Status on Victoria-class Submarines?

[Underway]

Facinating article on a Future Sub capability from the Canadian Naval Review.  In particular I found the AIP discussion interesting.  AIP always seems to be sold by people as the magic bullet to under ice operations.  Now here is a proper examination of the pros and cons of AIP and an explanation of why currently under ice is not possible and perhaps why Canada isn't interested in AIP in the first place (geography). 

.....................
In reviewing existing non-nuclear AIP it is useful to clarify some popular misconceptions that have developed about these systems. Regrettably, it is all too common for manufacturers to quote optimistic performance figures for speed, endurance and atmosphere, often out of context with practical considerations of submarine operations.
Here are some clarifications of the capabilities of AIP systems:

• Speed: an AIP-configured conventional submarine may be able to achieve speeds in excess of 20 knots, but it can only do it for very short periods, usually measured in minutes. AIP does not deliver the continuous and virtually limitless high speed sustainable by a nuclear-propelled submarine.

• Endurance: non-nuclear AIP systems are limited by the fuel they need to operate (all use LOX as a minimum) and what can be carried onboard the submarine. Judicious operation of the AIP system will be required to avoid quickly exhausting fuel supplies before having to return to conventional diesel engines to generate power.

• Atmosphere: currently conventional submarines clear the internal atmosphere when they snort. By carrying LOX onboard, it is possible to regenerate oxygen supplies without snorting, but there is little capability to cope with a fire while submerged. It is for this reason alone that prolonged under-ice operations are impractical in a non-nuclear propelled submarine.

..............emphasis mine..............

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Then Underway, I suggest you look up the discussion we had a few years ago in a thread (same "Ship's and Vessels section) named Arctic Sovereignty Submarines.

I explained that in one of my posts (reply 28): http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/96172/post-973465.html#msg973465

 

[suffolkowner]

http://gentleseas.blogspot.ca/2015/09/key-tkms-type-218sg-details-revealed.html

Perhaps a Victoria Class replacement?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

dang not what we or they needed:

More bad news for Canada's problem-plagued submarine fleet: two of the boats will be out of commission for most of this year because of shoddy welding.

HMCS Chicoutimi and its sister, HMCS Victoria, are stuck in their Vancouver Island port for months because several hundred welds can't be trusted to hold tight when the boats dive.

"Numerous welds are located outside the boats' pressure hull, which will require docking to complete the review and effect repairs," says a briefing note for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, obtained by CBC News under the Access to Information Act.

"Both submarines will be alongside or in the dock in Esquimalt [B.C.] for several months."
Harjit Singh Sajjan speaks in Vancouver on April, 22, 2016

A briefing note for Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan says the latest problem with two of Canada's submarines is the fault of a sub-contractor. (Christer Waara/CBC)

Weld problems on HMCS Chicoutimi are costing the navy about eight months' downtime, with the submarine returning to sea only in the autumn. Beginning in February this year, technicians had to inspect 344 suspect welds on the boat and found at least 30 needed re-welding, often in tight spaces where work is difficult.

Technicians are scheduled to inspect 325 dubious welds on HMCS Victoria. There's no word yet on how many of those will need re-welding. Weld analysis alone will keep Victoria in port for five months this year, with additional time for actual repairs.

The rest is here only with quotes from Byers..... : http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarine-welding-repairs-hmcs-chicoutimi-victoria-1.3584592

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Well, first of all, when did Prof. Byers suddenly become a friggin Defence Analyst / expert?

He is professor of international law and politics.

He hasn't a clue about submarines (and proves it once again).

1) No, the Victoria's have not been a story of trouble for Canada for 20 years: we commissioned them in 2000 - 2003: That's 13 to 16 years.

2) No, not every bloody weld on a submarine that "let go" at a depth of 100 meters will result in a sinking and the death of all on board. Only if one of the main welds on the pressure hull fails or the welds on any opening through the pressure hull breaks between the hull and its associated isolation valve is there a serious problem.

Here, the article refers to problems with welds outside the pressure hull. To me, that would indicate welds on the casing or outer hull and its associated structure. Not a good idea to tempt fate, but not so dramatic as the article leads one to believe, and certainly not dramatic enough for the comment that at 100 meters, people would die if those welds failed.

