HMCS Chicoutimi at sea off Korea, CBC story

[jollyjacktar]

A rare glimpse into what goes on during an operational deployment of one of our submarines, now apparently "over there".  Good story and photos from an embed to be found at link.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hmcs-chicoutimi-submarine-canada-pacific-north-korea-1.4511238

 

[Patski]

Very good article!  I think medias should talk more of the roles our navy provide in the world to regular Canadian citizen (like me) so they can understand why Canada need to modernize the fleet... I remember reading about HMCS St-John arriving to Dominica after Hurricane Maria last september to help... to me, it's something we can all be proud of!  But for that, we need to modernize!

 

[jollyjacktar]

This is good news and I agree it is good to give the Canadian public some idea of what we do at sea, especially in light of this boat being involved. 

I vividly remember when she had her disaster at sea.  My ship was in refit at this time and we had our shore office/workshop across the harbour on the top floor of the tallest building at Naval Annex Dartmouth.  We watched as CHI was brought into the harbour, welded to the deck of the semi-submersible ship that brought her home.  Nobody expected at the time for her to get well again and actually be out there doing the deed as it were.

To have a reported embedded like this is a first for me, IIRC and actually very surprising to see, in light of how close to the chest the sub community and command keep what they do out of view for those who do not need to know.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Great article, good on the RCN and CBC for doing this.

 

[expwor]

From CBC News
http://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational/inside-a-top-secret-canadian-submarine-1.4524110

Tom

 

[Jarnhamar]

Doesn't releasing video showing members last names and ranks pose a security risk?

 

[QV]

Then maybe the Outlook address book on DWAN should be better protected.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Then maybe the Outlook address book on DWAN should be better protected.

Would the Outlook address book for navy persons indicate they're on specific ships or on specific deployments? I know in the army people on tour often get tour accounts.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I'll just point out here: anybody seeing anyone from the Navy expressing worries about this?

You don't. Heck! If you are worried about that, you'd have to blank every sailor's name tag/tape in every single picture or video out there, and especially the videos of the families awaiting their return on the jetty  :nod:. I don't think the Navy is that worried.

I can see "opsec" for the Army, and even the Air Force about pics/vids taken while they are deployed in actual fight or operation carried out against an "irregular" enemy or an enemy with  known tendencies to reach out to affect families (like the Russians).

In the Navy we are unlikely to be targeted that way (in fact, I've always wondered if anyone's family has ever been targeted for sure. After all, our more senior leaders are well known and if you are going to reach into Canada, why not go for big fish or, for that matter, after civilian population at large - that's much scarier.)  because the only people we face are usually other seaman.

 

[Underway]

The blocking out of faces and names is a overreach for security IMHO.  No one in the world seems to do that but us.  First Wifi on ship, now the end to the dumbness of being ashamed for doing our jobs.

 

[MTShaw]

The blocking out of faces and names is a overreach for security IMHO.  No one in the world seems to do that but us.  First Wifi on ship, now the end to the dumbness of being ashamed for doing our jobs.

It's called the silent service for a reason. There is reason to keep our naval's spies from being compromised. It has absolutely nothing to do with shame.

 

[dapaterson]

I figured that, given the somewhat ripe condition of said sailors after some time beneath the waves, their identities are hidden to help them in their future attempts at dating.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It's called the silent service for a reason. There is reason to keep our naval's spies from being compromised. It has absolutely nothing to do with shame.

They are not spies, Never have been and never will be.

Let's not confuse the fact that what submarines actually do during any specific deployment and where exactly is kept secret for opec reasons and how they do it is also kept secret for the maintenance of tactical advantages, with a general description of what they can do, which is pretty well public knowledge and who is or not a submariner, something submariners have never been shy to admit, even flaunt, publicly.

But no, they are not naval spies, they are seaman of the country's Navy, just like all the other seaman of the Navy wherever they may serve, and serve onboard submarines because they are seaman and the submarines are naval vessels (in the larger definition of the word). The work they do is naval in nature.

 

[Good2Golf]

...they are seaman of the country's Navy, just like all the other seaman of the Navy wherever they may serve, and serve onboard submarines because they are seaman and the submarines are naval vessels...

Umm, we like to say seapersons...

;D

 

[jollyjacktar]

Plural, wouldn't that be seapeople?  Wait till Aquaman, l mean Aquaperson hears about this.

 

[MTShaw]

They are not spies, Never have been and never will be.

Let's not confuse the fact that what submarines actually do during any specific deployment and where exactly is kept secret for opec reasons and how they do it is also kept secret for the maintenance of tactical advantages, with a general description of what they can do, which is pretty well public knowledge and who is or not a submariner, something submariners have never been shy to admit, even flaunt, publicly.

But no, they are not naval spies, they are seaman of the country's Navy, just like all the other seaman of the Navy wherever they may serve, and serve onboard submarines because they are seaman and the submarines are naval vessels (in the larger definition of the word). The work they do is naval in nature.

It's my understanding that among the tasks of a Canadian SSK is Sigint. Sigint is intelligence: as in Signal Intelligence. If I were order naval personnel to do Sigint, I would not have a frigate perform that task.

 

[Good2Golf]

Plural, wouldn't that be seapeople?  Wait till Aquaman, l mean Aquaperson hears about this.

Like: fish (sing. one type) / fish (pl. one type) / fishes (mult. types), I understood person, persons, people to be the same (sing., pl., multi-group)?

#callGrammarManPerson

 

[jollyjacktar]

:stars:

 

[Cloud Cover]

It's my understanding that among the tasks of a Canadian SSK is Sigint. Sigint is intelligence: as in Signal Intelligence. If I were order naval personnel to do Sigint, I would not have a frigate perform that task.

All Canadian frigates have ELINT capability, thats public record. A submarine has the stealth that a frigate does not. Not going to say more than that.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It's my understanding that among the tasks of a Canadian SSK is Sigint. Sigint is intelligence: as in Signal Intelligence. If I were order naval personnel to do Sigint, I would not have a frigate perform that task.

I know what Sigint and Elint are, and as alluded to above, all naval vessels are capable of such. And as you yourself note, they are tools of military intelligence, not spying - two very different things, with very different consequences for the person involved if captured.

BTW, I think I may have sailed on submarines before you were born.

Enough said.

And, my apologies to all the people I may have offended by using seaman. It got me thinking, however: when are the NDA and QR&O's going to be corrected and updated? I mean, we obviously now have Ordinary Seaperson, Able Seaperson, Leading Seaperson and Master Seaperson. The ranks table has to be modified.  ;D