# Canadian Submarine Capabilites (What can they do? Do we need them?)



## Alex

I'm just a civiilian but I've got some questions about Canada's submarine capability. I understand Canada has 4 Victoria Class subs recently acquired from the British. From what I read in the news, these subs apparently weren't that great of a purchase, and I think I heard that there is still 1 or 2 in Britain and none of them are currently operating in the Navy. Is this true? Even if these subs were in good working condition and were all operable, would they meet Canada's submarine needs? And would these subs be deployable as frequently as the other ships in our fleet?

In an ideal military, how big would our sub force be and what capabilites would these subs have? Sorry if these questions seem ignorant but like I said i'm just a civilian and I'm curious. Thanks


----------



## loyalcana

I believe that the one is operational, the HMCS Windsor.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

1 is still over in the UK and should be coming over in either the fall or winter. 2 are going through Canadianization (getting our sensors and being modified to fire the MK48 torpedoes) and 1 is on the West Coast getting another refit. The problem with them is they sat docked for so long with little or no maintenance. Try to get a car in working order that sat in your back yard for 10 yrs and you get the idea.
As for the rest of your questions I think we need clear guidance before we really know what we need before we can act upon it for numbers.


----------



## Spr.Earl

A bit of trivia.
The old boat's and crews used to do quite a bit of damage on Ex.'s against the NATO Fleet's in the N.Atlantic!!
We have good men but not the boat's !!


----------



## Inch

I think the Windsor is in service, we were out pinging it while they were doing workups, I'm pretty sure I read in the Maple Leaf that they were ready to deploy with NATO. I was also under the impression that the Victoria was ready to go on the west coast, but since I'm not on that side of the country I can't say for sure.


----------



## brihard

The Victoria class subs are VERY capable platforms. They're among the most modern diesel subs in the world. the thing is that within a year of them being commissioned by the british, their entire navy went nuke.

Diesel subs are very quiet. Their range is shorter than that of a nuke, but then again any tie we had to use our subs in war, we'd be working with other nations. Ours could stay coastal, while the American 688s and the British nucs went farther out to sea. Keep in mind that the Canadian capabilities in war would be only a part of a more complete whole. Our subs are more suited to staying quietly defencive in a relatively small area of operations, and at that they excel. The weapons, the Mk. 48 Torpedoes, are top of the line; the same weapons the yanks use on their subs.

Do we have the best subs out there? No, not by far. But do they suit our purpose? Yes, brilliantly. They certain roles they're designed for, namely sitting back and killing subs that enter their areas, and at that they excel.


----------



## NavyGrunt

Inch said:
			
		

> I think the Windsor is in service, we were out pinging it while they were doing workups, I'm pretty sure I read in the Maple Leaf that they were ready to deploy with NATO. I was also under the impression that the Victoria was ready to go on the west coast, but since I'm not on that side of the country I can't say for sure.



 I was at the windsors 'opening ceremonies' last fall. As for the Vic on the west. It looked lik it was still undergoing a refit when I saw her in May. Or was it?(is this opsec?)


----------



## Sheerin

You're sotra right about the torpedoes, we us the Mk 48s, while the US uses the Mk48 ADCAP (slightly newer and more advanced than ours) but same basic torpedo.  Yeah, its splitting hairs, but its like 45 ºC in here


----------



## nULL

This is a little off topic, but I thought I read somewhere that CSIS was prepared to pay a couple million for blueprints of the shkval torpedo. What happened to that idea?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Look at it this way...maybe the reason why you have not heard anything about is:
1) You're not in the need to know.
2) Nothing came of it.
3) Research is ongoing.
4) All the above.
5) One of the above.
6) None of the above.

OPSEC is key for questions like this.


----------



## Sheerin

I seem to recall reading in the Globe that that particular deal was kyboshed, but hey, who knows.  For all we know there is some super secret Naval Testing area somewhere in the middle of Hudson Bay... where unbeknownst to the rest of us we're building a super secret, top of the line SSN... and specs you ask?  We stole it from SeaQuest (you remember that show in the 90s?).

Oh god, am I ever a sarcastic sonofabitch when i'm tired. 
Sorry, I think i'll go retreat to bed...


----------



## canuck101

Well the Royal Navy is going to be getting rid of some Trafalgar Class (SSN) Fleet Submarine soon to save money to reinvest in new tech and future equipment.  I know on there website they have plans to update four Trafalgar Class (SSN) Fleet Submarine so maybe we should do the same thing that got us the Victoria class subs.  Just a thougth call me crazy i know it will never happen since the Canadian public are afraid of a Capable military.  Then we would have to use it to back up our promises we make and not look like fools to everyone outside of Canada.


----------



## ringo_mountbatten

the cdn military does not have the infrastructure, nor the manpower to suppot ssn's.  secondly whoever remembers what happened when mulrooney decided that he was going to order ssns for canada in the 80s, all the ignorant left wing loonies cam out with their misinformation campaigns and created quite the fuss about how these subs would destroy the environment and lead canada into a new world war and that we nuke the world.  completely false and erroneous info, but effective nonetheless because they catering to the lowest common denominator.


----------



## Kilted Mayhem

OK, I don't know much about subs but it seams to me that diesel/electric is the way to go. With new technologies such as hydrogen fuel cell and improved batteries coming on line, diesel/electric power will soon have the range and the stealth.
The new German navy Sub 212A is very interesting.  http://www.ch2bc.org/index16.htm

One thing that concerns me is the decision by BC Ferries to purchase new ferries from overseas and the application to have the 25% import tariff waived. If the Federal government decides to waive the 25% tariff, it would mean that they agree with BC ferries that Canada can not build ships of any size in our shipyards. How would this affect the new JSS order? This could be a death nail into our shipyards. If we lose our capability to build large ships would it not be logical that our capability to maintain our fleet suffer as well?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The U212A is a very nice class and with AIP it will be even more formidable.


----------



## Sheerin

I still think AIP is a few years away, and besides, I don't think it will ever be an effective replacement for a Nuclear Reactor... As of now, I don't think AIP can match the 32+ knots that an SSN can do (of course I doubt they go full speed that often).  

I also seem to recall reading an article that said that if Canada got AIP, it would allow us to do patrols under the icecap, however they'd be limited to something like 5 knots at all time to be able to get out from under the ice),but yeah, it was a while ago when i read that (if I did read it).


----------



## Kilted Mayhem

Still Learning more about subs
Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) have been around in some form or another since WW2, it just hasn't been that effective. Modern fuel cell AIP systems are just now coming on line. No, they will never be an effective replacement for a Nuclear reactor. They are not meant to be. Fuel cell technology relies on a chemical process to produce energy which hardly produces any heat. There's a lot heat generated from nuclear power. I think that most important thing about sub warfare is stealth, if they can't find you , they can't destroy you. Underwater speed would not be a really big issue, 5 knots or 30 knots. With the new rocket torpedoes such as the Shkval, it won't matter how fast your sub can travel, it will still be easy prey if they find you.
Our subs can be retrofitted with new fuel cell AIP when the technology comes on line. Canada has already invested into this technology with companies like Ballard. I think that knowing Canada's luck, when we finally have all our subs operational it will be time to retro fit them with the new AIP.


----------



## vauban

As a first pots here on the Army forum, I think I should try my best to actually write something with some sort of content. (As if that will work. *goes back to reading Tom Clancy*)

The Upholders are very capable submarines.   In this book "Submarine" Tom Clancy went as far as to call them the best SSK's in the world.   Unfortunately, due to a mixture of Canadian cheapness and long neglect, they really aren't living up to those standards.

When Canada leased-to-buy the Upholders they decided upgrading to the ADCAP (advanced capability) version of the Mk48 torpedo would simply be too expensive.   So, upon receiving the subs they installed the weapon systems directly from the old O-Class boats.   It remains to be seen how this will affect their effectiveness (I doubt it will matter).

They had been in dry dock since 1993, when the British cut all SSK operations in favour of having a completely nuclear fleet.   Canada announced the purchase in 1998 (as part of an eight year lease-to-buy schedule).

Our submarines have unfairly been made fun of in the media almost since we took possession of the first on (HMCS Victoria) 2000.   While they've had a long, hard road, we're talking about very, very good submarines, with good crews and the ability to serve Canada very well.

(As for Canada obtaining SSN submarines from the British or the Americans, I can easily say forget it.   Canada doesn't have the money for it, and as has said before, doesn't have the infrastructure or manpower for such an undertaking.)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The O Boats had an extensive refit just a few years ago before we went for the Upholders, the fire control system is top notch and I think will more then aptly serve as well in the Victorias. I would not scoff at the MK48 as its still one of most powerful torpedoes out there, we have the version just below the ADSCAP in capability.


----------



## McG

Can you explain SSK, SSN, and maybe any other submarine type identifier codes.


----------



## vauban

Generally speaking, SSK refers to a deisel-electric submarine.   SSN refers to a nuclear powered submarin.   SSBN is a ballistic missile nuclear powered submarine.


Mk48 is simply Mark 48.


----------



## McG

So SSN & SSK would both be anti-sub/anti-shipping?

Would there be a designator for a sub designed as a cruise missile platform?


----------



## vauban

During the cold war, the primary duty of attack submarines was to track and follow Soviet boomers, and destroy them before they could launch their missiles, if required.

Edit: thinking now, a lot of SSN submarines have the capability to fire cruise missiles.   Second and third generation Los Angeles-class submarines (along with Virginia-class and Seawolf-class) have vertical launch tubes to fire cruise missiles (Tomahawks).   Somewhat modified missiles can also be fired horizontally through conventional topedo tubes.   Also, the US Navy annouced plans to modify several Ohio-class SSBNs to carry conventional weapons (non-nuclear, that is).

The Upholders aren't capable of deploying cruise missiles, as such, but could probably fire harpoons (anti-ship missles) out of their torpedo tubes (this isn't possible at the moment).


----------



## Sheerin

The NATO designation for Cruise missile sub is SSGN I believe (The Kursk was an SSGN, if I remember correctly).

As for the Victoria's/Upholders, originally they were designed to fire the Sub-harpoon, however our firecontrol system wasn't, therefore no subharpoons.  

Mk.48s they're listed as greater than 28 kts, although various websites out there speculate that they can reach up to 55kts... I'm sure thats a closely guarded secret though... this site has some interesting info http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-48.htm .

I always thought thatThe Shkval torpedo was designed to carry a nuclear warhead to take out an American CVBG.  

Of course all I know is what I've read on the internet, so really, I know next to nothing.


----------



## vauban

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Mk.48s they're listed as greater than 28 kts, although various websites out there speculate that they can reach up to 55kts... I'm sure thats a closely guarded secret though... this site has some interesting info http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-48.htm .



My research suggests we're using the Mk48 Mod4, which has a speed of about 40 knots and a range of up to 50km.


----------



## Sheerin

What we need is a submariner to yet us, but I somehow they will


----------



## Kilted Mayhem

Since we are talking torpedoes and this is what our subs might come against. 
Just a little more info on the Shkval http://www.deepangel.com/html/the_squall.html


----------



## digital

Alex said:
			
		

> I'm just a civiilian but I've got some questions about Canada's submarine capability. I understand Canada has 4 Victoria Class subs recently acquired from the British. From what I read in the news, these subs apparently weren't that great of a purchase, and I think I heard that there is still 1 or 2 in Britain and none of them are currently operating in the Navy. Is this true? Even if these subs were in good working condition and were all operable, would they meet Canada's submarine needs? And would these subs be deployable as frequently as the other ships in our fleet?
> 
> In an ideal military, how big would our sub force be and what capabilites would these subs have? Sorry if these questions seem ignorant but like I said i'm just a civilian and I'm curious. Thanks



i found this on CBC.ca.. 
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/31/jtf2_030131
 its an article on JTF-2's maritime capability featuring our subs. hope this helps a bit.

Hooya


----------



## Sheerin

From reading that site, I noticed one thing, the Shkval II must not use a solid rocket booster if its able to slow down and reacquire the target at will... unless of course it was designed to have several different solid rocket boosters which would only run for a few seconds.   However if this were the case the torpedo would probably have troubles with close sub to sub combat.   
And if it were a liquid fueled rocket, well that poses many safety and logistical problems.   

So I wonder if it can actually do that and if so how?

Edit:  I should have looked through that site a little more... Its a website for a computer game, so I'd take anything they say as fact with a grain of salt at best.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

vauban said:
			
		

> My research suggests we're using the Mk48 Mod4, which has a speed of about 40 knots and a range of up to 50km.



That is correct...the ADCAP is MOD5 and there is now a MOD6 just entering service as well.



> The NATO designation for Cruise missile sub is SSGN I believe (The Kursk was an SSGN, if I remember correctly).



The 4 Ohio class SSBNs being modified to fire Tomahawks will also be SSGNs.


----------



## Kilted Mayhem

Sorry I copied the wrong link for the shkval. 
this site is a bit better.
http://www.periscope.ucg.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/minetorp/torpedo/w0004768.shtml


----------



## nULL

Could the technology behind the Squall torpedo be used in submarines or warships?


----------



## clasper

Sheerin said:
			
		

> So I wonder if it can actually do that and if so how?



I really don't know anything about the Shkval torpedo, but looking at the physics of the situation, the obvious solution lies in the envelope of supercavitating bubbles it produces to reduce drag.   The solid rocket motor (which cannot be throttled or turned off once ignited) will produce a constant thrust for the torpedo, but the speed can be varied by altering the flow of drag-reducing bubbles along the skin if desired.


----------



## Sheerin

yeah, that would problably work too, but wouldn't the solid fuel engine produce a $hit load of sound?


----------



## clasper

Yes.  I imagine an envelope of supercavitating bubbles isn't all that quiet either.  But if Hollywood is to be believed, conventional torpedoes aren't exactly silent themselves.  With a torpedo that does over 200 knots, I don't think stealthiness was a design requirement.


----------



## Sheerin

Yeah, I wonder if torpedoes are as loud as they are in the movies...
I suspect that the rocket torpedo will not be wire guided and as such is completely on its own for acquiring the target, so in that case silence will be somewhat important.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Oh torpedoes are very very loud in the water and since sound travels well underwater its a sound no surfave ship likes to hear.


----------



## Sheerin

Yeah, thats understandable...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Just as the loss of Submarines is a loss of skill sets to the Navy, although not as drastic as the complete distruction of the Combat Team.



Whoa whoa whoa! I disagree and anyone thats in the navy would disagree as well. Sorry George, but if you believe that you seriously lack understanding in naval warfare.  With the retirement of the O-Boats and the slow process with the Upholders our navy has lost its ASW skills We lost an edge we once had in being able to hunt and kill submarines. Not just us but the Maritime Air types as well. The USN and RN don't send us a sub for us to practice our ASW skills and on the rare occassions we do exercise with subs you can see just how much we lost. As for our submariners, they are just slowly getting back into the groove.


----------



## George Wallace

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Whoa whoa whoa! I disagree and anyone thats in the navy would disagree as well. Sorry George, but if you believe that you seriously lack understanding in naval warfare. With the retirement of the O-Boats and the slow process with the Upholders our navy has lost its ASW skills We lost an edge we once had in being able to hunt and kill submarines. Not just us but the Maritime Air types as well. The USN and RN don't send us a sub for us to practice our ASW skills and on the rare occassions we do exercise with subs you can see just how much we lost. As for our submariners, they are just slowly getting back into the groove.



So you are telling me that the loss of the Victoria class subs would be the death knell of the Canadian Navy?

GW


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The loss? I was unaware we planned on getting rid of them. No its not the death knell but nor would it help us. Modern naval warfare is 3 dimensional above, on and below the surface. To lose an aspect of that means you become ineffective, no matter how small of a force you have, much like how much the loss of tanks wil affect the army.


----------



## George Wallace

Then that is what I said.  The loss of the skill set of the "Tanker" would mean the death knell to the ARMY, in that the Cbt Team would be neutered.  The loss of the skill set of the "Submariner" would greatly affect the Navy, but not to the same extent.  Naval Task Forces would still be able to operate.  The Army, however, would not be able to effectively deploy a Cbt Team or any true fighting force that would credibly defend itself.

GW


----------



## George Wallace

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> For us its comparable, you said it was not as drastic. My point was to show it is and how serious the navy views it.


So again,,,,,,,,,I ask you......will/would it mean the "DEATH KNELL" of the Navy?

GW


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Would not mean the death knell but its a step backwards just like the loss of the Leopards. Its a big step back and a huge loss in capbility but the CF has always been able to adapt and overcome. Do I like the route its headed, hell no because I fear it would mean the deaths of people I know because they are give a POS. Same token without ASW training we once head it could mean my death. I am not partial to that idea at all.


----------



## Inch

George, I'm not totally immersed in the navy yet, but for the MH crews, practicing on imaginary subs can only get you so far.   We were out pinging on the Windsor a few weeks ago and we had to get her to slow down in order for us to track and "attack" her.   Without actual subs to practice on our skill set for our primary role is degrading, so for MH, yes, it's the Death Knell of our capability.   There was a time that if it was in the ocean, we could find it. It has a little to do with the equipment but more to do with the actual practice.   The same goes for the navy, if they can't practice hunting and killing, then they're now vulnerable to subsurface attack and I would say that the loss of a Submarine fleet is the Death Knell of the navy too.

Cheers


----------



## 12alfa

I may walk the plank for this but........

I would think that the sub threat is almost gone as to harm our country. That said we should have some form of anti-sub trg'ing.

However.... we need other seagoing platforms more than billion dollar subs.

When a civi ship captian can hold the canadain army and it's veh's at sea for any reason we got problems.
 Did we not have them guarded? 
What the Hellllll was said guard doing? 
Was he armed?   

Could subs help out in this operation?

We can hunt subs, but can't get our own equipment into deployments like other nations. 
We can hunt subs, but can't supply troops abroad on operations from the sea like other nations .
We can hunt subs, but can't deploy a rapid reaction force to help out a UN mission when required (Rawanda) from the sea like other nations.

We can hunt subs......................


Oh "is the LeoC2 a tank?"...I would not know, I'm a reservist......right GW!


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> I would think that the sub threat is almost gone as to harm our country. That said we should have some form of anti-sub trg'ing.


IS it? The Chinese and NK are always working on improving their subs. Iran has Kilos. As I and Inch have pointed out our ASW has suffered from the lack of subs how would we have any sort of quality training without them?



> However.... we need other seagoing platforms more than billion dollar subs.


True...we need a balanced naval force with subs being part of it.



> When a civi ship captian can hold the canadain army and it's veh's at sea for any reason we got problems.
> Did we not have them guarded?
> What the Hellllll was said guard doing?
> Was he armed?
> 
> Could subs help out in this operation?


No idea about the guard but a sub could have been used to conduct surveillance and could have deployed a team.



> We can hunt subs, but can't get our own equipment into deployments like other nations.
> We can hunt subs, but can't supply troops abroad on operations from the sea like other nations .
> We can hunt subs, but can't deploy a rapid reaction force to help out a UN mission when required (Rawanda) from the sea like other nations.
> 
> We can hunt subs......................


You say we can but I say we lost that edge. The best tool to kill a submarines is another submarine. An escort force with a sub increases its effectiveness dramatically.


----------



## 12alfa

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> IS it? The Chinese and NK are always working on improving their subs. Iran has Kilos. As I and Inch have pointed out our ASW has suffered from the lack of subs how would we have any sort of quality training without them?
> 
> 
> True...we need a balanced naval force with subs being part of it.
> 
> 
> No idea about the guard but a sub could have been used to conduct surveillance and could have deployed a team.
> 
> 
> You say we can but I say we lost that edge. The best tool to kill a submarines is another submarine. An escort force with a sub increases its effectiveness dramatically.



*The Chinese and NK are always working on improving their subs. Iran has Kilos.*

This in it self does not pose a threat to most people, now to the anti-sub players they as we all do use it for their oun exestinse.They would as you know get through the US anti-sub net to enter Canadain waters.

N*o idea about the guard but a sub could have been used to conduct surveillance and could have deployed a team.*

Survellance can be done via sats that we have spent millions also, as for boarding we have other platforms that could reach the ship faster and at a lower cost if we wanted to board it, in fact we did not want to board as it would show Canada in a bad view in the people minds, no it's best to let who ever take what they want. The Kadie was a embarasment for everbody, but mostly for our ability to secure our equipment and the ability to retake it if nessary.

