Navy ship damage probe.
by Blackleaf | Mar 7th, 2006
81
For Bush, it's from bad to worse
by #juan | Nov 29th, 2005
no new posts