# Replacing the Subs



## Spencer100

Naval Association of Canada has a paper out

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/204330/towards-a-renewed-canadian-submarine-capability.html

I am sure this thread will last a few years! (Decades?)


I just want to be the one to start it


----------



## Spencer100

Here is the link to the full paper

https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Niobe-Paper-4-Collins.pdf


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ask for 6, hope to get 5. Hook into an existing contract. A diesel electric sub with AIP backup is likely the best we will get. I am sure the Aussies would welcome us getting involved and that solves the weapons issue and ITAR as well.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Colin P said:
			
		

> Ask for 6, hope to get 5. Hook into an existing contract. A diesel electric sub with AIP backup is likely the best we will get. I am sure the Aussies would welcome us getting involved and that solves the weapons issue and ITAR as well.



or you could join the Dutch program,same demands/capabillities as Canada's got/want(ok,Australia's subs will be quit a bit bigger)


----------



## deepblue202

If it is going to take over ten years or more why not see if we can join with the Japanese and their 29SS project.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There are a few programs that speak to our needs and we should attach observers to each of them to study what's going on, what we like, don't like and devolop from them and our current fleet a list of Must have, really want and what would be nice. Then we can negotiate to take part in one of those contracts, that means more training opportunities, faster learning curve, spare parts and better relations.


----------



## Karel Doorman

deepblue202 said:
			
		

> If it is going to take over ten years or more why not see if we can join with the Japanese and their 29SS project.



Normally,the "B"letter(in Dutch "B" brief)will be passed this summer,then we will know which builder is going to build our new subs.

There are 3 shipbuilders in the race;
-Naval Group,with a barracuda derivative(think that one's to big for us,but my thoughts),but for the rest a nice sub  
-TKMS ,with a 212 derivative,think that one is not for us
-Saab/Damen with the A-26(ER version may be spot on for us)

but have to wait what the politicians think is the best one(omg)


----------



## Underway

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> or you could join the Dutch program,same demands/capabillities as Canada's got/want(ok,Australia's subs will be quit a bit bigger)



Not sure if that's correct.  I expect our requirements are probably closer to Australia.  We are also on an island continent...  Not that a new Dutch sub wouldn't be amazing compared to an old UK one.


----------



## CBH99

I’ve been watching the show Submarine School & it’s been fantastic.  Had absolutely no appreciation for how technical commanding a submarine could be.  In episode 3, her first engagement with a small diesel submarine didn’t go well... I’m wondering if ours are comparable?   **sorry for the short posts with poor sentence structure.  Posting on my iPhone sucks**


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Our subs were used for a Norwegian version of the Perisher meant for allied nations without nuke subs


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I’ve been watching the show Submarine School & it’s been fantastic.  Had absolutely no appreciation for how technical commanding a submarine could be.  In episode 3, her first engagement with a small diesel submarine didn’t go well... I’m wondering if ours are comparable?



In essence, yes.


----------



## Half Full

CBH99 said:
			
		

> In episode 3, her first engagement with a small diesel submarine didn’t go well... I’m wondering if ours are comparable?


Speaking from experience, on board HMCs OTTAWA the only sub we had difficulty when in finding was the Victoria class.  We went up against the Australians (easiest), South Koreans, Type 212s, LA, & Virginia(2nd hardest). Although older than some of the other classes, the crew training and even the sub itself is still ahead of many others.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I’ve been watching the show Submarine School & it’s been fantastic.  Had absolutely no appreciation for how technical commanding a submarine could be.  In episode 3, her first engagement with a small diesel submarine didn’t go well... I’m wondering if ours are comparable?   **sorry for the short posts with poor sentence structure.  Posting on my iPhone sucks**



The BBC did a program called 'Perisher' in the 80s, following up on interest after the Falklands War. 

Very good, and on YouTube now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw2Q-_qswjQ


----------



## Karel Doorman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The BBC did a program called 'Perisher' in the 80s, following up on interest after the Falklands War.
> 
> Very good, and on YouTube now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw2Q-_qswjQ



The Submarine Command Course (SMCC), previously known as the Commanding Officers Qualifying Course (COQC), and informally known as The Perisher because of its supposed low success rate, is a training course for naval officers preparing to take command of a submarine.

Created by the Royal Navy during World War I, the course was originally intended to address the high attrition rate of submarine commanders, as the previous method of handing down knowledge from officer to officer was prevented by wartime deaths. Following World War II, the Royal Netherlands Navy became involved in the course; the Dutch later partnered with the British to run the course, and following the British conversion to a fully nuclear submarine fleet, took over responsibility for running the course for diesel-electric submarines. Officers from other nations regularly participate.

The four-month course is run in four stages, the first and third involve learning ashore in simulators, while the second involves learning at sea. The fourth phase is the assessment, during which the candidates (of which the maximum is six) show their ability to command a submarine unaided during war-like conditions. The success rate for the SMCC is 70% and, on failing, candidates are prevented from serving on submarines in any capacity.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Underway said:
			
		

> Not sure if that's correct.  I expect our requirements are probably closer to Australia.  We are also on an island continent...  Not that a new Dutch sub wouldn't be amazing compared to an old UK one.



Well,i think there are only a handfull of navies that have coventionals that can go for long distances.

Correct me if i'm wrong but think it's Australia,Japan,Canada and The Netherlands,so that's what i meant,all of these those subs(classes) are very close(requirements),but offcourse there are differences in weight/length etc,but still are very close capability wise.


----------



## Uzlu

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> Well,i think there are only a handfull of navies that have coventionals that can go for long distances.
> 
> Correct me if i'm wrong but think it's Australia,Japan,Canada and The Netherlands,so that's what i meant,all of these those subs(classes) are very close(requirements),but offcourse there are differences in weight/length etc,but still are very close capability wise.


And maybe also India?





> The Type 216 is designed specifically to meet the "larger conventional submarine" needs of countries like Australia, India and Canada.


http://www.navyrecognition.com/mobile/index.php/oceania/australia/submarines/264-type-216-u-216-conventional-submarine-ssk-aip-tkms-hdw-submarine-class-216-howaldtswerke-deutsche-werft-thyssenkrupp-marine-systems-royal-australian-navy-datasheet-pictures-i


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Whichever sub we get I hope it has the ability to launch cruise missiles. That gives us a strike capability, even if we don't choose to use it.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> The success rate for the SMCC is 70% and, on failing, candidates are prevented from serving on submarines in any capacity.



That's pretty good. I'd have thought it would be much tougher to pass than that.


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin P said:
			
		

> Whichever sub we get I hope it has the ability to launch cruise missiles. That gives us a strike capability, even if we don't choose to use it.



Rest assured Canada will retain its squeamishness about cruise missiles. 😉


----------



## dimsum

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> The success rate for the SMCC is 70% and, on failing, candidates are prevented from serving on submarines in any capacity.



I've never understood why you had to give up your dolphins if you don't become Command-qualified.  It's not like all of a sudden your expertise just evaporated.  

I wonder if any surface ship CO-candidate has ever failed their command course, and if so, got kicked out of the trade (which is essentially what it is).


----------



## YZT580

Too small a crew with too much at stake where too much can go wrong really, really quick to permit the potential for a disgruntled officer.  As well, if he/she moves back to a watch keepers position they effectively block that position permanently for training an up and coming candidate who may be successful.  Up or out may sound harsh but in a small unit it is the only way.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I've never understood why you had to give up your dolphins if you don't become Command-qualified.  It's not like all of a sudden your expertise just evaporated.
> 
> I wonder if any surface ship CO-candidate has ever failed their command course, and if so, got kicked out of the trade (which is essentially what it is).



My understanding is you don't give up your Dolphins but your days underwater by that point are over.  

Kind of makes sense, if you are doing Perisher that means you've already probably served a D-Level and possibly as the XO so there is really nowhere else to go.  Hardly a vote of confidence for the Officer in question.

I've also heard that a Canadian Officer has never failed the Perisher Course.  That's not a coincidence.  From what I have heard, some of the other countries throw bodies at it and see what sticks while we hand pick ours that go.

It's probably just a numbers thing as some other countries have had far more submarines than we have had in service.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Most allied navies generally don't have that many operational subs outside of UK and US.

https://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp


----------



## MarkOttawa

Colin P: 



> Most allied navies generally don't have that many operational subs outside of UK and US.
> https://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp



Japan? France?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It would be interesting to see out of that list how many are actually operational, Germany had none of her 6 in operating condition recently.


----------



## brihard

Does Canada send all of our command candidates on Perisher or some other foreign courses? I can’t imagine we have sufficient need/capacity to run our own?


----------



## dapaterson

Especially since the West Edmonton Mall closed their fleet...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Brihard said:
			
		

> Does Canada send all of our command candidates on Perisher or some other foreign courses? I can’t imagine we have sufficient need/capacity to run our own?



My understanding is that we take part in a combined allied course for nations running non-nuclear subs. From here I learned that we supported a Norwegian run course with one of our Victoria Class.


----------



## Sub Standard

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> My understanding is you don't give up your Dolphins but your days underwater by that point are over.
> 
> Kind of makes sense, if you are doing Perisher that means you've already probably served a D-Level and possibly as the XO so there is really nowhere else to go.  Hardly a vote of confidence for the Officer in question.
> 
> I've also heard that a Canadian Officer has never failed the Perisher Course.  That's not a coincidence.  From what I have heard, some of the other countries throw bodies at it and see what sticks while we hand pick ours that go.
> 
> It's probably just a numbers thing as some other countries have had far more submarines than we have had in service.



Canada has definitely had people fail Perisher.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> Does Canada send all of our command candidates on Perisher or some other foreign courses? I can’t imagine we have sufficient need/capacity to run our own?



Canada sends our perspective CO's on either the Dutch or Norwegian Perisher.


----------



## Spencer100

Just watching the show.  WOW just Wow the cost.  I thought training Fighter Pilots was expensive.  This has got to be one on the most expensive training courses there is. 

The sub, frigates, destroyers, planes, special forces.  Millions and Millions $$$$$

Now I understand the other ships and crews are getting training at the same time too.  But it does seem to be concentrated of the sub captain training.


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Just watching the show.  WOW just Wow the cost.  I thought training Fighter Pilots was expensive.  This has got to be one on the most expensive training courses there is.
> 
> The sub, frigates, destroyers, planes, special forces.  Millions and Millions $$$$$
> 
> Now I understand the other ships and crews are getting training at the same time too.  But it does seem to be concentrated of the sub captain training.



The Joint Warrior part seems to be framed that way, but it's definitely not Perisher-centric.  There are a ton of various complementary things being tested/exercised (the surface fleet, helicopters and MPA working ASW, a land component doing assaults, the fleet protecting against fast air, etc.  Perisher is a part, but I don't think many people outside of the sub know there was a CO course going on during the EX.

As for the other bits, yeah but the other units also benefit in the training.  So I guess it's a wash.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Just watching the show.  WOW just Wow the cost.  I thought training Fighter Pilots was expensive.  This has got to be one on the most expensive training courses there is.
> 
> The sub, frigates, destroyers, planes, special forces.  Millions and Millions $$$$$
> 
> Now I understand the other ships and crews are getting training at the same time too.  But it does seem to be concentrated of the sub captain training.



Have done three separate JW exercises, the subs are a pretty small part of the overall exercise.  It's a pretty comprehensive exercise meant to exercise NATO fleets working together (which can include subs) but there are something like 50-70 ships involved split into to separate forces.  They exercise small boat attacks, low slow fliers and all kinds of other asymmetric attacks you might see, in addition to actual fleet warfare.  They combine it with a crazy level of PR support with a detailed story line and coordinated news releases coming from the various made up countries involved.

I don't know if there is any other international exercise in the world that is this comprehensive for naval warfare. It probably costs a small fortune, but there are tens of billions of assets involved, so cheaper then not practicing and losing ships when it counts. After having done it, it was a lot easier to bounce around NATO task groups as you had a better idea of what to expect with different navies and made a few contacts that helped get stuff done later down the road.

Not that the subs aren't doing their own thing, but they are really almost a footnote for the surface fleet, with the exception of specific exercises between the units.  We also do a lot of internal individual/team training while we're there, so can be pretty busy for everyone.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

RIMPAC is a huge ex as well.  There is also Dynamic Manta (annual Med exercise) and Dynamic Mongoose.  For ASW, my preferred ex has been Manta.  Great ex for crews, especially those who've not seen a lot of ASW.  Great to see the "bigger picture", exercise with the surface assets and fly on real world diesel and nuc boats.  

The Med is also a great location to have to go to for a month in the Feb/Mar time frame...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The Med is also a great location to have to go to for a month in the Feb/Mar time frame...



Unlike, say, the NWT? #infantrylifeisdifferent


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile; https://www.naval-technology.com/news/naval-group-launches-frances-first-barracuda-class-nuclear-submarine/?fbclid=IwAR0kiTcYasp-iDNTUVKsjuJ_Eo_m9yOsVRQBAXroyEJsM3yaNnWkJLxnGOE


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> Meanwhile; https://www.naval-technology.com/news/naval-group-launches-frances-first-barracuda-class-nuclear-submarine/?fbclid=IwAR0kiTcYasp-iDNTUVKsjuJ_Eo_m9yOsVRQBAXroyEJsM3yaNnWkJLxnGOE



I wonder if their crews will be Suffren the shakedown cruises though


----------



## MilEME09

That is about $1.68 billion each for those subs if my math was correct, seems out of our price range for sure, then again maybe the remainder of the flight could come under budget as production chugs along.


----------



## YZT580

Being nuclear powered does that mean they qualify as a CO2 reduction programme?


----------



## Retired AF Guy

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> That is about $1.68 billion each for those subs if my math was correct, seems out of our price range for sure, then again maybe the remainder of the flight could come under budget as production chugs along.



Canada should get onboard with SAAB's new A26 submarine. Sweden has a proven record with conventional submarines and the A26 looks like the best out there. So far, Sweden has ordered two A26s for roughly $1 billion USD (2015 dollars) with delivery's in 2024 and 2025.


----------



## Dale Denton

Seems like a smarter idea^. 

I get the idea that there is no will to get replacements on the NSS docket due to the huge cost of a project like this.

We have 2 giant projects going on concurrently (Jets+Type 26) that are out of control in cost and delays and are embarrassing for any gov't of the day. Imagine telling the public that we're gonna start a third giant project probably equal in size in terms of:
- cost, built overseas or even here
- shipyards being pretty busy at home
- how long a project will be from idea to first delivery
- our system is buggered already, so it'll be fraught with lawsuits from the beginning

We can't get those 2 projects in shape, so starting a 3rd would be irresponsible. Even if you sole-sourced ~6 from Sweden, built in SWE, then how could you justify the $20B (or w/e number) being sent overseas?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We just use JT's magic money fairy that he seems to have.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Half Full said:
			
		

> Speaking from experience, on board HMCs OTTAWA the only sub we had difficulty when in finding was the Victoria class.  We went up against the Australians (easiest), South Koreans, Type 212s, LA, & Virginia(2nd hardest). Although older than some of the other classes, the crew training and even the sub itself is still ahead of many others.



This.

A great endorsement from a surface fleet guy if I've ever heard one. Whatever we do next, it's probably a good idea to repeat the successes we're currently experiencing with the Victoria class subs...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Not to chuck crap at our submariners...

I've flown on many SSN and SSKs including our own several times.  My experience (comparing diesel boats to diesel boats), the most time I've been on a crew that was "hot" was one of ours.   The last time, we caught her in the snort and never lost contact after she went down.  Hard to get away from a MPA in that siituation, though.

Having said that, there's so many variables that can impact what is and isn't exploitable above and below surface, however;  weather, water mass, etc.  We might have been lucky that night...

There are definitely some diesel boats out there that are very very hard to detect, let alone track, when they're on battery.  There was a fndly SSK once that we just couldn't get even a sniff on.  Good day for that skipper and crew!


----------



## Underway

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not to chuck crap at our submariners...
> 
> I've flown on many SSN and SSKs including our own several times.  My experience (comparing diesel boats to diesel boats), the most time I've been on a crew that was "hot" was one of ours.   The last time, we caught her in the snort and never lost contact after she went down.  Hard to get away from a MPA in that siituation, though.
> 
> Having said that, there's so many variables that can impact what is and isn't exploitable above and below surface, however;  weather, water mass, etc.  We might have been lucky that night...
> 
> There are definitely some diesel boats out there that are very very hard to detect, let alone track, when they're on battery.  There was a fndly SSK once that we just couldn't get even a sniff on.  Good day for that skipper and crew!



MPA's are the rock to the scissors that are subs.  So many exercises I've been on that when the MPA is in the air the sub is screwed.  Especially if anyone in the TG gets a sniff of the sub and give them a tighter search area.  That being said water conditions, water conditions, water conditions...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Interesting analogy, Underway.

I guess that would make us skimmers the "paper". Fiting, as, in a one-on-one, the sub has the advantage - but we can take the MPA's out cold.  ;D

All joking aside, and as I have indicated before, during the cold war there wasn't a single CO who didn't thank the heaven whenever we had MPA's in support. For any convoy (Ah! The days of Ocean Safaris"), they truly were angels on our shoulders.


----------



## Sub_Guy

With advances in sonobuoy technology it is increasingly difficult for the submarine to remain undetected.

I’ve played with loud SSKs.  I’ve stumbled upon extremely quiet SSKs.  

The loudest SSK I played with was our own.  I have searched for and tracked the Victoria class in the Med, Atlantic and Pacific.  They are loud boats.


----------



## Underway

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> With advances in sonobuoy technology it is increasingly difficult for the submarine to remain undetected.
> 
> I’ve played with loud SSKs.  I’ve stumbled upon extremely quiet SSKs.
> 
> The loudest SSK I played with was our own.  I have searched for and tracked the Victoria class in the Med, Atlantic and Pacific.  They are loud boats.



Post or pre most recent refit?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Lets be very careful with the direction that this thread is heading.

In my career, I have worked against a Type 209, several LA Class SSNs, a Virginia Class SSN and 2 out of our 4 Victoria Class SSKs.

In order of difficulty They gave me (easiest to hardest), they were:

Type 209
Virginia Class
LA Class
Victoria Class

Some of had it had to do with the structure of the exercises (the poor Type 209 was forced to be a staked goat). A lot of it has to do with the skill of the particular Captain and the water conditions of the day.

I think I just plain got lucky on the Virginia (BTW, in ASW, I will take luck any day of the week). But, consistently, I have had my butt handed to me by the Victoria Class boats. I think they are both pretty quiet (or quiet enough) and generally very well driven.


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Lets be very careful with the direction that this thread is heading.
> 
> 
> But, consistently, I have had my butt handed to me by the Victoria Class boats. I think they are both pretty quiet (or quiet enough) and generally very well driven.



Yes, and I agree.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Interesting analogy, Underway.
> 
> I guess that would make us skimmers the "paper". Fiting, as, in a one-on-one, the sub has the advantage - but we can take the MPA's out cold.  ;D
> 
> All joking aside, and as I have indicated before, during the cold war there wasn't a single CO who didn't thank the heaven whenever we had MPA's in support. For any convoy (Ah! The days of Ocean Safaris"), they truly were angels on our shoulders.



Last exercise I was on it was very obvious, with the MPA/helo/ship team it was very hard for the submarine.  Soon as we lost that MPA quarterback it was like fighting with a hand tied behind your back.  

The MPA has so many options against a submarine, which have very limited options in return.  Lots of sonobuoys, ability to track and attack, inability to be attacked back by the submarine, MAD.  On the new or developing front for underwater warfare tech:  sonobuoy sized (thus launched from the same system) disposable drones now that can do persistent MAD over a grid pattern in the air for short periods of time.  New low and ultra low freq sonars with much improved processing are increasing ranges and effectiveness of systems.  EO/IR technology promises some amazing new things as well.  Tough time to be a submariner (SSK in particular) against an MPA.

To bring it back to new subs, any new submarine needs to take into account these technologies.  Reduced magnetic signatures, low friction coatings, deeper diving capabilities. Maybe a shoot back capability (though I understands sub CO's aren't too jazzed about giving away so obvious a datum to their pursuers).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:
			
		

> Maybe a shoot back capability (though I understands sub CO's aren't too jazzed about giving away so obvious a datum to their pursuers).



This sort of stuff would certainly be a game-changer...imagine every RADAR riser being a potential SAM coming at you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIGl42ELB_A

IDAS - Interactive Defence and Attack System for Submarines


----------



## Lumber

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This sort of stuff would certainly be a game-changer...image every RADAR riser being a potential SAM coming at you.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIGl42ELB_A
> 
> IDAS - Interactive Defence and Attack System for Submarines



Forget a rise, a sub can hear a helo or even an MPA it it's low enough. 

As long as a sub is not worried about collateral damage, the technology exists. Imagine a disposable  missile head containing a cheap air search radar. Missile leaves the surface of the water, does 2 or 3 quick sweeps, finds the closest air target, ejects the radar head pitches over and flies at the target and homes in using a target acquisition radar head.  It would probably have the capability to hit high flying MPAs, but the problem would be detecting the MPA without going to PD.


----------



## NavyShooter

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Lets be very careful with the direction that this thread is heading.
> 
> In my career, I have worked against a Type 209, several LA Class SSNs, a Virginia Class SSN and 2 out of our 4 Victoria Class SSKs.
> 
> In order of difficulty They gave me (easiest to hardest), they were:
> 
> Type 209
> Virginia Class
> LA Class
> Victoria Class
> 
> Some of had it had to do with the structure of the exercises (the poor Type 209 was forced to be a staked goat). A lot of it has to do with the skill of the particular Captain and the water conditions of the day.
> 
> I think I just plain got lucky on the Virginia (BTW, in ASW, I will take luck any day of the week). But, consistently, I have had my butt handed to me by the Victoria Class boats. I think they are both pretty quiet (or quiet enough) and generally very well driven.




For 26 years I was a SONAR Tech - I fixed the gear that our ships operated.  Active, Passive, Towed array, etc.  I've only acted as an operator briefly - I know how the gear works, but I have observed it in operation, and when holding contact with subs.


I will observe from my perspective that USN SSN's are tough to hear, but one made tactical mistakes that let us get contact with them on 23 beams of our towed array.  That boat came off a sprint VERY close to us.  We...won that exercise engagement.


I was on a ship that did noise trials with one of our VIC class boats - we did a series of steps in terms of detectability - we were watching on passive with the sub at about the same distance that I observed the contact on that USN SSN many years before - the VIC class effectively became a hole in the water.  We *KNEW* where it was, but couldn't hear it. 


Having been in exercises and operations against 209's that were free to operate, LA's, VICs, and other non-NATO submarines, the LA was easiest, and the VIC was the hardest.  


I don't think any of that should be a surprise to anyone, nor any exposure of CAPS/LIMS.  Go read some Tom Clancy for more details...


I firmly believe that we should be looking to the replacement of our Victoria class submarines.  They are Canada's only true Strategic Military Asset.  What should we get to replace them?   Honestly, we should buy from someone else's production line, 4-6 subs, whatever we can legitimately afford so that we can operate at least one on each coast, with the others in a supportable training/maintenance cycle.


Modern submarines tend to have smaller crews - that should relieve some pressure on our training system to generate the necessary personnel.  


If we went to any of our 3 major shipyards to build subs, we'd be damn fools as a nation.  The billions that we've tossed into getting Seaspan and ISI up to some basic level of standard to build surface ships pales in comparison to the amount of money that we'd have to pour into making a submarine manufacturing facility.  Personally speaking, you'd be better off going to a completely different organization that ISI/SS/Davie anyhow if you did do that.  I think you'd be better off starting from scratch than getting any of the above to 'add' a submarine building capability.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Underway said:
			
		

> Post or pre most recent refit?



I don’t know when the most recent refit was.  But my last experience with a Vic was 2017.  I played with them from 2009-2017.

The Block III ASW suite on the Aurora is probably the best in the world.  Tracking with the block II was very challenging.  

Looking ahead, I feel that we won’t have a sub fleet after the Victoria’s are done.  Too expensive and “Joe” public just doesn’t see the value in them.  Heck, most military folks don’t see a need for a submarine force.


----------



## MilEME09

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I don’t know when the most recent refit was.  But my last experience with a Vic was 2017.  I played with them from 2009-2017.
> 
> The Block III ASW suite on the Aurora is probably the best in the world.  Tracking with the block II was very challenging.
> 
> Looking ahead, I feel that we won’t have a sub fleet after the Victoria’s are done.  Too expensive and “Joe” public just doesn’t see the value in them.  Heck, most military folks don’t see a need for a submarine force.



Out of curiosity what is the difference in cost to operate a surface ship vs a submarine? If the RCN ever expanded part of the fleet would it be more cost effective to have more subs added to the fleet then surface ships. Let's say compare the Halifax to a Victoria for sake of the argument.


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity what is the difference in cost to operate a surface ship vs a submarine? If the RCN ever expanded part of the fleet would it be more cost effective to have more subs added to the fleet then surface ships. Let's say compare the Halifax to a Victoria for sake of the argument.



It's not just that simple though.  Ships are seen, which seems obvious but that means that there is some sort of diplomatic or sovereignty aspect to it.  Subs' movements are definitely not talked about until they show up somewhere, while the Public Affairs Office has tons of pictures/video about what the ships are doing while underway.  

While it may be more cost-effective (I'm not sure but let's say yes), the offset is that Joe Public will see less of the fleet and the RCN will be forgotten even more than it is already.  In a more political sense, surface vessels can be used for humanitarian assistance, search and rescue, etc.; not so easily done with subs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Subs have a higher specialised maintenance cycle that must be done or you end up like the Russians or Argentinians. Things going wrong on a sub often means the death of the whole crew, whereas surface ships can survive serious problems and even if the ship is about to be lost the crew stands a good chance of surviving and having liferafts to float in. So you can skimp more on surface ships till you get breakdowns or fires. But you must either maintain the sub to a high standard or cease operations.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin P said:
			
		

> Subs have a higher specialised maintenance cycle that must be done or you end up like the Russians or Argentinians. Things going wrong on a sub often means the death of the whole crew, whereas surface ships can survive serious problems and even if the ship is about to be lost the crew stands a good chance of surviving and having liferafts to float in. So you can skimp more on surface ships till you get breakdowns or fires. But you must either maintain the sub to a high standard or cease operations.



Case in point:  https://army.ca/forums/threads/126899/post-1577732.html#msg1577732


----------



## suffolkowner

Years ago I read that SSK's should cost 30% of a major surface combatant but that ours were running over 90% of our surface fleet this was when we had three Tribals and 2 AOR's running. I believe that was in Canadian Naval Review but have never found it again. What expertise does Babcock have? Years of maintenance and billions of dollars they should come pretty close to building a sub, not that I am advocating a build in Canada strategy. 2 billion for 4 subs should give a near new product and if it's the only way to push a program through in this day and age you won't hear me complaining


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin P said:
			
		

> Subs have a higher specialised maintenance cycle that must be done or you end up like the Russians or Argentinians. Things going wrong on a sub often means the death of the whole crew, whereas surface ships can survive serious problems and even if the ship is about to be lost the crew stands a good chance of surviving and having liferafts to float in. So you can skimp more on surface ships till you get breakdowns or fires. But you must either maintain the sub to a high standard or cease operations.



While it’s difficult to replace a whole sub, would I be correct in saying it’s far more difficult to replace the crew?


----------



## RDBZ

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Lets be very careful with the direction that this thread is heading.
> 
> In my career, I have worked against a Type 209, several LA Class SSNs, a Virginia Class SSN and 2 out of our 4 Victoria Class SSKs.
> 
> In order of difficulty They gave me (easiest to hardest), they were:
> 
> Type 209
> Virginia Class
> LA Class
> Victoria Class
> 
> Some of had it had to do with the structure of the exercises (the poor Type 209 was forced to be a staked goat). A lot of it has to do with the skill of the particular Captain and the water conditions of the day.
> 
> I think I just plain got lucky on the Virginia (BTW, in ASW, I will take luck any day of the week). But, consistently, I have had my butt handed to me by the Victoria Class boats. I think they are both pretty quiet (or quiet enough) and generally very well driven.



Why would a boat try to avoid detection in _all_ exercises?  Might the objective be centred on training the boat's crew in countering the ship's or MPA's attack, or the ship or MPA crew in dealing with a boat that has been detected?  Would other navies, even if "friendly", necessarily want to reveal the performance of their boats, including sensors, to the RCN or others?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The fact is, they don't avoid detection in all situations on all exercises.  There are detection opportunities so the, in our case, MPA can do RADAR, MAD, sono work, etc and then there are times where we have to break contact for XX minutes, then go in and try to re-acquire.  As the exercise progresses, the missions get harder with no mandated detection opportunities and you do the best you can to find the boat, and the boat does everything it can to avoid detection and accomplish the mission.  Sometimes it's MPA against a sub, sometimes you're tasked to a surface force and working with/for them, sometimes you are working with maritime helicopters.  It's pretty dynamic and beneficial training IMO.  

That is one example of how an exercise might go from, based on one specific exercise I've done a few times.  I'm quite reluctant to even discuss training exercises in any detail to be honest, so that is about the extent of what I'm comfortable saying about the subj's you've brought up.

Some info is shared between some nations (I won't discuss want info, or with who on this forum) and some isn't even shared across environments within the CAF.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I firmly believe that we should be looking to the replacement of our Victoria class submarines.  They are Canada's only true Strategic Military Asset.  What should we get to replace them?   Honestly, we should buy from someone else's production line, 4-6 subs, whatever we can legitimately afford so that we can operate at least one on each coast, with the others in a supportable training/maintenance cycle.



I would go with the SAAB A26. Seems to be one of the most modern SSKs out there. And the Swedes have already ordered two. Also, the A26 comes in three variants: a coastal versions; a mid-range; and, a long range ocean version.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Japan should have something new in service by the time Canada makes the decision:  https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2019/july/7250-japan-begins-development-of-its-next-gen-attack-submarines-the-29ss.html


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> It's not just that simple though.  Ships are seen, which seems obvious but that means that there is some sort of diplomatic or sovereignty aspect to it.  Subs' movements are definitely not talked about until they show up somewhere, while the Public Affairs Office has tons of pictures/video about what the ships are doing while underway.
> 
> While it may be more cost-effective (I'm not sure but let's say yes), the offset is that Joe Public will see less of the fleet and the RCN will be forgotten even more than it is already.  In a more political sense, surface vessels can be used for humanitarian assistance, search and rescue, etc.; not so easily done with subs.



So what you're saying is...

... we need a submarine equivalent of the 'Snowbirds', right?  ;D


----------



## Uzlu

In addition to the _Attack_-class, 29SS, and A26 Oceanic (Extended Range), another possibility might be the KSS-III Batch-III.


----------



## Journeyman

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> ... we need a submarine equivalent of the 'Snowbirds', right?  ;D


Yes, they're contributing immensely to getting the CF-18 replacement.   :nod:  

Seriously, I think one of the better airshow participants for the fighter replacement was the F-22.  It did amazing things.... and then a Hornet came on -- "yes folks, the CF-18 is going to fly left to right...._and then_… right to left."

/tangent


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Yes, they're contributing immensely to getting the CF-18 replacement.   :nod:
> 
> Seriously, I think one of the better airshow participants for the fighter replacement was the F-22.  It did amazing things.... and then a Hornet came on -- "yes folks, the CF-18 is going to fly left to right...._and then_… right to left."
> 
> /tangent



Well, the wings would probably snap off if they tried anything else so there is that.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile in Europe--one assumes this sub design for Baltic/NorthSea, Mediterranean and not open ocean.:



> Italy matches French naval tie-up with German sub partnership
> 
> Italian state shipyard Fincantieri and its French counterpart Naval Group signed a long-planned deal in June to create a joint venture to build and market naval vessels, with a “European patrol corvette” in the works.
> 
> But away from the limelight, Italy’s long-standing cooperation with Germany’s naval industry to build submarines is picking up speed with news that Fincantieri will build four more U-212 submarines for the Italian Navy under license from Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems.
> 
> With four already in service, that will bring to a total of eight the U-212 boats Italy has built in partnership with Germany, and the next batch is expected to be an updated version.
> 
> Known as the U-212A Near Future Submarine, or NFS, the _next four subs will feature a large amount of new technology supplied by Italian industry, further blending Italian and German know-how and proving that integration of the European naval industry is not just an Italo-French affair_ [emphasis added].
> 
> “The main design is similar to the earlier submarines to keep logistics costs down, but there has been a lot of work with Italian industry on upgrading capabilities, which will also help improve the country’s industrial base,” an Italian defense source said.
> 
> This year’s Italian defense budget, which was published this month, _claims the overall cost of four NFS vessels will be €2.35 billion (U.S. $2.65 billion)_ [emphasis added], while the source said the contract with Fincantieri for the first pair would be signed by year’s end.
> 
> The signing would put an end to French reports that Naval Group is informally pitching its Scorpene attack submarine to Italy in hopes Rome considers switching from the U-212.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Italian submarine Salvatore Todaro prepares to pull into port at Naval Station Mayport, Fla,, in 2008. Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri could build four more of the 212-type boats under license from Germany's Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems. (U.S. Navy)
> 
> https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/07/22/italy-matches-french-naval-tie-up-with-german-sub-partnership/



More:
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/u212a-todaro-class-submarines/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

1,830 tons submerged a small sub, good for the Med


----------



## Cloud Cover

The drivers window is a bit small.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> The drivers window is a bit small.



I thought that was an eye patch (arrrrrr!)


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Uzlu said:
			
		

> In addition to the _Attack_-class, 29SS, and A26 Oceanic (Extended Range), another possibility might be the KSS-III Batch-III.



Here's Canada with the second longest coastline and we only have four subs, while S.Korea (size of Newfoundland?) is planning buying nine. I jus shake my head sometimes.


----------



## YZT580

but we don't have China and North Korea as neighbours


----------



## Cloud Cover

Outside of the Korean ships, is there another SSK that has VLS tubes?

Never mind: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/china-has-built-the-biggest-baddest-conventional-submarine-18629


----------



## Retired AF Guy

YZT580 said:
			
		

> but we don't have China and North Korea as neighbours



True.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Israel subs have large tubes for launching cruise missiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin-class_submarine


----------



## daftandbarmy

YZT580 said:
			
		

> but we don't have China and North Korea as neighbours



Speaking of which, it looks like NoKo has up to 86 subs...

https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/north-korea-submarine-capabilities/


----------



## dimsum

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Speaking of which, it looks like NoKo has up to 86 subs...
> 
> https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/north-korea-submarine-capabilities/



Yeah, but if they're super old and super loud, any ASW asset worth their salt will be able to detect and take them out pretty quick.  Also, who knows what their actual readiness status is.


----------



## Cloud Cover

You might still need 50-60 functioning torpedoes or missiles to deal with the ones that do work!


----------



## JMCanada

Colin P said:
			
		

> The Israel subs have large tubes for launching cruise missiles.


Those are in fact a sub-class of the german type 212.

At the end of the day there are 3 possible suppliers ... for each coast:

Pacific: Japan (Soryu or SS29) South Korea and Oz (Attack- variant of french barracuda).

Atlantic: Norwegian-German type 212 CD, Sweed A26, (again a conventional version of French SSN Barracuda) and Spanish S-80 plus. Actually these four are now bidding for the Dutch tender.

Most of them (if not all) are capable to deliver missiles such as TLAM, Exocet or Harpoon.


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:
			
		

> At the end of the day there are 3 possible suppliers ... for each coast:
> 
> Pacific: Japan (Soryu or SS29) South Korea and Oz (Attack- variant of french barracuda).
> 
> Atlantic: Norwegian-German type 212 CD, Sweed A26, (again a conventional version of French SSN Barracuda) and Spanish S-80 plus. Actually these four are now bidding for the Dutch tender.


But will the Royal Canadian Navy be interested in the S-80 Plus?  Are you perhaps suggesting that it is a good idea to operate two types of submarines?  One type for the west coast, another type for the east coast?


----------



## JMCanada

While I personally like Soryu the most, please note that delays and cost increases are not unusual in these type of projects. And those problems are solved now (by lengthening the hull). Finally the four S80 plus are to be delivered within next decade 2022-2026) at a cost of about 1.4-1.5 billion CAD each.  Then there is time to check how good (or not) they are for the RCN requirements.

And no, I am not suggesting (in the present circumstances) to have two different types of boats. There are far more CONs than PROs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Yeah, but if they're super old and super loud, any ASW asset worth their salt will be able to detect and take them out pretty quick.  Also, who knows what their actual readiness status is.



Yet it appears they have sunk 1 SK Patrol vessel.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The Cheonan?  

Not sure I'd use that as a testament about the capability of the DPRK sub force, honestly.  An older, cold war era corvette (she's be 30 this year).  A large % of the DPRK sub fleet are old Romeo diesel boats.  I don't think they'd last too long in a shooting war, myself.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Even an older vessel may get lucky, drift with the current into a good position, use just enough propulsion for the best firing solution, let off a spread and do your best to get out of there, dying for the Great Leader is an honour.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

It's possible...it's less likely if you have something like a modern SSN/SSK out there with computerized SONAR, fire control, etc and well-trained crews listening/watching for that one piece of info they need to classify and they don't have to 'fire a spread' when they can put one Mk48 ADCAP, Spearfish, etc in the water.  Personally, I'm pretty impressed with the Astute class.  

I think they'll get kills in a permissible environment...for a very short time.   ;D

SSKs can definitely be lethal.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect our Victoria's would come back with a broom tied to the periscope if they were sent in and the NK navy/subs put to sea.


----------



## JMCanada

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/defence/sea/attack-class-plan-of-action

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/submarines-project-a-220bn-disaster/news-story/ed563e92a735dfea84f8ed1adede153b 
   (if it does not work, try the next one):

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/submarines-project-a-220bn-disaster/news-story/ed563e92a735dfea84f8ed1adede153b&ved=2ahUKEwiSof-Nxa7mAhXkBGMBHaz2D0wQFjAAegQIBhAB&usg=AOvVaw3-B_dTSNpvpZer68gHp8QH

A couple of links about Aussie's submarine program. I have found them very illustrative. Wish you too.


----------



## tomahawk6

How about the UK's Astute class for Canada ?

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-astute-class-submarine-the-biggest-threat-the-russian-24837


----------



## dimsum

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How about the UK's Astute class for Canada ?
> 
> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-astute-class-submarine-the-biggest-threat-the-russian-24837



It's nuclear.  That makes it a non-starter.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> How about the UK's Astute class for Canada ?
> 
> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-astute-class-submarine-the-biggest-threat-the-russian-24837



Likely it will be a Aussie or Japanese sub that would replace ours, I suspect by the time the Aussies get 3 hulls into the water, they be wondering if we want to buy in as our subs will be very long in the tooth by then. It would be nice to have a sub that is also in service with another navy, to make spares and upgrades cheaper.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Likely it will be a Aussie or Japanese sub that would replace ours, I suspect by the time the Aussies get 3 hulls into the water, they be wondering if we want to buy in as our subs will be very long in the tooth by then. It would be nice to have a sub that is also in service with another navy, to make spares and upgrades cheaper.



I honestly think that Canada would rather chew off its arm then try to do business with the French on submarine procurement.  The FREMM was self rejected because they wanted all the control and Canada doesn't do ships that way.  We have the control over the IP or its a no deal.  Similar issues with ITAR information being available to the French who would have no issues stealing that particular IP for their own devices.

Unless something changes Japanese or German submarines are probably the leader.


----------



## Spencer100

The odds are no subs.  Sorry but that is the current look of it.  

If we were serious they would be actively doing a program now.  It takes us over twenty years to buy something and get it in the water.  The sub will be self retiring with no replacement before then


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:
			
		

> Unless something changes Japanese or German submarines are probably the leader.


29SS and _Invincible_ class?


----------



## FSTO

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> The odds are no subs.  Sorry but that is the current look of it.
> 
> If we were serious they would be actively doing a program now.  It takes us over twenty years to buy something and get it in the water.  The sub will be self retiring with no replacement before then



If we want to know what our allies are doing in our waters we need subs to be part of the club. That is one thing the GoC is well aware of.


----------



## CBH99

Underway said:
			
		

> I honestly think that Canada would rather chew off its arm then try to do business with the French on submarine procurement.  The FREMM was self rejected because they wanted all the control and Canada doesn't do ships that way.  We have the control over the IP or its a no deal.  Similar issues with ITAR information being available to the French who would have no issues stealing that particular IP for their own devices.
> 
> Unless something changes Japanese or German submarines are probably the leader.





In regards to the FREMM, yes.  They offered a fixed price contract for X number of ships, delivered on or before schedule.  But, as you pointed out, it came with technical conditions that weren't going to be acceptable.

That being said however, they did offer full technology and IP transfer with the Rafale offer - including 'assembled' in Canada.  


If the IP issues were sorted out, the French can offer some pretty impressive naval options at some pretty competitive timelines.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> The odds are no subs.  Sorry but that is the current look of it.
> 
> If we were serious they would be actively doing a program now.  It takes us over twenty years to buy something and get it in the water.  The sub will be self retiring with no replacement before then



Very much doubt that.  The government will stretch the current ones out for the next 15 years and probably ramp up something very quickly.

The Government can and will act decisively when it has to.  

Btw, NORAD Agreement now extends in to Maritime Domain Awareness.  There is a 1* Canadian Submariner in NORAD right now.

I anticipate "events" will force an expansion/modernization of Canada's submarine capability.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I anticipate "events" will force an expansion/modernization of Canada's submarine capability.



Like the Arctic Ocean's 'coming out party'  :nod:


----------



## YZT580

surely someone will have some retired subs tied up in storage that we will be able to buy cheap!


----------



## NavyShooter

There's a German sub in Kiel that might suit our needs:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-995  

There's also another sub here that we might be able to get at a good price:

http://www.hmcsojibwa.ca/


----------



## Dale Denton

Telling that there isn't a project to replace. 

Politically, Sweden is a 'safe' country to buy from - and they recently bought 2 A26s for $1B USD, with deliveries in 5-6yrs. 
Anyone see any issues with tack on 6 of the ER models and have RIBenefits for Saab (who already have a small presence here, partner them up with Davie for the maintenance contract?

More likely this capability will lapse and there wont be replacements due to too many large projects going on at the same time.


----------



## dimsum

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Anyone see any issues with tack on 6 of the ER models and have RIBenefits for Saab (who already have a small presence here, partner them up with Davie for the maintenance contract?



The big question would be whether there are other countries that use it.  Also, fitting NATO equipment, interoperability, etc.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The big question would be whether there are other countries that use it.  Also, fitting NATO equipment, interoperability, etc.



Damen has partnered with SAAB to build on the next Sub replacement.  The Dutch Government has not announced a winner or anything but given Damen is a Dutch company, it might be a good bet.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> I honestly think that Canada would rather chew off its arm then try to do business with the French on submarine procurement.  The FREMM was self rejected because they wanted all the control and Canada doesn't do ships that way.  We have the control over the IP or its a no deal.  Similar issues with ITAR information being available to the French who would have no issues stealing that particular IP for their own devices.
> 
> Unless something changes Japanese or German submarines are probably the leader.



We could deal directly with Australia and they are already adapting US tech into the design. With 12 subs on order, the Aussies might find that they can't run all the boats they want, Canada might want to step in and take over 4-5 of the hulls half way through the program build and Australia would/could extend the contract to 17 hulls eventually or just operate 7-8 of them. Either way I suspect it would make them very happy and we would be getting the most advanced diesel electric subs in the world and work with a trusted ally.


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> We could deal directly with Australia and they are already adapting US tech into the design. With 12 subs on order, the Aussies might find that they can't run all the boats they want, Canada might want to step in and take over 4-5 of the hulls half way through the program build and Australia would/could extend the contract to 17 hulls eventually or just operate 7-8 of them. Either way I suspect it would make them very happy and we would be getting the most advanced diesel electric subs in the world and work with a trusted ally.



The Attack class is a SSK derivative of a French SSN.  I suspect there will be some unforeseen issues in changing the propulsion system and swapping out French systems for other ones.  I think it'll be pretty close to our experience for the Cyclone, to be honest.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The Attack class is a SSK derivative of a French SSN.  I suspect there will be some unforeseen issues in changing the propulsion system and swapping out French systems for other ones.  I think it'll be pretty close to our experience for the Cyclone, to be honest.



Question from the cheap seats to 'those who know': Will we be ready for drone subs like the Orca in 10 years or so?

"The unmanned submarines, called Orcas, will be able to undertake missions from scouting to sinking ships at very long ranges. Drone ships like the Orca will revolutionize war at sea, providing inexpensive, semi-disposable weapon systems that can fill the gaps in the front line—or simply go where it’s too dangerous for manned ships to go."

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a26344025/navy-extra-large-unmanned-submarines-boeing/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The Attack class is a SSK derivative of a French SSN.  I suspect there will be some unforeseen issues in changing the propulsion system and swapping out French systems for other ones.  I think it'll be pretty close to our experience for the Cyclone, to be honest.



I agree with you and that's why i suggest their hulls after about #5-6 as they want to recoup some costs and most of the issues should be resolved by then, plus that will likley be a decade after the start of the program at which point our boats are going to be hurting.


----------



## Lumber

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I anticipate "events" will force an expansion/modernization of Canada's submarine capability.



Yea sure buds, like we're going to buy billions in subs just 'cause YOU decided to become a sun dodger.


----------



## JMCanada

The sad part of the story is that, according to published costs (well, I would like to know what is or is not included in the contracts...) nine new Virginia class SSNs are expected to cost 22.2 bn USD (approx. 3.3 bn CAD each). Ready for operations under ice, proven,  risk-free design. 12 Attack class, yet to be launched 1st unit by mid 2030s, not under-ice-capable, are expected to cost 50 bn AUD (approx. 3.8 bn CAD each).

The good part is that it would be possible to build an under-ice capable AIP modified Attack class SSK (problem would be cost), assuming Naval Group's announcement to have developed the FC2G (fuel cell 2nd generation). Would "only" (*) require to fit three or four AIP modules, 250kW each, into the hull, plus build it strengthened as to break the ice to show up.

(*) of course it's not as easy as to say it.


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:
			
		

> The good part is that it would be possible to build an under-ice capable AIP modified Attack class SSK (problem would be cost), assuming Naval Group's announcement to have developed the FC2G (fuel cell 2nd generation).


The only type of air-independent-propulsion submarine to have demonstrated an ability to operate under ice is nuclear.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I don't know. It seems to me there's an opportunity here. If the Gov were to try and purchase new US nuclear subs, it would get Trump off our backs in two ways. Might even help with CUSMA or whatever the hell they're calling it.


----------



## JMCanada

Uzlu said:
			
		

> The only type of air-independent-propulsion submarine to have demonstrated an ability to operate under ice is nuclear.



There is always a first time. As it was for SSNs as well.
For an AIP submarine, as for any other, to operate under ice, the main three requirements are (AFAIK):

1- Sufficient endurance, depending on the expected patrol missions.

2- Ability to provide oxygen for the crew. Nuclear subs use surplus power to extract O2 from seawater (hydrolisis). AIP subs must carry a big amount of LOx (liquid oxygen) either for the fuel cell or the Stirling engine. LOx for the crew would be minimal compared to that required for propulsion.

3- Strengthened hull and a minimum buoyancy to allow breaking the ice at some point (to be determined by naval architects).


----------



## OldSolduer

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I don't know. It seems to me there's an opportunity here. If the Gov were to try and purchase new US nuclear subs, it would get Trump off our backs in two ways. Might even help with CUSMA or whatever the hell they're calling it.



The last time we even thought of purchasing nuclear propelled subs the hue and cry from the "Anti everything military" crowd and  the budding environmental movement shtyecanned the idea - that's why we have the current ones.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Btw, NORAD Agreement now extends in to Maritime Domain Awareness.  There is a 1* Canadian Submariner in NORAD right now.
> 
> I anticipate "events" will force an expansion/modernization of Canada's submarine capability.



That is not actually a new development;  it was signed off in May 2006 so over 13 years ago.  

I'll believe the GoC is serious about ensuring the right assets are procured when I see it.  Until then...I believe, like the 140 fleet, the SSK fleet will be extended...and then extended...

_*Strong.  Secure.  Engaged. *_  right?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> That is not actually a new development;  it was signed off in May 2006 so over 13 years ago.
> 
> I'll believe the GoC is serious about ensuring the right assets are procured when I see it.  Until then...I believe, like the 140 fleet, the SSK fleet will be extended...and then extended...
> 
> _*Strong.  Secure.  Engaged. *_  right?



Tracking, but how many other people are?  I don't think it is a very well known fact.

On your other point, I don't think it will be a deliberate action at all.  Some unforeseen event will send the Govt of the Day in to a massive panic.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I suspect the people are tracking, like the people who care, are small in numbers.  I think the arctic will be a contested area, personally, and there are other countries that are operating up there now.  I don't have to see that on the news in a few years, I've been launched to go say "hi!" to some of them in the past.

Panic reaction time will be 'too little, too late', IMO.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Personally, I think Canada will never buy nuclear submarines, which is what we need up there for the real enforcement of our sovereignty.


.... But, I think we could spring leasing US nuclear subs. The Americans would love nothing better than to pump out more subs out of their specialized yard, even at the cost of being saddled with decommissioning them at the end, if it meant they could have that many more available to them upon request should the immediate need arise. 

And I can see how that could work to the advantage of both nations: Canada would be immediately propelled to the rank of first line navies with complete capability to protect our three ocean area's, while the Americans, within NORAD, would get the benefit of a certain number of submarines with American capabilities but "British" tactical outlook in use and employment - which the American lack due to their "over-engineering outlook" blinkers inherited from Adm. Rickover, and never discarded even though he has long been dead.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Perhaps one series of steps would be leveraging the NORAD maritime domain aspect, offer up some cash to pay for entire cost of  some arctic operations, propose to integrate officers and NCM onto their boats, fund R&D for Arctic submarine surveillance and weapons. Very expensive, subject to probably very vigorous foreign control,  but not as expensive as owning the boats and gets us into a place we have little chance of going alone.

Politically we could agree to not own any nuclear submarines in exchange for having access to the US sub program under the auspices of NORAD and perhaps some other mutual defence programs not linked to NORAD. 

Edit: are there any articles that have studied this as an integrated force?


----------



## tomahawk6

Does the RCN have an under ice capability ?


----------



## daftandbarmy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Does the RCN have an under ice capability ?



Well, because ice floats I'm assuming that a 'Dark and Dirty' counts as an 'under ice' capability.


----------



## tomahawk6

So even diesel boats can cruise under the ice like nuke boats ? Necessary if a country has a claim in the arctic.


----------



## RDBZ

CBH99 said:
			
		

> In regards to the FREMM, yes.  They offered a fixed price contract for X number of ships, delivered on or before schedule.  But, as you pointed out, it came with technical conditions that weren't going to be acceptable.
> 
> That being said however, they did offer full technology and IP transfer with the Rafale offer - including 'assembled' in Canada.
> 
> 
> If the IP issues were sorted out, the French can offer some pretty impressive naval options at some pretty competitive timelines.



The ADF would be no less concerned about IP issues as they relate to through life support of the boats than Canada would be. Also, the Attack class will be fitted with the AN/BYG-1 combat system (as are the Collins), so the whole issue of IP seems to have been addressed satisfactorily for all parties.


----------



## Sub_Guy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> So even diesel boats can cruise under the ice like nuke boats ? Necessary if a country has a claim in the arctic.



I am not convinced that you can get a diesel submarine to operate effectively under the ice, even with AIP.  I don't mean ducking under the ice for a short stint, I mean a full patrol under the ice.

If a nation could patrol under the ice with a diesel boat, they would be doing it.

To do this right we need a small SSN.   Which won't happen and it is why the USN runs the show up there.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Under what conditions could there ever be a joint US/CDN run nuc powered sub force, with no nuc tactical's on it, just a hunter/killer role.  Berthed in Canada, 'USS' designated, with a mixed crew, jointly paid for.  Any practicality to this?


----------



## Underway

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> So even diesel boats can cruise under the ice like nuke boats ? Necessary if a country has a claim in the arctic.



I don't believe its a ability issue, its a safety issue.  Its about oxygen production and clean air.  In a fire situation a diesel sub would be screwed.  Nuke boats have plenty of power to create clean air and multiple redundant systems.  Diesel boats really need to surface in a fire to get fresh air.  They don't have the power to produce it when dived.  Can a AIP go under ice?  Yes, but it comes at a cost of high risk assumed by the boat.  When AIP is good enough that it can provide air scrubbing/O2 production at a high rate then the sub fleet in Canada might take the risk under ice.


----------



## Dale Denton

I'll preface this by saying I know nothing...

Could we chop up a Virginia Class to a smaller size? 

We don't need as many VLS, and debatable if we need the SOF SDVs and associated launching gear. 

The US has significant exp in building, designing, and operating SNNs (clearly), they're close to home, pre-existing global infrastructure and training platforms/programs. 

Tack on a big IRB condition to a contract that any of the different US shipyards building them designate a partner/apprentice yard in Canada to learn how to do some of the basic maintenance. 

Or - jump on to the RNs Astute SNN replacement project, although those will be coming online in 2040 and the Victorias would be decommissioned by then. Could send RCN crews to US/RN ships to build knowledge on SNNs...for about 10yrs. I know the RN is having a big issue with manning their sub fleet, not unpossible since we did this with RN ships in WW2.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If you went nuke, buy into an existing program and pay to use their refuelling facilities and waste storage. The French would be most happy if we did, as would the Brits. It would give us a bit more freedom to push our sovereignty, as the US may not always agree with our claims.


----------



## Uzlu

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Could we chop up a Virginia Class to a smaller size?
> 
> We don't need as many VLS, and debatable if we need the SOF SDVs and associated launching gear.
> 
> The US has significant exp in building, designing, and operating SNNs (clearly), they're close to home, pre-existing global infrastructure and training platforms/programs.
> 
> Tack on a big IRB condition to a contract that any of the different US shipyards building them designate a partner/apprentice yard in Canada to learn how to do some of the basic maintenance.
> 
> Or - jump on to the RNs Astute SNN replacement project, although those will be coming online in 2040 and the Victorias would be decommissioned by then. Could send RCN crews to US/RN ships to build knowledge on SNNs...for about 10yrs. I know the RN is having a big issue with manning their sub fleet, not unpossible since we did this with RN ships in WW2.


The United States does not want Canada to be operating submarines in the Arctic.  So I doubt very much they will sell any nuclear-powered attack submarines to Canada.  They will also probably do everything they can to prevent the Brits and the French from selling their nuclear-powered attack submarines to Canada.  The United States gave the United Kingdom an S5W reactor.  

