Posted on 10/20/2004 7:12:33 PM PDT by Clive
OTTAWA (CP) - Top military officers defended the need for submarines before a Commons committee Wednesday, saying they are critical to Canadian defence and sovereignty - even if they can't sail under the Arctic ice.
"Submarines remain an indispensable part of this force because they offer a wide range of capabilities," said the chief of defence staff, Gen. Ray Henault. "More than 40 other countries have this underwater capability. "Submarines by their nature are difficult to detect and provide information that cannot be detected by other means."
Henault and the chief of maritime staff, Vice.-Adm. Bruce MacLean, were not asked to address the procurement and ultimate purchase of four used submarines from Britain in the late-1990s.
The all-party defence committee decided this week to investigate the lease-to-purchase program after fire aboard one of the subs, HMCS Chicoutimi, killed one sailor and left eight others with smoke inhalation.
The probe will not address the technical issues now being studied by a military board of inquiry looking into the accident. Rather, it will tackle political and other issues that may have influenced the acquisition.
The subs have been plagued by problems as Canada embarked on a multi-year refit and start-up program, including, rust, leaks and electrical problems.
Outside the committee, Prime Minister Paul Martin said the subs came "very highly recommended by the navy."
"I think what we have to do. . .is wait for the results of the inquiry," Martin said. "There was an extensive discussion - I participated in it - at cabinet with the navy at the time."
Inside the hearing, the committee's Liberal chairman, Pat O'Brien, had to continually rein in some members who tried to venture into more specific justifications for the purchase, including New Democrat Bill Blaikie.
Henault said it was important to foster as seamless a transition to new subs as possible so as not to lose the capability among a generation of submariners, prompting Blaikie to ask whether that need forced Canada's hand into buying an inferior product after Britain opted to go with nuclear subs.
"It would seem to me that the navy was probably in a pretty difficult situation if you were concerned already about the diminishing of your capacity or your inventory of skilled people," said Blaikie.
"You may have found yourself in the position that it was either these four submarines, no matter what their history, or nothing."
MacLean said, regardless, there was a "good match between what these submarines could deliver and what we needed."
But Bloc Quebecois MP Claude Bachand pointed out the subs have limited capabilities under the polar ice cap, probably the most vulnerable region of Canada's 240,000-kilometre coastline.
"We require a presence up there," Bachand said.
Furthermore, he said aircraft - manned and unmanned - are quicker and more economical than submarines in any monitoring role, particularly given Canada's 10 million square kilometres of ocean.
"Submarines are eyes and ears and they are outstanding vessels to provide that kind of capability," said MacLean, himself a submariner.
"A submarine. . .can hear ships, can track ships and determine in some cases determine the type of ship literally tens and in some cases hundreds of miles away."
The submarines can be used in the approaches to the Arctic, he added. A month's patrol, he added, can assemble a very good picture of what's happening in any given area.
Procurement officials are expected to testify at the committee on Monday. Defence Minister Bill Graham is to appear on Nov. 3.
As opposed to submarines needed to patrol tiny oceans? What kind of pinhead writes these headlines anyway? A grad-u-8 of jernalizm skewl?
What do the Canadians need a military for, much less a submarine? Are they afraid of the French?
If Canada were to have a submarine (again) they would probably just station it on Lake Erie.
If you can't do something right, then maybe you shouldn't do it at all.
The Canadians are devloping a new torpedo called the "Molson."
A six shot spread of them will send anyone to the bottom!
They go under the water to put out the fire.
-
Even under the polar ice cap, you cheese-eating surrender monkey?
LOL!
If you don't have subs, you may as well scrap the entire navy. Your boats will be absolutely defenseless against a modern sub force.
What is amazing is that Sweden, a country with 6 million people, can develop its OWN subs, and Canada a country with 25 million people, and MUCH more coast to patrol, needs to go to some other country's salvage yard and get a used sub.
You obviously haven't seen their "navy". I have...subs won't help.
I think Canada is worried that those terrible Greenlanders may invade from the north.
So, here's Canada trying to behave like a real country again. What's the saying? Canada's not so much a country as a location?
As part of this on again-off again dispute, the United States thumbed their nose at Canada and sent one of the Coast Guard's Polar Class icebreakers (virtually unarmed) through the Northwest Passage (up and over Canada) without gaining Canadian permission. Canada protested but were incapable of stopping an unarmed vessel from doing whatever it wanted.
A Canadian submarine wouldn't have changed the outcome but it might make them feel less impotent.
I can see where that would be a problem.
I served on the USS Chicago from 89 - 92 when it visited Vancouver as part of an exercise. We were hosted by a Canadian surface ship, a common practice when a ship visits a foreign port.
The Canadian wardroom invited us over for dinner our first night in. They had a wet bar with a cook filing orders for all of us while we ate. I had two beers - couldn't believe we were allowed to do this. Then it came time to leave.
As we exited the quarterdeck, I noticed a chief standing at the brow giving breathalizer tests to people who were leaving the ship. I asked one of the Canadian officers with us what was up. He said they wanted to make sure no one was too drunk to go ashore and cause problems. Meanwhile, right across the pier, where the Chicago was moored, our topside watch was checking returning sailors to ensure no one was too drunk to come aboard.