Our navy if i read this correctly has for the most part in the last 20 or so years been deployed in operations to support the blockade or supporting the UN and the US in operations dealing with duties other than anti-sub tasks. I think we should remove ourselves from the task, focous on what we have been doing and aquire the platforms to do the job, not train or buy kit to do cold-war training, or preceaved threaths from under the water, but hey thats just my 2 cents, I may be wrong.

(spell check not working AGAIN!!!!)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

12Alfa lets not turn this into a pro/against sub debate.  Save for another topic.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> This in it self does not pose a threat to most people, now to the anti-sub players they as we all do use it for their oun exestinse.They would as you know get through the US anti-sub net to enter Canadain waters.


Does not pose a threat to most people? Hello but you have been sniffing too much fumes if you believe that. Have you not read the above views of myself an Inch on how much the navy has suffered from the lack of having submarines in our navy. How do you expect the navy to eventually protect a JSS loaded with nice green army equipment if we haven't exercised against submarines? We've tried and it just does not work playing a simulated threat. They are more likely to get through an ASW screen _because_ we have lost our proficiencies to detect and hunt subs.



> Survellance can be done via sats that we have spent millions also, as for boarding we have other platforms that could reach the ship faster and at a lower cost if we wanted to board it, in fact we did not want to board as it would show Canada in a bad view in the people minds, no it's best to let who ever take what they want. The Kadie was a embarasment for everbody, but mostly for our ability to secure our equipment and the ability to retake it if nessary.


Ummm we rent time from other nations for their surveillance asets. We don't have any of our own and when they are tasked we are out of luck. Yes but the key sometimes is stealth and sometimes you don't want the other side to know you are there. Sometimes you know when that KH11 is going to be overhead and can evade it. Merchant grade radar cannot pick up a sub periscope and on the rare times it can the operator does not recognize the fact he has seen a sub periscope as they are not up long enough.



> Our navy if i read this correctly has for the most part in the last 20 or so years been deployed in operations to support the blockade or supporting the UN and the US in operations dealing with duties other than anti-sub tasks. I think we should remove ourselves from the task, focous on what we have been doing and aquire the platforms to do the job, not train or buy kit to do cold-war training, or preceaved threaths from under the water, but hey thats just my 2 cents, I may be wrong.


Yes you are very wrong, and there is not such thing as a percieved submarine threat. Stick your head out of your hatch sometime and read about naval warfare. Submarines are the hottest vessel type on the international arms market its a threat that wil not go away to say what you have said just tells me you are clueless on the subject.


----------



## Inch

Lance, that was a fine rant, I agree completely and couldn't have put it better myself. 

12Alfa, subs are intimidating presences. You don't know they're there, they can run silent so that unless you're actively pinging and giving away _your_ position, you can't find them. If you want to know how intimidating, just as a WW2 RCN vet that did the North Atlantic crossings constantly waiting for the German U-boat to make it's "presence" known by launching a torp and sinking a ship.  The irony of this whole Armour/Submarine thread is that the argument for keeping tanks is that the army doctrine hasn't had a major overhaul so tanks are still required and to my knowledge naval warfare hasn't had a major overhaul either so how could subs and _cold-war training, or perceived threats from under the water _ become non-factors? As long as the bad guys can get Subs, we need an anti-sub capability to protect our fleet which includes helos and Submarines.

Cheers

By the way, last time I checked, US subs didn't protect Canadian Sovereignty or Cdn waters, think about that statement and then tell me again about this US anti-sub net that protects our warm pink bodies.


----------



## 12alfa

Inch said:
			
		

> Lance, that was a fine rant, I agree completely and couldn't have put it better myself.
> 
> 12Alfa, subs are intimidating presences. You don't know they're there, they can run silent so that unless you're actively pinging and giving away _your_ position, you can't find them. If you want to know how intimidating, just as a WW2 RCN vet that did the North Atlantic crossings constantly waiting for the German U-boat to make it's "presence" known by launching a torp and sinking a ship.   The irony of this whole Armour/Submarine thread is that the argument for keeping tanks is that the army doctrine hasn't had a major overhaul so tanks are still required and to my knowledge naval warfare hasn't had a major overhaul either so how could subs and _cold-war training, or perceived threats from under the water _ become non-factors? As long as the bad guys can get Subs, we need an anti-sub capability to protect our fleet which includes helos and Submarines.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> By the way, last time I checked, US subs didn't protect Canadian Sovereignty or Cdn waters, think about that statement and then tell me again about this US anti-sub net that protects our warm pink bodies.



*12Alfa, subs are intimidating presences.*

To who? Just who is being intimidated? The Serbs when we were in the Balkins? To the Talabin, as we r in Afgan? To the Anti-UN forces in Hadia, Middle East?

We are not facing or haven't faced a threat from any nation in the last 20 years that have the capability to deploy subs against us, or a surface fleet. Any sub/ship would be detected long before reaching Canadain waters by the US, with their war on terrior nothing is getting near the N american land mass, land,sea, or in/under the water.

Yes they don't   patrol "Canadian Sovereignty or Cdn waters", but they do watch waters on the way to our landmass.

To say we need subs to protect our country is a waste of money, to say we need them for training, i can swallow, somewhat.

The threat is just not there, unless you can provide some info where a nation has deployed them against us in the last 20 years.
We need ships to support the deployments we are currently doing, i would think.

It's like the army buying MRLS systems, why? we would never use them, or the airforce buying attach helo's, we have never needed them, and won't with the current operations, or need them in the future if the goverement has it's way, helll they find tanks offisive.

Money spent on roll-off roll-on ships would I think would have been a bit wiser.

But if you can deploy   equipment and troops by subs, i may change my mind.

*keeping tanks is that the army doctrine hasn't had a major overhaul so tanks are still required and to my knowledge naval warfare 
* 

Two different subjects, Doctrine and warfare.

We (I don't think) deploy our fleet in harms way without other nations, correct? Have we deployed the subs to escort said fleet? Or has the other nations deployed their subs?

Until I see how we and the other nations deploy subs in current UN or peace making duties I'm not sure we need them, when we need other platforms more. Can you give us some hard data to back up the buying of said subs and what role they play in the current deployments?
Please.


----------



## DJL

> This in it self does not pose a threat to most people, now to the anti-sub players they as we all do use it for their oun exestinse.They would as you know get through the US anti-sub net to enter Canadain waters.



Forget about North Korea for the moment, but due to the vast increase in China's Navy (Brown and Blue water, Surface and Sub-Surface) and the growing tensions over Taiwan, I'd think it to be prudent, at this time, not to pair away from the Navy it's subs. 

Now based on the fact that the majority of the increased numbers of Chinese subs, are infact SSKs (as opposed to nukes) the threat of Red Chinese subs in the Juan de Fuca straights are lessend. (Mind you, the boomers from Bangor like the the straights......but thats an "American problem") With that said, the threat of Red Chinese subs from as far South as the Gulf of Tonkin to as far North as the Sea of Japan is real.

Now if any potentail conflict between the West and Chinese were to happan, it would be a safe bet to place money on Subs being used by both sides......



> To who? Just who is being intimidated? The Serbs when we were in the Balkins? To the Talabin, as we r in Afgan? To the Anti-UN forces in Hadia, Middle East?



Far be it for me to put words in Inch's mouth, but I think s/he's trying to get the point across that subs are intimidating to us or any other navy that has to face them in a war, be they British subs "intimidating" the Argies, German wolfpacks starving Great Britain or American gatos doing the same to the Japanese.



> We are not facing or haven't faced a threat from any nation in the last 20 years that have the capability to deploy subs against us, or a surface fleet. Any sub/ship would be detected long before reaching Canadian waters by the US, with their war on terrior nothing is getting near the N american land mass, land,sea, or in/under the water.



Define threat. Put the Soviets and Chinese aside, but let's "pretend" that the growing tensions with Iran surpass the boiling point if/when the Americans and/or Israel pull a "Al Tuwaitha" on the Ayatollah's nuclear facilities. Now Iran's responce is to blockade the Straits of Hormuz with their Kilo subs, is that not a threat towards our economy by halting the flow of oil? What about a threat of North Korean subs blockading Japan? Would that not "threaten" our economy?



> To say we need subs to protect our country is a waste of money, to say we need them for training, i can swallow, somewhat.



Do you not think that having our surface force trained in ASW is protecting our country?



> But if you can deploy   equipment and troops by subs, i may change my mind.



What if to deploy our equipment and troops, in a safe manner, we need a navy that can defend against all threats? (including subs)


----------



## Bograt

This is a ridiculous discussion. It is like arguing which appendage is more valuable (The right arm is much more important than the left leg...). Unfortunately, it is typical in the current political climate to position one branch against one another. It is important that understand that both capabilities are fundamental to a fully functional military. 

The reliance of DND to use civilian contractors to transport troops and equipment is unacceptable. I do not need to mention the boarding several years ago of a ship that was refusing to dock and a significant portion of Canadian army equipment on board.

For those that suggest that we do not need ASW capability I would politely ask them to remove the smoke detectors from their home. Why do you need it when you have never had a fire.

Do not fall into the trap of arguing with your brothers at arms.

My 2 cents.

edited for accuracy. Thanks


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

12 Alpha I really see now why people get so frustrated with you. No matter how much they argue with you and point out your errors you are convinced without a doubt you are right.



> We (I don't think) deploy our fleet in harms way without other nations, correct? Have we deployed the subs to escort said fleet? Or has the other nations deployed their subs?



This statement alone shows me you have no clue what you are typing. If you did you would know that submarine movements is one of the closest guarded secrets a military has.


----------



## Infanteer

If anything, the potential for a "rogue nation" to get ahold of an old Russian sub and arm it with a nuke of some sort giving it the capability to take out a CVBG would mean that there is an increased need for the best ASW platform out there, a hunter/killer.

Doesn't Iran have a little fleet of Diesel subs?   Quite things that they are, they could make some trouble in the Straits of Hormuz if they wanted to.

Other then that, my knowledge, like 12Alfa, doesn't extend beyond Tom Clancy's Submarine, so I'll let you guys ride the whale from here.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Doesn't Iran have a little fleet of Diesel subs?  Quite things that they are, they could make some trouble in the Straits of Hormuz if they wanted to.