You should see some of the pictures of U-boats coming back from patrols during WWII. The outer hull or conning tower shred to pieces, yet the boat survived because the pressure hull was never breached. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Hence the reason I did not include his portion, I will listen to him when he talks about the arctic and law, but ignore the rest. He must be close friends or something to be so interviewed by CBC and the like, all the time..... :threat:

 

[George Wallace]

.......He most be close friends or something to be so interviewed by CBC and the like, all the time..... :threat:

He is one of the usual suspects when it comes to SME's being called upon by CBC and CTV.

 

[Underway]

It's because he often provides a negative viewpoint and good sound bites (aka take complicated situations and make them simple, write or wrong).  Also there are not many defence "experts" in Canada.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/navy-giving-a-glimpse-of-submarine-life-on-hmcs-windsor-1.2918711

HMCS Windsor put 200 days at sea in 2015 and it’s on track to match those days this year.

 

[cupper]

Interesting take on the same event by CBC.

Can someone explain how the North Koreans got to the East Coast?

Incident in North Atlantic last fall shows why Canada needs submarines, navy says
NATO forces identified 5 subs from a major foreign power moving into North Atlantic last year

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/hmcs-windsor-submarine-canada-navy-greenwood-subs-halifax-1.3601633

Top East Coast naval brass are pointing to a recent foray by a foreign power as an act of aggression that shows why Canada needs a strong sub-sea presence.

Rear-Admiral John Newton, commander of the East Coast navy, shared details of the 2015 incident during a media tour aboard HMCS Windsor, one of Canada's four submarines.

Last fall, NATO forces noticed five submarines belonging to a major foreign power moving into the North Atlantic. Newton did not name the country.

The subs—four nuclear-powered and one diesel-electric—were tracked to the area near Iceland and Greenland. 

The Canadian military deployed Halifax-based HMCS Windsor, and Aurora patrol aircraft from 14 Wing Greenwood.

The response was in coordination with American and European allies to "demonstrate resolve" against this show of aggression, Newton said.

Teaching old subs new tricks

HMCS Windsor is one of four submarines purchased by the Canadian government nearly two decades ago from Britain. They were slow to be put into service, and have had numerous issues over the years including on-board fires and collisions with the sea floor.

But the subs are getting significant technological refits.

HMCS Windsor is now using the same sonar system found on the United States' Virginia-class submarines, considered among the most capable nuclear subs on the planet. The sonar system can identify and track targets from many kilometres away.

Military officials showed the system to members of the media, but did not permit them to take pictures or disclose specific details about its performance capabilities.

'These submarines or no submarines'

Canada's submarines have often been criticized for being second-hand and expensive to maintain.

While both those assertions are true, the subs are still good value for money, said Ken Hansen, a retired military officer and independent maritime security analyst.

"It was these submarines or no submarines," he said. "We couldn't have bought new submarines for the money that was available [in 1998]. Therefore, we had to buy used. It was simple."

He said the submarines are powered by diesel-electric engines, which are quieter than many nuclear-powered submarines.

Beneath the surface, HMCS Windsor runs on battery power. A nuclear submarine needs complex systems for power and heat management that produce slightly more noise.

The next mission for Canada's East Coast submarine involves a trip to Norway, followed by a series of international exercises planned to take place in the waters between Halifax and St. John's.

 

[PuckChaser]

Good value for money? I would have rather waited on the purchase until there was funds available. We've waited over a decade and they're just operational now, with billions of dollars spent on refits. We could have had brand new SSKs being delivered for that money, and they'd be usable into the 2060s, not 2030 retirement like the Victorias will be.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Never underestimate them sneaky Norks!!!

 

[Eaglelord17]

Good value for money? I would have rather waited on the purchase until there was funds available. We've waited over a decade and they're just operational now, with billions of dollars spent on refits. We could have had brand new SSKs being delivered for that money, and they'd be usable into the 2060s, not 2030 retirement like the Victorias will be.

Its Canadas fault the deal turned sour. I mean who buys a piece of kit for a great price and rips out the original kit in the sub and replaces it with incompatible American kit to make it more Canadian? Its like buying a used Ford, and ripping out some of the the internals and replacing it with Volkswagen parts. You can make it work, but it takes time and money, instead of just accepting them the way they are.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Eaglelord,

You are grossly simplifying things. I can assure you that the situation is far more complex than that.

