All Canadian submarines now out of commission
By David Pugliese, Postmedia {Ottawa Citizen Newspaper} News
The Canadian submarine HMCS Corner Brook enters St John's Bay Newfoundland.
The submarine program, which has already cost around $900 million, has been plagued with various maintenance issues that have prevented the boats from being available for operations on a regular basis.
A media report in July noted that one of the subs, HMCS Windsor, arrived in Canada in the fall of 2001 but since then it has operated at sea for just 332 days.
HMCS Corner Brook, damaged when it hit the ocean floor during a training accident in June on the West Coast, is now dockside. It will be repaired and overhauled during a planned maintenance period now underway.
But it is not scheduled to return to sea until 2016, the navy confirmed in an email to the Ottawa Citizen.
HMCS Chicoutimi, damaged by a fire in 2004 that killed one officer, still remains sidelined. That leaves HMCS Windsor and HMCS Victoria, which are also not available for duty at sea.
“The navy is focused on HMCS Victoria and HMCS Windsor and returning both to sea in early 2012,” stated navy spokesman Lt.-Cmdr. Brian Owens in an email. “Trials are already underway with Victoria in anticipation to her returning to sea.”
He noted that plans call for Victoria to do a test dive in the Esquimalt harbour on Vancouver Island sometime this month as part of a plan “to verify the submarine’s watertight integrity, and the functionality of other key systems.”
But defence analyst Martin Shadwick said the latest news on the four submarines is yet another blow to the program.
“All the arguments the navy made for having submarines 10 or 15 years ago are still fundamentally valid, but they haven’t been actually able to provide the politicians with specific concrete examples because the subs are not available all that much,” explained Shadwick, a York University professor. “That makes the subs a lot more vulnerable to budget cutters in the department and outside of it.”
He said the future survival of the submarine force could be put in jeopardy if the problems continue.
Canada purchased the subs second-hand from Britain and took delivery of the boats between 2000 and 2004. The navy said it did a thorough examination of the vessels to ensure they meet Canadian needs, but problems with the Victoria-class subs started materializing almost immediately.
High-pressure welds had to be replaced and cracks were found in some of the valves on the four subs. Steel piping also needed to be replaced as the submarines were put into storage in Britain with water in their fuel tanks. HMCS Victoria also underwent repairs after a dent was discovered in her hull.
In addition, there have been delays in installing Canadian equipment, such as the weapons fire control and communications gear. The subs are still not capable of firing Canadian torpedoes.
“The introduction of the Victoria Class has been fraught with many issues and faced a number of setbacks,” a May 2009 briefing note produced by the navy acknowledged. The Ottawa Citizen obtained that document through the access to Information law.
In July, media reports citing other navy documents noted the subs are also restricted in the depth they can dive because of rust problems.
In June, two sailors were injured when Corner Brook hit bottom near Nootka Sound, off the west coast of Vancouver Island. The boat was conducting submerged manoeuvres during advanced submarine officer training.
Owens said navy divers did an initial “in-water” damage assessment of Corner Brook. They found there was damage to the fibreglass bow dome, which Owens noted could mean that there may be damage to the sonar equipment it contains. There was also minor leakage in a forward ballast tank.
“The exact scope of the damage, and subsequent repair estimate, can only be derived after a more thorough assessment with the submarine docked and the development of complete repair specifications,” he added.
The cost of repairs is not known at this time.
HMCS Corner Brook is alongside the dock at Esquimalt and is being used as a training platform for submariners.
It is now undergoing an already scheduled maintenance regime in which minimal work is done, such as replacing certain components and doing an engineering survey of what needs to be done during a much more elaborate overhaul called the Extended Docking Work Period or EDWP.
The submarine will not go to sea again until after the EDWP.
Owens said Corner Brook’s EDWP is scheduled to be complete in 2015-16, making the vessel available for testing, trials and personnel training in 2016.