You are correct, they are using Kilos (and trying to get more) plus their own locally produced midget submarines.


----------



## Torlyn

Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I (like infanteer) derive my submarine knowledge mostly from books and no practical experience...  Something I've been mulling over here though, is that our northern passage seems to be opening up more every year.  I know that the Danes have used it, and have been overfishing (along with the Faroes) close to or near our territorial waters...  Now, if this passage is going to be used more, for the transportation of goods/materials/whathaveyou, gives foreign nations th ability to approach north American installations closer and closer, shouldn't we have something that isn't hindered by surface ice to be able to patrol our waters?  (Our subs can do that, right?)  Is that a viable purpose for the subs?

Another thing is that sure, "the" cold war is over, and that particular need for submarines isn't as manifest as is has been in the past, we still need to be able to protect our waters from economic damage too, correct?  I know that the MCDV's spend time patrolling against foreign fishermen illegally fishing in Canadian waters, pollution detection/prevention, and the like, so doesn't it stand to reason that we should have the ability to patrol this northern area (as there is lots of ice, probably under it for some parts) and have the ability to detect others that might use it?  I mean, if another country has claim to an island in our northern waters, they have the international right to fish within 200 nm of that land body, don't they?  Using their conservation methods...  WE need to protect the north somehow, and I think if we had a more capable submarine presence, it might at least give other countries pause before they attempt anything like this.

12Alpha, the line of thought you seem to be going off on seems to stem from "if it hasn't happened yet, why worry about it".  If we can think about doing something, be damned sure someone else with less friendly intentions has done the same...  Just because nobody flew a plane in to a building in Canada doesn't mean it might not happen.  I know in Calgary a lot of us spent time that day looking at the banker's hall twin tower complex downtown...

T


----------



## Garbageman

Torlyn said:
			
		

> shouldn't we have something that isn't hindered by surface ice to be able to patrol our waters?   (Our subs can do that, right?)   Is that a viable purpose for the subs?



Our subs are diesel-electric, and therefore need to snorkel regularly to allow air for the diesels.  This pretty much prohibits anything but nuclear subs (or icebreakers) from patrolling iced-over areas.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

The mid life refit of the Victoria's is looking at AIP so that will give our SSKs a limited capability to operate under the ice.


----------



## DJL

Are the Victoria's sails ice-strengthened?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Probably not but if they are putting in AIP for Arctic ops its only common sense that they will ice strengthen the sail, well at least I hope it is.


----------



## DJL

You must addmitted that these two sails share a striking resemblance:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/ssn-trafalgar_submarine2.jpg

and 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/images/UPHOLDER-2.jpg

Perhaps they are already.


----------



## Torlyn

Not sure if anyone saw this, but apparently the first sub from the brits is at sea.  Also shows the potential reasons for us having subs...  12Alpha, you reading this?

http://novascotia.cbc.ca/regional/servlet/View?filename=ns_submarine20040929

T


----------



## Inch

I saw that today in the Halifax paper, it's been in the Maple Leaf for a few weeks now. There's still no torps on it but that'll come.

Cheers


----------



## Torlyn

I guess the east coast is working on navigation/detection, and the west coast is working on weapons systems..  Long as they get there...  

Tim


----------



## Marty

I take it 12 alfa is not a Sub fan?


----------



## Inch

Let's just say that if your nickname was Marty "the ball kicker", 12alfa wouldn't feel the need to wear a cup since you hadn't kicked *him* in the balls yet. 

http://army.ca/forums/threads/19630.0.html

Have a read of that and you'll see what I mean.

Cheers


----------



## Sheerin

Damn you Inch!!! It could be the sleep deprivation talking but that was one of the funniest comments I've read on these here boards.  I just burst out laughing, and I'm in the middle of Trent's library (full with a bunch of people who just looked at me like I was insane!)

Okay back to business.
Which sub was it that had the dent the size of a pizza, and what's going to happen to it?  For some reason the voice in the back of my head is saying that all we did was reduce its max diving depth?


----------



## Torlyn

Sheerin said:
			
		

> Okay back to business.
> Which sub was it that had the dent the size of a pizza, and what's going to happen to it?  For some reason the voice in the back of my head is saying that all we did was reduce its max diving depth?



HMCS Victoria...  She's active in the pacific (first canadian pacific sub since 1974) and is listed with a diving depth of 200m, which is the same as the other ones.  I believe that the Brits and the Canucks fixed the dent..  Hard to find info on the specifics.  

T


----------



## Sheerin

Thanks for the info


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I have been informed by a source that the dent was looked after.


----------



## Marty

Hopefully he will never need safe passage through the Gulf


----------



## YukonJack

Vic Class sails are fiberglass, about an inch thick. Full of de-laminations and air bubbles. I wouldn't want to break ice with 'em.
Ain't no upgrade gonna' fix that either...


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Fibreglass which is _reinforced_ with steel. The idea is not to break through thick ice but if needed to surface in ice, to surface in minor sea ice.


----------



## DJL

Ex-Dragoon , do you know if the hydroplanes can be retracted?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Folded I believe...I will get back to you.


----------



## castle123

latly people have been posting things that say that the submarines we bought from the british arnt good. 

 but the truth is that they are , the canadian navy wouldent put the mens life on the line like that and the fire was just probly a  mechanical malfuntion or something like that, just because  the subs are old and look like something that belongs in the junkyard  dosent mean that they are nnot safe and sea wearthy.

regards:matthew


----------



## Sheerin

Umm, why would you say the Vics look like they belong in a junkyard?


----------



## canuck101

Well we have them now except for one and unless the government is willing to buy us four new subs like the u212 or 14 from germany i don't see any other option.  We are going to have to live with what we have and take the lumps.  It is that or not having an subs which do you want.

cheers.


----------



## JasonH

Government may take subs out of service 
Last Updated Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:38:57 EDT 
GLASGOW - The federal government may take the navy's three remaining submarines out of service in the wake of the fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi last week, Liberal MP Keith Martin said Tuesday. 

Martin, parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence, said the government is studying the precautionary move while a board of inquiry examines the cause of a fire aboard the boat. 

HMCS Chicoutimi (AP File Photo) 
A decision is expected today. 

The formal investigation into the fire, which killed one crew member and disabled the submarine, began Tuesday when the board took a first-hand look at the scene of the blaze. 

"I can tell you it was startling for all of us," said Commodore Dan Murphy, the head of the Canadian navy's inquiry, speaking in Glasgow. "This was a major fire." 

Murphy said there were actually two fires in three locations â â€œ the commanding officer's cabin, an electrical space below the cabin and at an oxygen generator in a different location. 

Lieut. Chris Saunders, 32, died of smoke inhalation and eight other crewmen were injured in the electrical fire, which broke out shortly after the submarine left port in Faslane, Scotland. 

Murphy pledged that the inquiry will get to the bottom of events aboard the Chicoutimi. 

"Make no mistake: This is not an exercise in relentless positivism," said Murphy. "This is an inquiry and an investigation to uncover the facts." 


FROM OCT. 11, 2004: 'We had to remain optimistic': Commander of Chicoutimi 

Members of the inquiry also looked at the operations log as they began to sort out the sequence of events. 

Murphy said he will begin interviewing witnesses in Glasgow, after which the inquiry will interview people in Halifax. 

HMCS Chicoutimi was one of four mothballed British submarines bought by the Canadian government. There have been cost overruns and mechanical problems with the subs. 

On Monday, Defence Minister Bill Graham said the naval inquiry could guide Ottawa as to future actions that might be taken against the British government. 

Written by CBC News Online staff


----------



## JasonH

Canada confines UK-made subs to port after death
Tuesday, October 12, 2004 Posted: 2121 GMT (0521 HKT) 

OTTAWA, Ontario (Reuters) -- Canada said on Tuesday it had confined its remaining fleet of three British-made submarines to Canadian ports in the wake of a fatal fire on board a fourth vessel.

One sailor died of smoke inhalation and eight others were injured after a major fire broke out on board the HMCS Chicoutimi last week as the submarine was making its maiden voyage from Scotland to Canada.

The submarine -- one of four second-hand craft bought from Britain in 1998 -- lost all power and had to be towed back to the Scottish port of Faslane.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/10/12/canada.submarine.reut/index.html


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I think it might be prudent in order to ensure that the problem is confined to one sub.  Kinda like teh FAA grounded jet models.


----------



## Jarnhamar

??

Seems like a logical thing to do. There was a fire, their not too sure why, so instead of risking the lives of the sailors in the other subs for nothing they are doing the safe thing and grounding them until they can figure out what the problem was.

Their not taking it out on a class of warships, their trying to make sure it doesn't happen again, no?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

I agree with Ghost


----------



## Inch

I concur gents. We do it all the time with aircraft. After that Sea King crash on the deck of the Iroquois,  the entire Sea King fleet was grounded until they figured out why it happened.  It's just a safety precaution and quite common in aviation so I don't see why it wouldn't apply to the navy as well.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie

They did the same thing with the ML when there was a fault with the wheels/brakes.  Not as high profile as a sub or chopper though.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Concur with Inch and CFL.   It was a bit of a pain last year when we grounded the Sea King fleet for a while, but we learned alot of things from the IROQUOIS BOI that are going to make the Sea King's final few years alot safer.

Without prejudging the CHICOUTIMI BOI, it is quite likely that alot of good will come of it, both in terms of new (better? different?) procedures and new (better? different?) equipment.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

It was a safe and responsible thing for the goverment to do so soon after the accident. Kudos to them for not waffling for a change.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse

Now this pisses me off,...no one thought that this was important enough to pass on?
  
Brits knew about sub insulation problems: report
CTV.ca News Staff

The British navy knew about insulation problems on the main power lines in submarines more than 10 years ago -- well before it sold them to Canada, according to a Saturday report in The Globe and Mail.

But it didn't upgrade the insulation on all four submarines and never explicitly told the Canadian navy about the problems.

"Those cables carry upwards of 500 volts of electricity. They're extremely dangerous," former submarine commander Peter Kavanagh told CTV News. "If the insulation was an issue, that should have had more visibility, I would think."

Both the British and Canadian navies independently devised upgrades for one water-prone location on the sub. But neither navy extended the upgrades to insulation on connections where high-voltage lines pass through.

One such location is where an electrical fire broke out earlier this month aboard HMCS Chicoutimi, killing Lieut. Chris Saunders.