 

[Lumber]

Its Canadas fault the deal turned sour. I mean who buys a piece of kit for a great price and rips out the original kit in the sub and replaces it with incompatible American kit to make it more Canadian? Its like buying a used Ford, and ripping out some of the the internals and replacing it with Volkswagen parts. You can make it work, but it takes time and money, instead of just accepting them the way they are.

I never understood this either.

We ripped out the torpedo system because the subs were equipped for Spearfish, and we use Mk48s. Would it not have been a lot cheaper and simpler to buy some Spearfish then to rip out an entire, complicated, weapons system and install a new one onto a platform that wasn't designed from the start to take it?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I never understood this either.

We ripped out the torpedo system because the subs were equipped for Spearfish, and we use Mk48s. Would it not have been a lot cheaper and simpler to buy some Spearfish then to rip out an entire, complicated, weapons system and install a new one onto a platform that wasn't designed from the start to take it?

With perfect hindsight- maybe. We had just bought new Mk48s for the Oboats a few years earlier.

It did not seem like a big deal to change the fire control and modify the 21 inch tubes for another 21 inch torpedo. And, the Mk48 is still widely considered the best heavyweight in the business (I have seen it in action. May I never face it for real, with a real warhead). It would have cost a bundle to buy new torpedos and qualify them. When this deal was being sold to to Liberals in the 1990s (who did not want to spend a penny more on the military. Period.), a couple hundred million in Spearfish torpedos would have been a deal breaker and we would have no subs at all right now.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

As SKT hints at, this is a much more complicated matter than wanting to keep the 48's over Spearfish. There are many technical and non-technical reasons why this move made (and still make) perfect sense, and they are not of a nature permitting discussion in open fora.

What is important to understand is that, even with the money that had to be invested in them, they are still worth about half of what it would have cost to acquire four boats providing similar capabilities to Canada. Some of you may have noted the Naval Engineering articles dealing with the Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy in these fora that indicated that building a modern warship is the most complex engineering undertaking on earth. Well, if building a modern warship was like a Moon landing mission, building a modern submarine would be like going to Mars.

Thing is, if the Navy is the Silent Service, the Submarine service is like the Silent Service of the Silent Service. I am glad that current naval leadership now recognizes that too much secrecy is bad for support for submarines in the public and are slowly lifting parts of the veil to address this PR matter. But for the good of the service, I think it is better to let the leadership of the Navy decide which part of the veil to lift and to which extent while remaining mum on the rest.


Those of us who support continued operation of submarines by Canada (I am one of them), should continue to support their use in public, but as until now, only on the basis of what is already public.

BTW, when looking at their cost, my personal view is that it should always be pointed out that the cost of the special refit of Chicoutimi to address repairs after the fire should not necessarily be counted against the cost of the class. Incidents can happen in any vessel and one could have occurred in any other submarines we would have acquired. In any event, this meant that she was updated to the higher standard electrical system found on the other three - something that was not planned originally.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Interesting take on the same event by CBC.

Can someone explain how the North Koreans got to the East Coast?

Incident in North Atlantic last fall shows why Canada needs submarines, navy says
NATO forces identified 5 subs from a major foreign power moving into North Atlantic last year

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/hmcs-windsor-submarine-canada-navy-greenwood-subs-halifax-1.3601633

Maybe I am missing something Cupper, but I don't see any reference to North Korea.

It says five submarines from "a" (singular) "major foreign power"  were spotted "near Iceland and Greenland".

I will let you guess who is the "major foreign power", but I can guarantee it's not North Korea.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

A nice map of who has submarines.  Green represents countries with a submarine force, orange represents countries with submarines that have an SLBM capability.

Just looking at the countries in our Hemisphere, I'd say it's crucial we maintain this capability.

 

[Journeyman]

Maybe I am missing something Cupper, but I don't see any reference to North Korea.

I saw that and I assumed that he was attempting some sort of humour, but I just didn't get it -- especially since the article says "...the subs—four nuclear-powered and one diesel-electric...." would automatically count out N. Korea since they have only Whiskeys and Romeos.
    :dunno: