PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   Military Aviation (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation-57/)
-   -   BBC reporting Kinloss Nimrod going to aid of sub. (https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/147288-bbc-reporting-kinloss-nimrod-going-aid-sub.html)

Navaleye 5th Oct 2004 15:54

BBC reporting Kinloss Nimrod going to aid of sub.
 
It didn't mention its nationality. Any rumours we can circulate? 201?

callsign Metman 5th Oct 2004 16:03

BBC now reports sub as probable Canadian. Wonder if it's one of the ones they recently got from us.
Hope all is OK.

CM

Ian Corrigible 5th Oct 2004 16:23

Hope it's not an Upholder, or this is going to be very embarrassing...

:ooh:

I/C

Jackonicko 5th Oct 2004 16:36

Why would they send the B-team (120 or 201), when 206 (the A-team) are available? If 206 need more crew, my Dad's up for it, he says, and it's only 60 years since he first joined them......

Razor61 5th Oct 2004 16:46

It is being reported that it's an Upholder that was handed over to the Canadians on Saturday.
It is 100 miles NW of Ireland with an electrical fault. Fire has apparently swept through the submarine with some crew members needing emergency treatment for smoke.

A Nimrod and Sea King are enroute the area and HMS Montrose is also aiding i believe.

Razor

Duckbutt 5th Oct 2004 16:49

Apparently its HMCS Chicoutimi, formerly HMS Upholder.

Archimedes 5th Oct 2004 16:50

Yes, it's one of the splendidly reliable Upholders, now named HMCS Chicoutimi.

As well as the Nimrod, HMS Montrose is on the way, along with RFA Wave Knight.

Edit - Ah. Beaten to it!

Razor61 5th Oct 2004 17:00

Update:-

RAF Valley Sea King is being re-tasked and is asked to go enroute to Ronaldsway, IOM and await tasking via landline.
RAF Wattisham Sea King is enroute to Lyneham with 2 divers onboard.
RN Sea King from Prestwick is currently at Ballykelly picking up portable radio gear for the Sub to use.
RAF Sea King from Chivenor is currently airborne from Lossiemouth and enroute. (bloody long way!)

The Nimrod has been asked to ask the submarine the status of the steerage, water tight integrity and how many people onboard.

Razor

Navaleye 5th Oct 2004 18:42

This wouldn't be the same HMS Upholder that BWoS turned into a harbour queen to get the other three going would it? The same one the Canadians bitched about as being of sub-standard quality only last week and demanding compensation? Oh it is!

bad livin' 5th Oct 2004 22:08

Enough of all that - at least there are only three smoke inhalation casualties reported, and she's a conventional boat so that's one less large worry at any rate.

Canadia ay!

Always_broken_in_wilts 5th Oct 2004 22:23

Was it sold " as seen" or were the Canadian's wise enought to ensure it had a 3 month warranty:E

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Navaleye 5th Oct 2004 22:28

Abiw, Yes there was a warranty. This is now the subject of negotation between the contractor and the Canadian equiv of the DPA.

J.A.F.O. 5th Oct 2004 22:50

Edited to express my condolences to the family of the sailor who will not be returning home.

Ian Corrigible 5th Oct 2004 23:00

Especially like the fact that BAE Systems chose today to announce an $8.6 million support contract for the class.

:(


Edited in light of the news of a fatality - I/C

Blacksheep 6th Oct 2004 05:21

Nautical tradition says that you can't change a ship's (or presumably a boat's) luck by changing its name. Upholder is nearly thirty years old, what would one expect of a vessel of such antiquity?

Edited to say that I stand corrected below by Mad_Mark. Launched in 1983 delivered in 1986, so that should read 'nearly 20 years old', not 30 - although Upholder was mothballed from 1993. The original design dates back to 1973 and used railway locomotive diesel engines to keep costs down. These engines were not designed or capable of being started or stopped rapidly. Meanwhile the electric motors were prone to exploding into flames if put into reverse with forward speed remaining. To put it simply, once the boat was up to speed it was impossible to stop quickly - no brakes! These design deficiencies were the subject of modifications after entry into service so they presumably are not involved in this unfortunate incident that has cost one crew member his life.:(

Navaleye 6th Oct 2004 08:15

I thought she was launched early/mid 90s, she's not that old and with low mileage to boot. Just not very well built that's all.

November4 6th Oct 2004 08:16


nearly thirty years old, what would one expect of a vessel of such antiquity
As much of aircraft that are that age and much older.....?

Mad_Mark 6th Oct 2004 08:48

HMS Upholder

Laid down - Nov 83
Launched - Dec 86
Commissioned - Jun 90
Decommissioned - Apr 94


The Upholder Class was a victim, allegedly, of the 1993 Defence Review. In reality the MOD realised what a bag of s#!t they were and decided to get rid! In Apr 98 Canada agreed to lease-to-buy the 4 Upholder Class submarines from the UK (suckers :ooh: ). The first, HMCS Victoria (ex-HMS Unseen), was delivered to Halifax in Oct 00.


Mad Mark!!! :mad:

bad livin' 6th Oct 2004 08:49

The pleasure of owning the oldest nuclear boat in the world also belongs to us...

Casualties now reported 9. Not so good.

mbga9pgf 6th Oct 2004 22:30

Honest questions,

how much did the canadians pay for the boats?

Where have the been since they were "chopped" before selling?


Did the Canadians inspect the boats before handing over the moolah?


All times are GMT. The time now is 17:28.


Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.