A particularly dangerous situation results if those poorly insulated cables are exposed to salt water.

"The electricity jumps, essentially from the cable ... basically causing, if you want, an explosion," Kavanagh said, adding he suspects that's what happened on Chicoutimi.

"No one expected an insulation breakdown in that area," Commodore Roger Westwood, Canada's senior naval engineer told the Globe. "It's a clean, dry environment."

Since the tragic fire aboard Chicoutimi, the main power-line connections have been ordered upgraded. It will match the more durable insulation used in other parts of the submarine.

The British navy knew about the insulation problems in 1993, only three years after the commissioning of HMS Upholder, now known as HMCS Chicoutimi.

As a result, insulation on power-line connections near the engine room bulkhead was replaced. The British navy documented the repair and made the same change to another of the four subs which were later purchased by Canada.

However, neither the problem or the repairs made were explicitly explained to Canada before the subs were handed over. "If you had rummaged through the files you would have found it," Westwood said.

In St. Catharines, Ont., Conservative Leader Stephen Harper said his party has some questions.

"First of all, was the government competent in the purchase -- did they know everything? And if they didn't, are we going to take appropriate steps later?" he said.

The military's board of inquiry is promising some answers by the end of November.

Ken Knott, a retired navy veteran, knew one thing for certain: "During peacetime you shouldn't be killing anybody. That's the big difference. That is what made this one look so bad."


----------



## canuck101

Nothing will surprise me anymore when it comes to the Canadian Armed Forces.  The British told lies and all we say is how much will that be and pay them to fix it.


----------



## Infanteer

I'm waiting for the board of inquiry.

Just because there is a recall on a 2002 Ford Pickup doesn't mean they all get junked and Windsor closes-up shop.  To many knee-jerk reactions in this fiasco.


----------



## bubba

i don't understand why canada just doesn't build there own,instead buying second hand.are not the friggits good ships??? there is shipyards on both coast's that can handle it.think


----------



## QORvanweert

If we built our own then we would be making a sound rational decision that might help out the navy, so, then in wartime we would have enough stuff to go around. which is why we don't do it. they would much rather have us hurry up and wait then have things pre-built.... on a serious note, I don't think we have adequate resources for that, although Esquimalt is pretty nice..


----------



## Edward Campbell

bubba said:
			
		

> i don't understand why canada just doesn't build there own,instead buying second hand.are not the friggits good ships??? there is shipyards on both coast's that can handle it.think



Because there are *no* naval architects in Canada able to design a submarine and there are *no* ship-yards in Canada with the facilities and skilled staff necessary to build a submarine and because the costs would be out of sight.

Canada is down to one, only one, major ship-yard able to do military work with minimal preparation: _Industries Davie_ in Levis, QC.   The old Saint John Shipbuilding enterprise - which built the Halifax class frigates was driven out of the military business, quite literally, by the Government of Canada to ensure that no one could compete with Davie, ever again.


----------



## bubba

well roj that makes me wanna puke,got to love protectionism, are own govornment killin the trades. :threat:


----------



## NavyGrunt

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> Because there are *no* naval architects in Canada able to design a submarine and there are *no* ship-yards in Canada with the facilities and skilled staff necessary to build a submarine and because the costs would be out of sight.
> 
> Canada is down to one, only one, major ship-yard able to do military work with minimal preparation: _Industries Davie_ in Levis, QC.   The old Saint John Shipbuilding enterprise - which built the Halifax class frigates was driven out of the military business, quite literally, by the Government of Canada to ensure that no one could compete with Davie, ever again.



thanks for fielding that one for me. its gets old telling people we dont build our own ships because we CANT....they seem quite sure we have facilities everywhere to build. im not sure where that rumour is coming from...


----------



## Storm

Aaron White said:
			
		

> its gets old telling people we dont build our own ships because we CANT....they seem quite sure we have facilities everywhere to build. im not sure where that rumour is coming from...



Maybe because we used to have facilities, but when they were shut down it was done with very little noise. People knew a number of years back that we were building things, and never heard any of that had changed.


----------



## Slim

Rusty Old Joint said:
			
		

> Canada is down to one, only one, major ship-yard able to do military work with minimal preparation: _Industries Davie_ in Levis, QC.   The old Saint John Shipbuilding enterprise - which built the Halifax class frigates was driven out of the military business, quite literally, by the Government of Canada to ensure that no one could compete with Davie, ever again.



That will really suck if quebec ever jumps ship (no pun intended) But, maybe the government wants us to have no internal capability to do these things...Or is it that Quebec demanded it as part of the deal to stay inside Confederation?

Slim


----------



## bubba

as far as st. john's ship yard goes it's owned by the irvings,they arn't out of buisness.the shipyard is closed but the gear is there in storage,mothballed.the irvings own al;most all of of the shipyards onthe east coast.presently there building,repairing offshore rigs, boats etc.one reason were so far behind asia,europe in ship building that there is no laws to stop can coy's from building there boats over there.the way alot of us trademen look at it,if you want to work in canadian waters you better sail in ships built on canadian shores.as far as subs go i think if we can build something like hibernia,we could build a dozen deisal sub's.how hard would it be for the gov to hire an experianced enginearing firm.hey ex dragoon who's doing the repair work,navy shipyard or civy contractor.what ar the repair crews saying about the british workmanship.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Halifax Shipyard Limited(HSL) is contracted to work on the _Iroquois_ and the _Preserver_.

I also believe you cannot compare construction of an oil rig to that of a submarine. Too entirely different roles and tolerances needed. it like saying because I can change put a picture on my wall I can build a house. If we want to build subs we will have to get someone i.e. the Germans in to open up a yard here in Canada and I don't see that happening.


----------



## a_majoor

The big fear is if the subs are taken out of service during the inquiry, they are taken out of service forever. Possible? Maybe.

The erosion of our industrial base is more worrysome, not only will we not be able to provide for our own needs, but the lack of shipyards with skilled workers will make maintenance, upgrades and mid-life extensions difficult to impossible to do as well. That would be a poor reason to loose our Naval capabilities.


----------



## jmacleod

Much as I hate to say this, Canadian Shipyards appear to no longer have the capability to design
and build a submarine, particularly a nuclear submarine - look at the technical details focused on
the USS Seawolf, (on the net) and the resources of Ingalls Shipbuilding (now a Northrop-Grumman
company) or the Electric Boat Company, both major US based shipyards specializing in vessels for
the US Navy. The complexity of nuclear submarines was assessed by DND and Canadian Navy
personnel - probably some of your readers are aware of this, or participated in the proposal to
provide nuclear submarines to the Canadian Forces. The decline of Canadian shipyards has been
the focus of many questions in the House of Commons, and was critical in the 1980's for support
of the nuclear submarine acquisition proposal, and work for shipyards which participated in the
Patrol Frigate Program upon conclusion. Saint John Shipbuilding noted for it's highly skilled workforce
no longer builds ships, and probably never will again, despite the high quality of the Canadian Navy's
Patrol Frigates- one final point-Canada, needs a submarine resource for a variety of sound, tactical
and practical reasons, not the least of which is the outstanding quality of Canadian Forces Submariners.
MacLeod


----------



## a_majoor

Perhaps we are being a bit too pessimistic. It is true under current conditions, we have really limited abilities to do conventional shipbuilding or design.

Consider, though, a new shipbuilding contract will be worth billions of dollars; a huge incentive to get or gain the skills required. Also, if we don't focus on the "legacy" stuff quite so much, but make our statement of requirements in terms of required and desired capabilities, other players might get into the game with innovative new ideas.

In the aerospace world, the big companies like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin were humbled by Scaled Composite Aircraft, who built a complete spacecraft system and have flown it operationally for a mere $20 million (SpaceShip One). Building rockets is probably in the same "order of magnitude" as a modern warship in terms of tolerances, quality control and electronics, so we have a demonstration it can be done.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

But do we ignore the "legacy" aspect in the hopes that we can gain something additional?


----------



## a_majoor

I would hope "legacy vs unconventional" isn't a zero sum game. What I am thinking of is similar to what happened near the end of the Second World War. The German Navy was in dire need of U boats, and advanced capabilities as well. The conventional Type VII U boats (legacy equipment in our terms) were expensive, labor and material intensive, and gradually being outmatched by the Allies. 

The Navy commissioned new classes of U boats to meet the changing demands, and at the same time, demanded the new boats could be quickly put into service. The new designs (Type XVII and Type XXI were the best known) embodies some very advanced technologies, were designed and built as modular sections, and were being laid down fast enough to start making up for losses in the North Atlantic. When the "Walther" AIP system proved unreliable, oncoming  boats were modified to use a highly upgraded electric drive system. All this despite the chaos of German war planning, materials shortages, bombing attacks, poor quality slave labour and a lack of trained crews to man and fight the U boats. (similar stories exist with the German armaments industry and aircraft production).

So we do have historical evidence that with the right incentives in place, "legacy" capabilities can be leapfrogged if necessary. For our purposes, we might end up with the ships being "built" or grown or whatever, and the legacy shipyards responsible for the final assembly and outfitting. IF the Legacy shipyards cannot do the job, well, someone will for a billion dollars a pop.


----------



## bubba

well boys all i got to add is it ain,t nuclear fission to put some deisol's in a can.toleraances exdragoon turn into procedures which can be built.right now there's thousands of unemployed tradesmen in this country,don,t tell me what we can build and what we can't.no disrespect meant,but ive been travallin all over worken and any thing can be built.it just come's down to MONEY..so take a little pride in your countries trademen.engieers on the other hand well that's a different story..


----------



## NavyGrunt

bubba said:
			
		

> well boys all i got to add is it ain,t nuclear fission to put some deisol's in a can.toleraances exdragoon turn into procedures which can be built.right now there's thousands of unemployed tradesmen in this country,don,t tell me what we can build and what we can't.no disrespect meant,but ive been travallin all over worken and any thing can be built.it just come's down to MONEY..so take a little pride in your countries trademen.engieers on the other hand well that's a different story..