British reactors, therefore, may have incorporated some American technology—another reason the Americans may not want Canada to have British nuclear-powered attack submarines.  And there might also be treaties that prevent Canada from buying nuclear-powered attack submarines from the United Kingdom or France.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine#American_opposition


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> If you went nuke, buy into an existing program and pay to use their refuelling facilities and waste storage. The French would be most happy if we did, as would the Brits. It would give us a bit more freedom to push our sovereignty, as the US may not always agree with our claims.



But wouldn't we run into the exact same issue that Mulroney ran into in the early 90's?  Getting the US to 'allow' the French or the Brits to sell us the technology?  We'd have to try and re-fight that all over again, and if we managed to win that fight again, as sure as sh*t we'd have to follow through this time and buy/build 6-8 of them because if we went through all that trouble (political capital) again and again we didn't build them, we'd never ever be able to broach that issue again.


----------



## FSTO

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources-distribution/nuclear-energy-and-uranium/canadian-small-modular-reactor-roadmap/21183

Develop our modular nuclear reactor tech through the submarine service!


----------



## Cloud Cover

I suppose we could buy ... a Russian Or Chinese SSN


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Uzlu said:
			
		

> The United States does not want Canada to be operating submarines in the Arctic.  So I doubt very much they will sell any nuclear-powered attack submarines to Canada.  They will also probably do everything they can to prevent the Brits and the French from selling their nuclear-powered attack submarines to Canada.  The United States gave the United Kingdom an S5W reactor.
> 
> British reactors, therefore, may have incorporated some American technology—another reason the Americans may not want Canada to have British nuclear-powered attack submarines.  And there might also be treaties that prevent Canada from buying nuclear-powered attack submarines from the United Kingdom or France.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine#American_opposition



You could throw it into Trumps face that Canada is stepping up to it's 2% commitment and defending North America by buying British or French Nukes, I suspect he would support such a move and claim it was his idea.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... I suspect he would support such a move and claim it was his idea.


Maybe, but maybe not after someone explained to him that this would mean Canadians would at least have the capability to actually block anyone's access to the NW Passage to anyone who, oh, I don't know, may just want to mosey on through without having to bother anyone by asking.


----------



## Dale Denton

Colin P said:
			
		

> You could throw it into Trumps face that Canada is stepping up to it's 2% commitment and defending North America by buying British or French Nukes, I suspect he would support such a move and claim it was his idea.



My thoughts as well. Any POTUS would gladly STFU about our defence, period, if we spent how many Billions buying Made-in-America SSNs. Think about how much political capital it would buy with any country if we latched on to a SNN project?

Could even have a closed-door competition into whose SNN project we should join, pre-selecting USN/RN/French. Have them fight for that contract to offset the difficult to swallow sub R&D contracts.


----------



## Spencer100

If Trump wins again in 2020.  You could wrap a SSN buy/lease from EB/HHI,  A F-35 buy from Lockheed, a VIP/refueler/P-8 buy from Boeing with weapons and sensors and NORAD update from Raytheon.  You got a deal!  Trump would move heaven and earth for that deal.  Hell put a couple of trucks from Navistar in too.  Defense purchasing done for the decade lol.  Plus very US defense contractor going to bat for you.   Canada would hit all the targets.  Plus you would be buying this over a very long period time.  So you may not even get to the 2% GDP spend but Trump would be very happy and not bring it up again.  Say the buy is 60 to 70 Billion over 25 years Canada would get twice amount in political capital.  But in the end you get some very impressive kit. 

But Ottawa does not think this way.  So oh well.


----------



## OldSolduer

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> The last time we even thought of purchasing nuclear propelled subs the hue and cry from the "Anti everything military" crowd and  the budding environmental movement shtyecanned the idea - that's why we have the current ones.



I would not expect this current GoC to even consider nuclear propelled submarines.  I personally think this GoC is the worst - even worse than Pierre Trudeau's governments - when it comes to defense expenditures.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The US shared nuclear submarine tech with the British because the British were committed to a nuc force, both SSN and SSBN.  They're remained committed with the ASTUTE class; a very capable boat IMO, although I've only flown on or ISO of them on 2, maybe 3 occasions (that I know of  ;D).

To the folks asking 'what conditions would the US let us cut up a Virginia class' etc...the conditions probably look something like this.


----------



## dimsum

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> If Trump wins again in 2020.  You could wrap a SSN buy/lease from EB/HHI,  A F-35 buy from Lockheed, a VIP/refueler/P-8 buy from Boeing with weapons and sensors and NORAD update from Raytheon.  You got a deal!  Trump would move heaven and earth for that deal.  Hell put a couple of trucks from Navistar in too.  Defense purchasing done for the decade lol.  Plus very US defense contractor going to bat for you.   Canada would hit all the targets.  Plus you would be buying this over a very long period time.  So you may not even get to the 2% GDP spend but Trump would be very happy and not bring it up again.  Say the buy is 60 to 70 Billion over 25 years Canada would get twice amount in political capital.  But in the end you get some very impressive kit.
> 
> But Ottawa does not think this way.  So oh well.



But what are the Industrial Tech Benefits and Canadian jobs?  

(only somewhat sarcastic)


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> But what are the Industrial Tech Benefits and Canadian jobs?
> 
> (only somewhat sarcastic)



The Newt suit was developed by a Canadian.... sheer, well proven, genius. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtsuit

Here's our big chance to introduce the word to 'Underwater Starship Troopers'  ;D


----------



## Dale Denton

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> To the folks asking 'what conditions would the US let us cut up a Virginia class' etc...the conditions probably look something like this.



I think the dollar signs weigh heavier than concerns that existed almost 40 years ago. If they don't, the industrial sector may do the pushing for us. A decent play that many countries do currently, pay for influence in defence $$$. I remember reading somewhere that even in the 80s (Carter?) was in our corner for SSNs, how might a current POTUS hold this us as a success.


----------



## Uzlu

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> I remember reading somewhere that even in the 80s (Carter?) was in our corner for SSNs, how might a current POTUS hold this us as a success.


In the late 1950s, the Royal Canadian Navy tried to buy nuclear-powered submarines.  Hyman G. Rickover, for one year, offered the _Skipjack_ design.  Canada, however, dithered.  Canada was now interested in the _Thresher_ design.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> I think the dollar signs weigh heavier than concerns that existed almost 40 years ago. If they don't, the industrial sector may do the pushing for us. A decent play that many countries do currently, pay for influence in defence $$$. I remember reading somewhere that even in the 80s (Carter?) was in our corner for SSNs, how might a current POTUS hold this us as a success.



I think any US President would love to see Canada add itself to the nuc submarine community.  And...that will never happen, and I think any reasonable person will admit to that.

For the reasons of our history and the 0.00000009% chance we'll move to a nuc sub capability in the future, I'll maintain my position that the USN will not share any significant tech with us.

We're simply just not a serious, or big enough, player.   :2c:


----------



## CBH99

If I remember correctly - from a very detailed and well written article posted here a while ago about this specific issue - it wasn't that the USN was "completely against" Canada having a nuclear boat capability, it was all of the infrastructure & technical knowledge that was needed to support that capability.

Again, it was a while ago, but I think it was the issue of having US nuclear tech know-how being compromised more along allies than the Soviets, i.e. France & the UK.


There are some pretty impressive, slick, technologically advanced conventional submarines out there now - that are very quickly evolving into being able to do everything a USN nuclear boat can do, at substantially less cost.  And SUBSTANTIALLY less expensive infrastructure to support.

As convenient as it would be to set up an exchange program, or 'lease' some boats with US technical advisors onboard (already exchanges in place for that kind of thing) - I'm guessing a conventional boat will be the way we go.  Easier on the wallet, and easier to sell to the public.  (Who don't know anything about anything, but have a ton of opinions anyway...)


----------



## tomahawk6

You aint crashing through the ice in anything but a nuke. So go big or stay home.  ;D

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/submarines-under-ice.html


----------



## daftandbarmy

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> You aint crashing through the ice in anything but a nuke. So go big or stay home.  ;D
> 
> https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/submarines-under-ice.html



Nuclear boats have had issues with ice before, and the story of the (very lucky) HMS Tireless is a good warning to anyone trying to operate ships of any type, extensively, in ice filled waters:

On 13 May 2003, while on exercise in the Arctic and travelling at a depth of 60 metres, Tireless collided with an iceberg. There was no prior warning of the impending collision from passive sonar or other onboard sensors. The submarine's bow was forced down nine degrees and the vessel subsequently broke free of the iceberg at a depth of 78 metres. Some damage was sustained to the upper section of the boat. Before the incident, the Royal Navy had not conducted under-ice operations since 1996.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Tireless_(S88)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Unfortunately, Western crews and boats will likely be doing under-ice work fairly far into the future; Borei is a capable platform as one example of 'why'.

