Update on 06 November 2011: Currently, the Canadian Submarine force is arguably not operational. Controversies continue about ongoing Victoria-class structural issues. These issues make the point of women being allowed to serve on Canadian submarines a moot point.
- Victoria-class Submarines: Fleet Status as of 28 October 2011
- Victoria Class Submarine Fleet Creating Canadian Controversies – Defense Industry Daily article of 31 October 2011
*************************
When comparing the US submarine force to Canada’s, and the other three nations which currently allow women to serve on board (Norway, Sweden, and Australia), keep in mind the following considerations:
1) Atmosphere Contaminants Issue. Our submarines are all nuclear powered. Canada’s submarines (and those of the other three countries) are not nuclear powered. This is important because nuclear power enables a completely more diverse operational environment, including longer deployments and operations farther away from home and in much more hostile environments. Because a nuclear powered submarine can remain submerged for much longer before having to surface or snorkel, the recycled atmosphere issue is of much greater concern to our submarine force than to those with non-nuclear propulsion. Unlike surface ships, one of the more serious problems of living in the sealed environment of a submarine is the continual contamination of the atmosphere by the off-gassing of several thousand organic trace contaminants from known sources within the boat. These substances arise from submarine construction and maintenance, from the crew and their activities, and from substances generated by the processes used to remove the first two.
To sustain life aboard a submarine, the air within the closed environment is re-used after recycling through processes that remove carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and Freon gases by dedicated air purification equipment, hydrocarbons by charcoal filter beds, aerosols by precipitators, and add oxygen by the electrolysis of water. Despite all of these measures, the principal limitation of man-made air is that all of the atmospheric contaminants can never be removed completely. So, it is impossible to achieve a submarine atmosphere that is similar to outside fresh air. For this and other reasons, comparisons to women’s service on surface ships or non-nuclear powered submarines cannot justify their assignment to nuclear powered submarines.
Additionally, there are implications of nuclear power and the effects on a woman’s reproductive system (and potential fetus) that have not been fully explored and may be a cause of concern for both the mother and the child (and potentially navy liability issues).
2) US submarines generally deploy for longer periods of time and in more isolated environments. This is a concern because of socio-psychological impacts of mixed-gender crews being confined and isolated together for extended lengths of time. The impacts of this issue (among others) have yet to be fully researched.
3) Differences between FBM missions vs. fast attack missions. Submarine operations in the countries that do have mixed-gender crews are generally of a shorter duration and also likely to be conducted more closer to home vs. extended lengths of time out in the middle of the ocean (or under the ice or, dare I say, in someone’s backyard). There are many implications to this aspect of the comparison.
4) The manning requirements of four submarines vs. our 75 are different and must be taken into consideration. Manning considerations (NEC’s, crew replenishment, etc.) were explored in the 1995 SAPA study. (Document available at link below.)
5) Cultural differences between our society and those of Norway, Canada, Sweden, and Australia. While cultural differences are something that could theoretically be changed/addressed, it would likely take quite some time to resolve these issues satisfactorily. During that time of ‘adjustment’, the submarine crews would likely be operating at less than optimal efficiency and thereby affect mission effectiveness negatively. This directly impacts our national security (and hence, that of our allies).
Other documents are available here:
www.johnmason.name/women-in-submarines-controversy
From CHINFO 07 September 2011
Last Working Submarine Now Docked
$900-million program plagued with maintenance problems
(VICTORIA TIMES-COLONIST (CANADA) 06 SEP 11) … David Pugliese
The navy’s last operational submarine is now sidelined until 2016, leaving the service without an underwater capability and potentially throwing into question the future of the submarine fleet.
The submarine program, which has already cost around $900 million, has been plagued with maintenance problems that have prevented the boats from being available for operations on a regular basis.
A test dive is planned in Esquimalt Harbour this month for HMCS Victoria in hopes that sub can return to sea early next year. The goal is to “verify the submarine’s watertight integrity, and the functionality of other key systems,” said navy spokesman Lt.Cmdr. Brian Owens in an email. “Trials are already underway with Victoria in anticipation to her returning to sea.”
Owens said the navy also hopes HMCS Windsor can return to sea in early 2012.
A media report in July noted that HMCS Windsor arrived in Canada in the fall of 2001, but has operated at sea for just 332 days since.
HMCS Chicoutimi, damaged by a fire in 2004 that killed one officer, remains sidelined.
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 is not scheduled to return to sea until 2016, the navy confirmed in an email to the Ottawa Citizen.
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,” said 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 survival of the submarine force could be 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 Victoriaclass 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. In July, media reports citing navy documents noted the subs are restricted in the depth they can dive because of rust problems.
© 2009-2022 John A. Mason