ADD TO THAT, this article
recently published in the
Edmonton Journal [Edmonton
is the Capital of the
Province of Alberta which is
here
Editorial:
Nuclear
subs deserve more thought
EDMONTON JOURNAL NOVEMBER 2,
2011 6:26 AM
Even after being submerged
for a quarter century, the
words "nuclear
submarines" have not lost
their power to make waves on
the surface of
Canada's political waters.
Last week, Defence Minister
Peter MacKay mused that in a
perfect world, the
solution to our ill-fated
diesel- electric boats would
be the purchase of
new nuclear powered vessels
capable of staying under
water indefinitely.
After a few days, officials
felt compelled to insist the
Harper government
has no interest in going
down such a road in the real
world we actually live
in.
It's not difficult to see
why. With the ongoing
controversy over the F-35
fighter project and the
recent announcement of $35
billion in contracts to
refurbish the surface navy,
Ottawa doubtless felt that
even musing about
another $10-billion addition
to the national defence
conversation - even
without the fraught word
"nuclear" in it - would be
political folly.
Just maybe, however, MacKay
was on to something and the
idea should not have
been dismissed out of hand.
One of the arguments in
favor of the F-35 -
Canada needs the best
equipment for the task and
the people assigned to it -
could easily be made about
establishing an effective
presence around the
arctic ice.
Furthermore, buying three or
four Virginia-class attack
subs from the
Americans at $2.5 billion
apiece would be an excellent
way to contribute
more to continental defence
and to NATO's military
capacity - common demands
from our powerful neighbor -
without adding to our
capacity to help with
dangerous, controversial
military missions in the
Middle East.
Finally, such a fleet might
help greatly in reinforcing
our claim to
sovereignty in Arctic
waters. Sovereignty -
especially in areas not
covered
by international law, and
without much human presence
- is a rather
nebulous, use-it-or-lose it
concept. That's why
high-profile visits by U.S.
icebreakers, Russian
submarines and Danish
politicians (remember Hans
Island?) matter to official
Ottawa as well as to
ordinary private citizens.
The last time the notion of
nuclear submarines was
seriously considered in
this country was in the
1980s. A defence White Paper
proposed the
acquisition of 10 to 12
small attack subs to patrol
arctic waters; at the
time the U.S. navy was
taking steps to boost its
ability to make patrols
under the ice that Canadian
authorities might not even
detect.
But high costs, chronic
budget deficits, enduring
discomfort with the idea
of nuclear reactors and
likely a Cold War hangover
association with nuclear
weapons killed the idea.
The result has been a
second-best effort in the
north, to put matters
charitably. The most recent
exhibit of the non-nuclear
choice was the
Chrétien Liberals' purchase
from the British of four
used,
conventionally-powered
vessels whose primary
contribution to the country
ever since has been more
economic - in jobs created
by $900 million in
repairs - than strategic. So
far the four vessels have
relatively little
deployment to their credit.
In the last quarter century,
of course, there have been
vast changes in the
environment governing
potential submarine
acquisitions. New
technologies
make it easier to monitor
naval movements without
getting wet, and the
shrinking ice coverage has
reduced the challenge of
staying under water at
the same time as it has
boosted the challenge of
monitoring commercial
surface traffic.
In addition, the cost of a
nuclear submarine fleet
would only begin with the
estimated acquisition price
of $2.5 billion per boat.
Maintaining the new
vessels would require the
navy to acquire a vast range
of new skills and
capacities Canada doesn't
now have.
It might well be that the
current idea under
contemplation in Ottawa -
clubbing together with the
Australians in the
development and acquisition
of
a new generation of
conventionally powered
submarines - is the way to
go.
The point here is simply
this: the conversation about
Canada's submarine
future should be more open -
and open-minded. The
government's commitment to
the F-35 option first
contemplated by the
Liberals, now decidedly
fraying
around the edges thanks to
skyrocketing costs, is a
textbook case of the
risks of stubbornness.
It would be interesting to
see a report done on how the
Mulroney nuclear
proposal looks now that we
have the benefit of
hindsight.
© Copyright (c) The Edmonton
Journal