Navy to tow stricken submarine as fury grows in Canada

[emad]

The Independent
By Terry Kirby, Chief Reporter
08 October 2004


Damaged and powerless, the Canadian submarine which has been stranded in the North Atlantic for three days after a fire was to be towed back to a British port today.

Although the rough weather abated enough last night for Royal Navy ships to attempt the difficult feat of attaching towing cables to HMCS Chicoutimi, a political storm was brewing in Canada over the purchase - dogged by troubles - of the submarine and three others from the Ministry of Defence. Britain could face a multimillion-pound claim for compensation.

Yesterday, it became clear that the fire on board the vessel was more extensive than first disclosed. One member of the 57-strong crew died from smoke inhalation and two others were in hospital in Ireland, one in intensive care. Others are being treated on board the submarine, about 100 miles off the north-west of Ireland.

The fire broke out on the second day of its journey to Halifax, Nova Scotia, from Faslane naval base in Scotland, where it had been formally handed over by the Royal Navy on Saturday after a costly refit which had run three years late.

More:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=569937

[Justice]

1. The family of the dead seaman

was misled about his condition.

The man was married with two young children.

[Hand]

3. Yes...

His two boys are two and half and seven weeks old. Martin called their mother (to his credit; he ain't Chimpy) and asked how they were taking it. She told him that they were both too young to understand what had happened.

These two little guys will never know their Dad...

:cry:

[dave123williams]

13. Heh heh. You said 'dead semen'.

[el_gato]

2. They shouldn't be wasting thier money on crap like that anyway

[Mr E McSquare]

4. I was thinking that also.....

what the heck would Canada need a submarine for?
Then it hit me.....Oh yeah, thier neighbors to the south!

[Minstrel Boy]

5. We have a lot of coastline. Our fragile fisheries need protection against

international poachers, and our sovereignty needs asserting, especially in Arctic waters.

But these subs are a disgrace.

[GliderGuider]

6. I've never understood why we needed subs

Fisheries protection and the assertion of sovereignty are handled much better by surface vessels. I think these subs are mostly a "boys and their toys" thing.

[TrogL]

7. Maybe to defend the Northwest Passage

The Murikans are calling dibs on it.

[donsu]

9. that's what I was thinking too

nt

[Xithras]

8. Don't forget global warming

As the sea ice retreats from the arctic coast, the northwest passage could become a major Europe to Asia shipping route. If that happens, Canada will need to patrol the region against potentially hostile vessels.

[Minstrel Boy]

10. I posted a related story here

about the openning up of the Northwest Passage, and the challenge to Canadian sovereignty:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x892095

[Jack_DeLeon]

11. I'm pretty pro-military...

and I usually dont mind the military having a large budget, but Canada's military doesnt have a large budget, and as long as the US is around and doesnt become a threat to Canada it probably never will have a large budget.

As such they need to be more frugal with thier spending. I definately dont see why they need submarines?

Thier top priority should be getting newer helocopters.

[Lisa]

12. we bought them from Britain ...

In fact, there have been criticisms before that Canada's been pressured into buying equipment that's expensive and not really suited to our present focus on peacekeeping/relief/rescue operations -- but which profits outside interests, and makes us more "interoperable" with more powerful countries such as Britain and the US. A few years back there was some complaint about the secretive JTF2 commando group and plans to deploy it overseas -- I think the original idea had called for them to be transported covertly (subs may have come into it) in order to infiltrate target areas. Anyway, people began to ask whether it was in our interest, that it would be used for other countries' operations (the Pentagon was particularly keen on this, and requested JTF2 for Afghanistan).

So the decision to go with the subs in the first place was likely a combination of concern about Arctic sovereignty, ex-Cold-War senior military people being nostalgic, and wanting to maintain good relations with a NATO partner.

Coming so soon after a helicopter incident on the East Coast (2 people drowned because the winch on the rescue chopper malfunctioned) -- there's going to be increasing debate about the choice of equipment. It was one of the new helicopters, too (not a Sea King).