Im not sure if Im reading you right Bubba- but right now we cant build. Its not that we dont have faith in tradesmen, we have the skilled labor required but we dont have the facilities. Nobody is crapping on tradesmen. Your right about the money- we have to build facilities....but then we need to prove that we need those facilities for more than one run of ships. Otherwise the dry docks will fall into disrepair before being scrapped again. And the cycle will continue. We need the government to say "we need these ships built and after that- refit these, then we are going to replace these subs" We need a commitment from the government to keep replacing and building(even if on a smaller scale) otherwise it wont be worth the investment by the civilian contractors the government will no doubt hire. Thoughts?


----------



## bubba

hey aaron,yeah were kinda on the same page.your right the gov got to make a commitment,but i dought we'll see it.really hope im wrong.there a big part of the reason are ship yards are in bad shape.retooling is not a problem but work has to keep comin in to make it worth while like you said.the gov just does't get it.i got to get ,but if you want pm me,i'll try and give ya some imput on the shipyards


----------



## jmacleod

Back to the original topic. My opinion: Canadian Submarines should continue to serve, undergo
upgrades, and a planning policy put in place to replace them eventually. Back to shipyards - I wrote
many letters to former Conservative MP Elsie Wayne, Saint John NB, who, if she had been on the
government side would have been in Cabinet in my opinion. Mrs. Wayne was unquestionably in
support of more work from public sources for Saint John Shipbuilding, but the Irving's had a major
problem dealing with Federal bureaucrats in PW&GSC. The question of where the Irving Group of
Companies built their oil tankers. They are designed and built in yards in Taiwan and Korea for
economic reasons. Irving, a huge conglomorate, is a profit driven organization (has to be), but
they could not effectively counter a charge that they were not truly participating in the shipyard
trade, if they would not invest their own resources (they have no shareholders) in building their
ships in Canada. The bureaucrats involved were dedicated, smart civil servants, not the bad guys
who still oversee Federal work in all Canadian shipyards, but Federal work is not enough, and the
international financial climate does not accept the costs associated with Canadian shipyards. Of course
the argument arises, why not subsidize? U.S. Yards were subsidized up until 1986 - when the
Federal subsidies were withdrawn, U.S. shipyard production of non-miltary vessels dropped by over
80%. The future of Canadian shipyards is a complex problem, not amenable to a simple solution.
MacLeod


----------



## Big Foot

As far as I'm concerned, the Brits should give us our damned money back, and more so we can go get working submarines. In light of the numerous design flaws of the boats and the fact that they were in such bad shape, why we bought them in the first place is beyond me. Its only a matter of time before more sailors die because of these deathtraps.


----------



## G .Dundas

Big Foot said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, the Brits should give us our damned money back, and more so we can go get working submarines. In light of the numerous design flaws of the boats and the fact that they were in such bad shape, why we bought them in the first place is beyond me. Its only a matter of time before more sailors die because of these deathtraps.


   Thank you for your comments however in my case I intend to withhold judgement until I have more information.Btw what is your background in marine and electrical engineering?


----------



## FastEddy

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Nope..we don't need submarines not at all, after all like the _experts_ point out there is no one out there who may threaten us.   :



The  major question is not, if we need Submarines, but why are we buying some bodys elses JUNK.
If other Countries can afford to by Submarines that can pose a threat, why are we buying equipment
that is out-matched and out-dated ?.


----------



## a_majoor

FastEddy said:
			
		

> The major question is not, if we need Submarines, but why are we buying some bodys elses JUNK.
> If other Countries can afford to by Submarines that can pose a threat, why are we buying equipment
> that is out-matched and out-dated ?.



Not so fast there, the Upholder class is an SSN without the N, and much more suitable for Canadian needs than the short range diesel boats other countries use. The problem is the political dithering while they were laid up caused them to deteriorate. If I was to sell you a 1997 Neon that has been on blocks for the last five years, don't you think it will take a bit of work to recondition? (Now if you decided to "cheap out your reconditioning work, imagine the problems later...)

Perhaps if we were really serious about the "sub thing", we might consider leasing some ex-USN 688 "Los Angeles" class boats and basing them on the West Coast. I doubt the PLA is ready for a "round the world" deployment in the near future.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FastEddy said:
			
		

> The   major question is not, if we need Submarines, but why are we buying some bodys elses JUNK.
> If other Countries can afford to by Submarines that can pose a threat, why are we buying equipment
> that is out-matched and out-dated ?.



I guess that I missed the part on your profile where you indicated your previous operational experience in a naval environment...


----------



## Infanteer

Funny, everyone derides the Upholder class, but from all the Submarine books I've read, it was considered the best diesel electric submarine in the world.  When I first heard we were getting them, I was rather excited that Canada would be getting a top-line boat.

Despite the recent death, I still anticipate the deployment of four very good SSK submarines that will allow us to maintain (and hopefully expand) our submarine capabilities.  If anything, the article shows us why.


----------



## FastEddy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I guess that I missed the part on your profile where you indicated your previous operational experience in a naval environment...



How observant of you. However my reply did not need experience in or of the subject matter.
Second Hand is still Second Hand. Also, as a rule of thumb concerning Marine Vessels, Use It or Loose It
we all know that.
My argument was that our Submariners deserve the newest and best equipment available. Their profession is Risky and Dangerous enough.
And again, maybe you can enlighten us, how the Chinese can do it, but we have to settle for second best or less.


----------



## Infanteer

> My argument was that our Submariners deserve the newest and best equipment available.



Ok, can you find a better SSK on the market?


----------



## Acorn

Ask the Australians about the costs and problems associated with "build-your-own" submarines and "latest and greatest." The final result of the Collins class was a very good sub, but the teething problems and media (and uninfomed self-proclaimed "expert") mewling was horrendous. I'd be willing to bet that even with all the problems we are suffering in getting the Upholders on line, they are trivial compared to what the folks from Oz went through. The Collins, by the way, is very similar to the Upholder in capability.

Acorn


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> How observant of you. However my reply did not need experience in or of the subject matter.



Gotta love opinions...they are like a**holes as everyone has one.


----------



## Torlyn

FastEddy said:
			
		

> And again, maybe you can enlighten us, how the Chinese can do it, but we have to settle for second best or less.



Hmm... 1 billion people, HUGE GDP (compared to CDN) veritible dictatorship who brooks no oposition to any ideas..  
Simple.  They can afford it, and their populace won't complain.  (Much)

T


----------



## FastEddy

Acorn said:
			
		

> Ask the Australians about the costs and problems associated with "build-your-own" submarines and "latest and greatest." The final result of the Collins class was a very good sub, but the teething problems and media (and uninfomed self-proclaimed "expert") mewling was horrendous. I'd be willing to bet that even with all the problems we are suffering in getting the Upholders on line, they are trivial compared to what the folks from Oz went through. The Collins, by the way, is very similar to the Upholder in capability.
> 
> Acorn


Then a few very simple questions to our Experts.
1.   Take any Tried and Proven Class of Submarine,   (that is after all trials,tests and modifications) by any
builder. Therefore any Sub in post production that contains all of the above and after sea trials (that every thing works as it should). Which would be preferable ?, a brand new post production sub or one that has been used for 5-10-etc. years and has been moth balled for 5 or more years?

2.   Is it possible to have the original builders ( or any other qualified ship yard). build any number of Subs to the above Spec's and Conditions?
(this is a tried & proven vessel).

3. Is it possible that the cost of re-furbishing 2nd hand Submarines, balance or exceed the savings as opposed to the original cost of a new sub?

4.   Which would you feel safer going down in?

Let it be clearly noted, that I do not oppose or question the acquisition of Submarines or any class deemed suitable or their deployment.


----------



## Acorn

FastEddy said:
			
		

> Then a few very simple questions to our Experts.
> 1.   Take any Tried and Proven Class of Submarine,   (that is after all trials,tests and modifications) by any
> builder. Therefore any Sub in post production that contains all of the above and after sea trials (that every thing works as it should). Which would be preferable ?, a brand new post production sub or one that has been used for 5-10-etc. years and has been moth balled for 5 or more years?


Obviously the former would be preferable. Perhaps you can identify such a sub on the market? Remember: it is to be a sea-going submarine, not a coastal one. And before you mention the KILO class, consider the implications of buying Soviet (yes, Soviet) technology.


> 2.   Is it possible to have the original builders ( or any other qualified ship yard). build any number of Subs to the above Spec's and Conditions?
> (this is a tried & proven vessel).


If you mean, perhaps, have new Upholders built from the keel up, I'm sure it's possible. Is it possible for a reasonable price? Probably not, as the shibuilders implicated haven't launched one for nearly 20 years.


> 3. Is it possible that the cost of re-furbishing 2nd hand Submarines, balance or exceed the savings as opposed to the original cost of a new sub?


I believe that whatever we end up paying to get the Upholders seaworthy and operational it will be much less than the cost of building a similar number of new subs, even if we have an experienced yard design and build them. It would be completely impractical to have Canadian yards even attempt it, as no Canadian yard has ever built sea-going, or even coastal, submarines. Again, I suggest you look at the history of the Australian Collins class. 


> 4.   Which would you feel safer going down in?


I'm not a submariner, and have no desire to go down in any sort of sub.

Acorn


----------



## DJL

> I believe that whatever we end up paying to get the Upholders seaworthy and operational it will be much less than the cost of building a similar number of new subs, even if we have an experienced yard design and build them. It would be completely impractical to have Canadian yards even attempt it, as no Canadian yard has ever built sea-going, or even coastal, submarines. Again, I suggest you look at the history of the Australian Collins class.



Though I agree with you on the savings involved with the Victoria's....... Vickers Canada built submarines for the Royal Navy during the first world war in Montreal.....

With that said, I'd doubt Canadian yards today could build a modern sub without headaches and a hefty pricetag.......


----------



## Cloud Cover

Acorn said:
			
		

> The Collins, by the way, is very similar to the Upholder in capability.



A quick glance at Jane's tells me that the Collins surpasses the Upholder in capability, but comparing the windshield stickers of both says the Canadianized U-boat _potentially_   outperforms  the Collins in terms of stealth, torpedo fire control and sensor reliability, all vis capability. Small, but potentially deadly differences which make both subs equally lethal in optimum circumstances.

I gather this was the intended thrust of your comments.

Cheers.


----------



## Bograt

I hope this doesn't tip toe into OPSEC, but I heard that the old Canadian subs used to intentionally scuttle themselves and lay quiet. Is this a typical sub tactic and will the newer boats do this?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

If a sub or ship is scuttled it does nor come back up.