Amazing difference between the two navies, huh?
I am familiar with what you describe however; I've dined on their entire west coast fleet (all four of them at the time). However, until you've spent an evening on a Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker you haven't lived (granted, their Coast Guard is more civil service which given the state of their active duty isn't much difference).
I spent the evening on one on the St. Clair River (north of Detroit/Windsor) one winter; it featured a club and topless dancers.
Too bad about Vancouver - what a beautiful city. The people were amazing.
I'm looking for Seattle on my next tour - maybe I can make my way onto an icebreaker!
Too bad about Vancouver - what a beautiful city. The people were amazing.
I'm looking for Seattle on my next tour - maybe I can make my way onto an icebreaker!
The Blue Angels perform here each year but called it off for a couple of years because of the anti-military attitude (there is lots of opposition to having those war-mongers flying over Seattle). Even now that they are coming back each year 911 is usually swamped by complaints about the noise those damned warmongers are making.
Just a few months ago the Navy had to unschedule a port call for one of their ships at the capital in Olympia (seems Olympia couldn't guarantee the safety of the ship...at least that was their excuse).
Keep in mind, the Seattle Mariner's are the only major league baseball team that refuses to display an American flag that can be seen from outside the stadium (I'm sure the only reason they have a flag inside is league rules).
The Canadian military couldn't defend their borders from an invasion by a puny third world country without seeking US or UN help. Canada is the model for the US military under a Kerry presidency.
Ok, you ruined Seattle for me. Next up is SJA for Group 7 in Yokosuka. At least I can respect the Japanese, even if they don't care much for us either. Visited a deisel sub when the Chicago pulled in - man, those guys even polished the screws on the mains.
I had a good friend who served on the Olympia back in 90 when we did PCO ops against them in Hawaii. Heard from him when the Olympia flap ignited - he was surprised. Back then, they had an excellent relationship with the city. Just like we did with the city of Chicago. Which reinforces my belief that anti-Americans are like fair-weather fans. Love the US when they can get their SUV's filled for $10 and buy a Starbucks, but hate it when they have to sacrifice or go to war to protect their freedoms.
When we were first transferred to Seattle I came ahead of the family and was looking for a place to rent (we always tried to rent for a year and take our time if we decided to buy). At one home I was looking at the owner kept "looking" at me. Finally she asked if I was in the "military"; she made it sound like some terrible skin disease. I told her yes, I was in the Coast Guard.
Her eyes went blank for a few seconds while she tried to think then finally announced that she could probably rent to someone in the Coast Guard...making it sound like a simple STD and not something more loathsome.
I told her I didn't think I could rent from someone like her, making it sound like a puss leaking lesion, and left.
During our tour here the family and I visited Canada a lot (I went on official business four times a year), we went at least that many times for pleasure. Once I retired we continued going and just laughing off the nuclear free crap, etc. But the Canadian attitude since 9/11 has pretty much ended any visits to our ex-allies.
What a sad, disillusioned road these anti-US people are travelling. I wonder if they understand how history will record them - just like Neville "peace in our time" Chamberlain and the great appeasers of the 1930's. More motivated by their own self-interests and arrogant belief in their intellectual superiority. I call them them the pseudo-intellectuals or faux-intellectuals. They are superficially educated, but incapable of dealing with the realities of the world as it exists. "Make love, not war?" - sure, when bin Laden bends over, I say.
Anyway, cudos to you in dealing with the real estate hater. Excellent approach, by the way, on choosing a place to live when transferring. One my wife (10 yrs, 11 months Marine Corps, now Navy Nurse) and I use when we transfer. I made the mistake once of buying a house without her approval - NEVER, EVER do that.
I have a 4 and a 6 year-old that I had hoped to show the world via the Navy when they were born. I remember thinking Rota, Naples, perhaps London or Sigonella. Now, I think, why expose them to that kind of hate and discontent. Yet another reason we are leaning toward Japan.
I lived in Yokohama as a child and have been back to Japan numerous times. The Japanese are an unusual people but all-in-all, I like them. Regardless of their personal feelings or political beliefs, you can (almost) always count on them being polite and decent to deal with. I've had some one-on-one with them at shipyards and came away feeling like I had just fought a very tough battle, but not feeling personally assaulted. Same in Singapore (we put in a four man vessel inspection office there for 18 months...the best duty in the world).
With the exception of some shipyards on our south coast, the same can't be said about U.S. shipyards. As for Europe...things are different there. Last year Holland America had a new large ship about ready to come out of an Italian yard where it was being built. It was destroyed by a fire when it was about 80% done. It shouldn't have been but the shipyard had very limited fire fighting capability and it took real fire fighting capability hours to arrive.
Of all the people I've dealt with in Europe, in the shipbuilding/maritime end of things, I'd say the Fins are my favorite. Norwegians and Icelanders next.
C'mon why would we be afraid of the French, 25% of this country is French and they run the show up here. Hell half our politically correct Navy is French. You really need to brush up on your cross border studies. We have a Navy so we can escort terrorists across Lake Ontario.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.