----------



## Inch

Ex, I think he means sitting on the bottom. I've heard of that too, they just sit on the bottom totally silent as a means of evasion. I'm not sure how factual that is, I think I saw it in a movie.


----------



## Bograt

Thats what I meant. I heard stories around the kitchen table when I was a kid. I also heard that Santa was escorted into Canadian airspace and was tracked by NORAD.<i> I know the latter is true. You can see it here</i> http://www.noradsanta.org/english/
(so <b>this</b> is how Disillusioned feels)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Scuttling involves the deliberate opening of certain valves(AND A FEW OTHER THINGS) to cause the deliberate and ideally the permanent sinking of ship/sub usually to prevent it from falling in enemy hands (German High Seas Fleet at Scapa Flow end of WW1) or as the CF case lately the sinking of surplus and  obsolete warships to facilitate reef building.


----------



## buckahed

Truly amazing how those movie subs always find a nice flat sandy firm seabed to sit down on. Never seem to get rocks or mud in the ballast tanks or hull valves. Never damage their planes or screws. Just amazing.


----------



## Inch

Thanks for the info buckahed, I know I feel the same way about almost all the flying done in movies, but you don't know if you don't ask right?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I Love a noisy nuke!  They make my job so much easier!


----------



## Kirkhill

This one deserves to be printed in full...............

Anyone remember a guy name of Collenette...............

Now he's dissing Uncle Jean on Subs and Armed Forces cuts.  Wonder what he thinks about the flaming Airborne????? :crybaby:




> canada news
> Monday, Dec 13, 2004  Email this to a friend
> print this page
> 
> Subs corroded while Chretien considered optics, Collenette tells MPs
> 
> OTTAWA (CP) - Used British submarines sat in limbo, corroding for three years after cabinet approved their purchase because former prime minister Jean Chretien didn't think Canadians would find the expenditure palatable, an ex-defence minister said Monday.
> The Commons defence committee was considering whether to call Chretien as a witness after David Collenette told them his former boss balked at the $800-million lease-to-purchase plan cabinet approved in 1995.
> 
> Chretien didn't think Canadians would accept such an expenditure in the midst of health-care and other social service cuts, as well as defence, said Collenette, who is no longer in government.
> 
> "There was a consensus in cabinet on the purchase of the submarines," he said.
> 
> Find it on our Search:
> airline tickets | canadian flag | back to school
> gourmet food | travel deals | cruises
> hawaii travel | personals
> 
> 
> "I remember clearly that the prime minister said to me: 'You are asking me to make a final decision; I'm going to speak with the ministers and I'm going to make a decision.'
> 
> "There was a concern about committing to big chunks of money when we were cutting everywhere in society," Collenette added. "It could be argued that this (delay) created more challenges in making the submarines fully operational, not to mention the additional costs that this would incur."
> 
> The all-party committee is looking at the acquisition of the four diesel-electric submarines from Britain after the last of them, HMCS Chicoutimi, caught fire Oct. 5, killing one sailor.
> 
> Aeroplan Miles with every booking.
> 
> 
> Witnesses have said the subs were a good buy when first considered in the early '90s.
> 
> But they were in bad shape when Canada finally decided to buy them in 1998. Witnesses have described leaks, electrical problems and equipment malfunctions - largely, they said, attributable to years of neglect.
> 
> A defence White Paper in December 1994 gave approval in principle to the sub purchase. Collenette brought an acquisition strategy on armoured vehicles, helicopters and submarines before cabinet the following spring.
> 
> The final timing of the announcement was left to Chretien, "based on the financial climate and the political climate," he said.
> 
> 
> The Chretien government cut federal expenditures by 23 per cent - too much of it coming from National Defence, Collenette acknowledged.
> 
> "Looking back over the 10 years, we have cut too much from our military capability and I think that Canadians have to face up to the fact that they can't have their cake and eat it too," he said.
> 
> "You can't keep calling on the military unless you give them the resources. I think there's now a recognition that perhaps the military needs to reacquire more for its budget."
> 
> He said concerns over optics were why the government divided both the armoured vehicle and helicopter purchases into two parts apiece.
> 
> The submarines "were sitting there in a climate that was not particularly hospitable," he said after the meeting. "The salt water is corrosive; the air is damp.
> 
> "Submarines are probably one of the most technically difficult pieces of equipment to operate and maintain, and that would have added to the issue of them being there for an extra three years."
> 
> Collenette told the MPs the British were becoming impatient with Ottawa's indecision on the purchase. He said British Prime Minister John Major raised the submarines with Chretien on several occasions, while Collenette's British counterpart brought it up with him whenever the two met.
> 
> "I think they were getting a little frustrated and they were looking at other potential buyers," he said, citing Chile and South Africa, specifically. "We had kept them waiting three years."
> 
> Collenette's testimony baffled some committee members, including New Democrat Bill Blaikie.
> 
> "Here we have pretty clearly a government that thinks it needs submarines, that has identified the submarines it thinks it needs, knows that to delay the purchase of these submarines entails problems," said Blaikie.
> 
> "And yet it can't buy them because of the political perception that creates."
> 
> Bloc MP Claude Bachand said he wants to hear from Chretien on the issue. Committee chairman Pat O'Brien said the MPs would discuss it


----------



## Cloud Cover

"Here we have pretty clearly a government that thinks it needs submarines, that has identified the submarines it thinks it needs, knows that to delay the purchase of these submarines entails problems," said Blaikie. 

"And yet it can't buy them because of the political perception that creates." 

I'm not going to say "well isn't that the pot calling the  kettle black", because I respect Bill Blakie too much. [Just not his party!!] He seems to have summarized the Liberal Party of Canada's defence policy making process in 2 sentences. As for Collenette .... I can't believe they let that puke get two words out without tearing him a new one.


----------



## STONEY

A couple of points to ponder gents.

Taiwan desperately wants diesel subs. All the countrys in the world that design & build diesel subs will not build any for them because they are terrified of China who threatened to cut off trade with them. Now the U.S. wants to supply Taiwan with diesel subs but can't. Despite building the most modern nuke subs in the world they are unable to build diesel boats since they haven't designed them for 50 years. They have tried to buy designs from countrys that do to no avail.  

Great Britain who has recently built nuke boats has lost its expertise in this field because  it stopped building them for 5 years.
Britain now has American shipyard staff helping  designing their boats as they are hopelessly behind building their new boats.
So building submarines is not a simple task it requires a great deal of effort.


----------



## Kirkhill

Interesting point you make about strategic technology Stoney.

Just a quick scan of Naval Technology suggests that there are currently only four centres for diesel electric subs.

Russia - with their Kilo's (centre of excellence?)

France - Agostas and Chile's  Scorpenes

Germany - U212/214 and Brazil's Tupis

Sweden - Gotlands and Australia's Collins as well as the Dk/No/Sw Vikings

Interestingly in October 2004 the USN contracted with the Swedish firm Kockums to lease as Gotlands for Opfor duties.  When was the Chicoutimi incident?

Also interestingly Kockums was bought up by a German company.

So now if Taiwan wants to buy a Diesel sub she has to go to a Russian, French or German company to defend herself against China.  Any takers on that happening anytime soon?

If necessity is the mother of invention (or necessity is just a mother....) it could be interesting to see what alternate solutions Taiwan reverts to or develops to try and bridge the gap created by the lack of an up to date submarine force.


----------



## STONEY

You forgot a couple Kirkhill.  The Netherlands still designs their own boats although none built recently, in fact they supplied Taiwan with their last 2 boats . Dutch shipyards would like to supply more but the government put the kybosh on that after China's actions after the first 2. 
Another country that design's and builds its own boats is Japan who has a constant steady stream of new boats.
Looking back at all their boats since ww11 it seems that they replace their subs every 12 to 14 years so they have a very modern fleet, but they have never sold any to any other country. 

There are several other countries like India , Pakistan , Turkey ,South Korea , Brazil , Italy that build subs but from
someone else's design and with assistance & parts from them.


----------



## aesop081

SSKs currently running around :

Kilo class - Russia
Agosta Class - Spain
Daphne Class - Spain
Harushio Class - Japan
Oyashio Class - Japan
Improved Sauro Class - Italy
Type 206A Class - Germany
Walrus Class - Netherlands
Dolphin Class - Israel
Type 209 1400 Class - Turkey
Type 209 1500 Class - India
A17 Class - Sweeden
A19 Class - Sweeden
Collins Class - Australia
Ula Class - Norway
Victoria ( former UK upholder) Class - Canada

Plus the others already mentioned and others as well. The countries that have expertise in building SSKs is fairly broad as you can see and If taiwan wants SSKs, Taiwan will get SSKs.....


----------



## Kirkhill

The hazards of jumping to conclusions with inadequate facts 

Thanks guys.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Point on the Japanese Navy... everybody here knows I'm a big fan. Look for a new class of SSN with land attack capability with the passing of the new Japanese defence posture. A while back Dick Cheney said the US would lend their expertise to assist in such a program. Changes to their constitutional parameters are imminent, and this type of platform will be at the top of the "to do" list.  China will definitely starting ^%&#ing bricks, as will Russia.


----------



## a_majoor

Our requirements are rather unique, which makes outsourcing subs a bit of a problem. Most SSKs are fairly short ranged, which isn't a problem if you have a small coastline (90% of the world), or use them as the last layer of defense behind screens of SSNs (Russia). The "U" class subs we bought from the UK were much longer ranged than most SSKs, since they were essentially nuclear submarine hulls with diesel engines. They are somewhat larger and more voluminous(?) than other SSKs.

I had an article from the old CDQ, which I can't locate right now, but the proposal was to take the Italian FOCA sub plan and expand it to make real sea going subs. To explain, the FOCA is built from a series of large diameter steel pipes which are bent into circles, then welded together. (Picture a stack of tires in the corner of the garage to get the idea). The circular cross section of the pipes makes it quite strong, and the internal volume of the pipes is used as fuel tankage and to store high pressure oxygen. The fuel and oxygen feed into a normal diesel engine for AIP when running underwater. (presumably it uses outside air when surfaced). Italian navy FOCAs are very small machines designed to bring teams of 4-6 frogmen close to the target. If we go to bigger sizes and more pipes, eventually we could build a sub the size of a Victoria class sub (or the Kursk, for that matter), with transoceanic range.

Obviously there is a lot more to this, I would have to guess a "real" super FOCA would have a double hull like the Russians used to accommodate useful items like torpedoes and towed arrays. The moral of this story is we need to get off our butts and start cutting metal if we ever "hope" to gain much needed submarine capabilities and experience. Yet another item to bring to the table,


----------



## Navalsnpr

What do you think the publics opinion would be if they announced that we would be building Nuclear submarines for the Navy?

They would obviously server the purpose of patrolling our Northern coastline...


----------



## Sheerin

what was the public's reaction the Mulroney's plan for a dozen SSNs?   Unfortunately I was rather young at the time and as such have no recollection of the plan....


----------



## Cloud Cover

The public were by and large supportive ... it was around the time the US said they would not respect Canada's claim to the NWP. It was the Navy more than anyone else who was surprised, and justifiably skeptical.


----------



## Navalsnpr

Too bad we weren't able to procure Nuclear Subs back then.

I don't think the public would widely embrace the idea these days...


----------



## Slim

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> Too bad we weren't able to procure Nuclear Subs back then.
> 
> I don't think the public would widely embrace the idea these days...



If they were properly informed they might...But with people like Steven Staples and other media ilk running around "informing them" it might be a rather tough sell...

Slim


----------



## Navalsnpr

Even if the public could be convinced that Nuclear Submarines would be a good procurement, there really isn't anyone in Canada who would be able to step up and fabricate them.

I guess we would have to tender it out to the USA or UK.


----------



## Slim

Navalsnipr said:
			
		

> Even if the public could be convinced that Nuclear Submarines would be a good procurement, there really isn't anyone in Canada who would be able to step up and fabricate them.
> 
> I guess we would have to tender it out to the USA or UK.



Again, it might be a bit tough for us to buy nuke boats from the U.K. just now (perception remember) Personally i would be all for it. Is the trafalger class of boat still in service over there?

Slim


----------



## Navalsnpr

Yes there are 7 Trafalgar Class SSN's in service in the Royal Navy.

Their website is located at : http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2299.html

I agree with the current perception regarding UK military equipment.


----------



## Sheerin

If we were to buy SSNs from the UK the US would have to approve of it first since the UK's reactors are based on US designs if I remember correctly. And  I don't know if the US would be too happy if we got nukes.


----------



## Navalsnpr

I would believe that the Canada/US Military relationship is strong enough for the US to support this countries acquisition of SSN's with their Nuclear technology.


----------



## Sheerin

Well if we did get SSNs then we'd be able to assert control of the NWP, something which US doesn't want us to do....


----------



## Slim

Is that the NWP or the NDP...?! ;D ;D

Slim


----------



## buckahed

We have been through this already. When Mulroney wanted to buy  a dozen nukes, the USN had a coronary and several admirals flatly stated that the British would not be allowed to transfer the reactor tech to Canada. Reagan himself got involved and stated the transfer would be allowed. After that episode and the subsequent history of US - Canada relations, why would Bush overrule the admirals?


----------



## Kirkhill

There was another option discussed at the time.  If a_majoor goes back to the article I think he is referring to in the CDQ (Summer 1986 - Submarines for the Canadian Maritime Forces by Comd E.J.M. Young) I believe he will find reference to a Canadian nuclear alternative.

The Intent at the time was to develop and Air Independent Propulsion system.  A system that would allow long stays under the ice.  This meant a power supply that could operate for a sufficiently long period of time as to allow any vessel to transit the ice and not get trapped.  It didn't necessarily mean being able to stay down indefinitely.

Some of the candidates under discussion were the FOCA system that he referred to, a stirling-cycle engine (it uses diesel but much more efficiently and like the FOCA can be operated under water - I believe the Swedes are either using such a system or have at least conducted extensive trials), a fuel cell system based on Ballard technology (Vancouver based company that did some proof of concept tests - Germany is using similar systems on some of their subs)  and then there was the Slowpoke.

The Slowpoke is a nuclear reactor, that I believe was developed at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, but certainly safely operated there for many years in the heart of the campus and the town.  I believe it might be out of service now, or at least that is the rumour that I heard around town there recently.  But it was a remarkable design apparently for lack of moving parts (read noise) and its inherent safety and stability.  There was even talk at one time of it being considered for small scale commercial applications. It was licensed for "unattended" operation.

From what I gather the unit wouldn't generate enough power to drive a sub at high speeds, the way the Yanks, Brits, French and Russians do, but it would certainly allow a sub to continue patrolling slowly (about 6 knots with all electrical systems and life support) and quietly and virtually indefinitely.

This would be combined with some other propulsion technology to supply burst speed power.  A company called ECS was promoting the concept and claimed that a plug could be inserted in a hull like the Upholders (Chicoutimi) with only marginal impact on performance.  Cost would have added about 10% to the new-buy price of a conventional diesel sub in 1986 or about 5 to 6% of the project cost.

During the discussion about buying the Upholders there was still talk about at least one of them being fitted with such a plug to trial AIP propulsion systems.

For my part, seeing as how the Chicoutimi is now hors-de-combat and needs a thorough going over in any case I think it would be a great opportunity to proceed with the conversion and evaluate the options.

One hybrid combination that I don't think has been explored is a Slowpoke/Fuel Cell combination.  

The Slowpoke creates electricity that is needed to run everything. It can even drive the propeller at six knots.  

A fuel cell takes Hydrogen and Oxygen and combines the two in a device that creates fresh water and electricity - that again could be used to drive the prop.  More hydrogen and oxygen - prop goes faster.  Hydrogen takes the place of diesel.  As in the case of various buses and cars trialled by Ballard and Daimler-Chrysler in Canada, the US and Europe.

Now here's the interesting bit.

The same piece of kit that is used to create electricity and water from hydrogen and oxygen can be used in reverse and create hydrogen and oxygen from electricity and water.

So - with adequate supplies of uranium on board, and a large enough reactor, then the boat could lie quiet running on nuke power and filling up tanks with hydrogen while creating oxygen for the boat,  patrol at six knots on nuke power (perhaps still being able to generate hydrogen from sea water that has been passed through a desalinator) and transit at high speed on the fuel cells from hydrogen.

The boat may have to go slow from time to time but it would never run out of gas and find itself trapped under the ice and it would never run out of oxygen.

I don't think anybody will fault the Brits for their hull designs - perhaps we should consider working with them by working on an alternate power system. And non-Lucas wiring.


----------



## a_majoor

That is a brilliant insight Kirkhill.

 My understanding of the 1980 era "SSn" slowpoke reactor boat was it would resemble a late WWII type XXI U Boat, with the slowpoke driving things at low speed and charging the banks of batteries, then drawing from the huge battery supplies for bursts of high speed. I would guess capacitors might work better for the rapid discharge cycle, but fuel cells would work, and probably have far less mass and space issues than devoting the entire lower deck to batteries.

If we combined forces with other navies with similar needs (UK, Australia, maybe the USN) a joint submarine program could be launched with a common hull and AIP propulsion system, but leaving the individual navies to select the combat systems they wanted to use. It might even work in todays environment, since the "consortium" would not have to commit to build anything while they do engineering studies, money would flow to U Sask for the slowpoke and some shipyards to build test articles, and when the Liberals are finally gone; the new government will have an up to date set of plans and equipment ready to go.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Kirkhill: .... sadly, I bought shares in the offering corporation back then.  A lot of them.


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey:

Only response possible - OUCH


----------



## STONEY

Hey guys i have a few more details of slowpoke i thought i'd pass on for info.
SLOWPOKE (Safe LOw POwer Kritical Experiment) has been around for 35 years. It was designed by AECL Chalk River ON. in 1970.  Slowpoke 1 was transfered to U OF Toronto  that same year and had a power output of only 100 watts. It was updated to Slowpoke 2 in 1973 and power output increased to 20 kilowatts.  AECL commercial products division has sold several SLOWPOKE 2's for example;  University of Alberta, RMC Kingston, Dalhousie University Halifax, Ecole Polytechnique Montreal, Saskatewan Research Council Saskatoon and McMaster University Hamilton.  Just how many of these are still operating today i don't know and in any case most people who attended these instutions dot not have a clue they existed . In 1996 U of T celebrated 25 years of continious Slowpoke  operation and it was extended for 10 more years.

Another point that seems to have been forgotten here is that one of the top contenders for A Canadian Nuke boat was a French design which was cheaper (hence of great interest to Canada) and the french were offering (unlike the brits) complete technology transfer so we could build our own boats. US boats were well out of our price range in the billion dollar a copy range while the Brit & French boats only in the hundreds of millions range , but what really shot down the idea.beside the end of the cold was the atmospheric costs that would have been required for infastructure.  New Bases would have to of been built (you can't tie up a nuke boat in downtown Halifax like you can a diesel)  and nuclear serviceing facilities to refuel the reactors & disposal sites for spent fuel , so your talking many billion $$$$ and we all know that ain't gonna happen.  It would take a National comittment as the UK,USA,France,China & Soviets found out. 

Kirkhill - The Swedes entire sub fleet is operational using the Sterling AIP system .  The US NAVY has just recently leased a Swedish Navy sub with its crew for an entire year to exercise their ASW forces , it is expected to be based in the western  US.  

Ballard AIP system - DND cancelled its research contract many years ago & Ballard has shown no interest in the program since.

PEM FUEL CELL- Boats using this system are under construction in Italy, Germany & Turkey as we speak (some undergoing trials)  but remember these boats require storage tanks outside the pressure hull  able to withstand great pressures to hold PEM fuel + you need special fueling facilities that aren't exactly a dime a dozen around the world. 

All in all its a very interesting field of thought and we havent even begun to discuss other AIP systems such as the French Mesma (now being built in Pakistan)  or the Russian system which is different again or the German closed cycle diesel  etc. etc.

Cheers


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks a lot Stoney.

Especially the bit about the Swede's stuff.  

For those that are interested in finding out more about their engine here's a quick link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

By the way you'll have more success looking for info on Stirling (as in Stirling Castle) Cycle Engines than Sterling (as in Sterling silver) Cycle Engines.  Dr. Stirling was another Scot ;D.


----------



## Hawker

FYI...the slowpokes mentioned above are still up and running for the most part:

http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/about_us/regulate/Non-Power.cfm


----------