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/09/06/new-nuclear-powered-sub-to-be-delivered-to-northern-fleet-a67176

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/08/24/russia-test-fires-missiles-from-submarines-in-the-barents-sea-a67009

https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2019/05/22/russian-radio-electronic-shield-now-covers-arctic-officials-say-a65680


----------



## Colin Parkinson

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The Newt suit was developed by a Canadian.... sheer, well proven, genius. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtsuit
> 
> Here's our big chance to introduce the word to 'Underwater Starship Troopers'  ;D



BC had quite the vibrant undersea community
 Nutton with his Newtsuit, 
http://www.stormchaser.ca/Misc/Nuytco/Nuytco.html

10 large tourist subs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis_Submarines

https://ise.bc.ca/products/
https://aquaticasubmarines.com/

https://www.vancouvermaritimemuseum.com/blog/story-our-yellow-submarine

Not to forget WWI

BC navy- http://espritdecorps.ca/gordon/2015/4/24/the-british-columbia-navy-the-strange-tale-of-canadas-first-submarines
 https://bcbooklook.com/2014/10/20/top-secret%C2%AD-we-built-submarines-in-burnaby/


----------



## tomahawk6

Canada is a wealthy country capable of buying nuke subs to assert your arctic claim, so buy 4 or 5 nuke boats from the UK or France to enforce the claim. Or else you have Russian or Chinese boats lurking about. Its a twofer meet a NATO spending guideline that also enhances your own security.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

...and enhances our NORAD capability...


----------



## Good2Golf

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Canada is a wealthy country capable of buying nuke subs to assert your arctic claim, so buy 4 or 5 nuke boats from the UK or France to enforce the claim. Or else you have Russian or Chinese boats lurking about. Its a twofer meet a NATO spending guideline that also enhances your own security.



Quick (cynical) answer is why do either?  A) in absolute amounts, Canada is NATO’s 6th largest spender, and B) the USN already does a nice job keeping track of Russian and Chinese nuke boats in the Arctic.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Quick (cynical) answer is why do either?  A) in absolute amounts, Canada is NATO’s 6th largest spender, and B) the USN already does a nice job keeping track of Russian and Chinese nuke boats in the Arctic.



Re A)
I’ve mentioned this before, compare what we spend in USD in terms of size/capability and then compare it to Spain - it’s painful to see what they get for about the same amount of money.

So, we should asking ourselves, are we truly spending our pay packet efficiently? 

I for one, believe that we should be spending more on our armed forces - but efficiently, less Sr ranks, less regional spending for the sake of spending regionally and more boots/ships/planes on the ground/water/air.


----------



## CBH99

Agreed.

**This very much belongs in the Defence Budget thread, but I agree with you 100%, and I think most folks here do also.



I was reading an article just this week about DND employees being moved from NDHQ into the new NDHQ, and other employees being shuffled from other locations into the old NDHQ as they consolidate office locations.  And in that article, it mentioned DND had approximately 17,000 people in the Ottawa area   


Definitely could streamline ourselves & stop wasting tons of $$ on dragging projects out for years, or DECADES even, and all the nonsense that comes with 17,000 of us revolving around NDHQ activities.  

Even 1000 or 2000 of those people back in the units could help fill out those units quite a bit.



More money?  Perhaps.  Most likely.  But lets start spending what we have a lot more efficiently first.






T6,

If only it were that easy.  Truly makes sense, but unfortunately isn't how it works, as we all know.

In the US, they mostly get to say "we need a platform that does A, B, C - and we need X number of platforms" and they get to buy what makes sense, in quantities that they can use.  Not always smoothly, and sure they have lots of inefficiencies also.  But pretty straightforwards, from a military objective perspective.

Socially, most Americans have accepted that they are the protectors and leaders of the free world, and that role comes with a real price tag.

Just last week, the US Congress provided the USAF with 12 *additonal* F-35A's, on top of what they had asked for.  And every year, it's not uncommon to see the USN with 14 to 16 *additional* Super Hornets above and beyond what they asked for.  (Not to mention 2 additional LCS for the Navy that the Navy didn't want, and just 2 years ago the US Army asked Congress to STOP BUYING US TANKS as they were running out of storage room.)  

No other country in the west could possibly hope to have their governments provide them with anywhere near so much.


----------



## tomahawk6

Pointless to appeal to national pride ? You're right that the US will be on the frontline of the naval defense of North America until the Democrats sweep to power and they will do as they always do - budget cuts.


----------



## CountDC

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Pointless to appeal to national pride ? You're right that the US will be on the frontline of the naval defense of North America until the Democrats sweep to power and they will do as they always do - budget cuts.



Guess the army should have found more storage space to stock up before the dems could get in to cut.


----------



## dimsum

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Pointless to appeal to national pride ? You're right that the US will be on the frontline of the naval defense of North America until the Democrats sweep to power and they will do as they always do - budget cuts.



Well, it's not like the Republicans don't cut budgets as well.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-defense/trump-says-will-look-to-cut-defense-budget-in-future-c-span-interview-idUSKCN1UQ099


----------



## GR66

Silly question, but how really important is it for our subs to operate under the ice?

Russian SSBNs can launch from their own side of the arctic and it doesn't make much sense for them to risk them by pushing into our waters.

Subs aren't really great for freedom of navigation demonstrations through the NW passage since they would have to be detected to be effective which kinda defeats the purpose of being a sub in the first place.

Russian/Chinese nuclear subs may transit under the arctic icepack on their way to stations to the south, but would under the ice with all the noise, etc. be the best place to try and intercept them with our own subs?  Would we be better using the advantage of quiet diesel subs positioned at the edge of the icepack to intercept them as they come out?  

I totally get the range and endurance argument for nuclear vs conventional subs but with all the political and cost obstacles to going nuclear is it really worth it?  Would we be better off replacing our existing capability and supplementing it with other (cheaper) non-nuclear enablers?  More MPAs?  Maybe armed, unmanned subs or ASW patrol ships? Sensor systems at the NW passage choke points?


----------



## daftandbarmy

GR66 said:
			
		

> Silly question, but how really important is it for our subs to operate under the ice?
> 
> Russian SSBNs can launch from their own side of the arctic and it doesn't make much sense for them to risk them by pushing into our waters.
> 
> Subs aren't really great for freedom of navigation demonstrations through the NW passage since they would have to be detected to be effective which kinda defeats the purpose of being a sub in the first place.
> 
> Russian/Chinese nuclear subs may transit under the arctic icepack on their way to stations to the south, but would under the ice with all the noise, etc. be the best place to try and intercept them with our own subs?  Would we be better using the advantage of quiet diesel subs positioned at the edge of the icepack to intercept them as they come out?
> 
> I totally get the range and endurance argument for nuclear vs conventional subs but with all the political and cost obstacles to going nuclear is it really worth it?  Would we be better off replacing our existing capability and supplementing it with other (cheaper) non-nuclear enablers?  More MPAs?  Maybe armed, unmanned subs or ASW patrol ships? Sensor systems at the NW passage choke points?



Given the dangers and other factors, I would think that maritime operations in the arctic would be a great example of where drone subs could be deployed: 

https://www.fanaticalfuturist.com/2017/07/boeing-teams-up-with-americas-biggest-ship-builder-to-build-autonomous-subs/


----------



## Dale Denton

Does the RCN or DRC have any public projects involving Large UUVs? Interesting article below on USN ORCA project. Launch one of these from the back of an AOPS, use it to deploy mines or patrol a small area then meet back up with its mothership? Let them robots go the extra mile. Definitely safer since we don't have the experience operating under the ice anyways.





			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> Silly question, but how really important is it for our subs to operate under the ice?
> 
> Russian SSBNs can launch from their own side of the arctic and it doesn't make much sense for them to risk them by pushing into our waters.
> 
> Subs aren't really great for freedom of navigation demonstrations through the NW passage since they would have to be detected to be effective which kinda defeats the purpose of being a sub in the first place.
> 
> Russian/Chinese nuclear subs may transit under the arctic icepack on their way to stations to the south, but would under the ice with all the noise, etc. be the best place to try and intercept them with our own subs?  Would we be better using the advantage of quiet diesel subs positioned at the edge of the icepack to intercept them as they come out?
> 
> I totally get the range and endurance argument for nuclear vs conventional subs but with all the political and cost obstacles to going nuclear is it really worth it?  Would we be better off replacing our existing capability and supplementing it with other (cheaper) non-nuclear enablers?  More MPAs?  Maybe armed, unmanned subs or ASW patrol ships? Sensor systems at the NW passage choke points?



Its a logical question. I agree, but at the same time those arguments can be made whenever the prospect of a big buy is being mulled over.

"Why buy 'X' expensive thing when we can buy 'Y or Z' cheaper alternative - we still have to buy/build/replace A, B and C"?

Because X is the thing to do the job, and in reality we need more of the alternatives already anyways (MPAs, UUVs). We already have to replace the Subs, why not get the kind we've been trying to get for the past 50 years? Why buy expensive kit if you can't even use it in your own property? Seems like the whole organisation has been arguing that point for long enough where the whole CAF is built around alternatives to stuff we actually wanted and need.


----------



## Underway

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Even 1000 or 2000 of those people back in the units could help fill out those units quite a bit.



And have the civilians run DND?  Because that's where the majority of those numbers come from.  Projects are mostly civilians already.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

GR66 said:
			
		

> Silly question, but how really important is it for our subs to operate under the ice?



Answered with a question;  do the US, UK, Russia and China think it might be important?



> Russian SSBNs can launch from their own side of the arctic and it doesn't make much sense for them to risk them by pushing into our waters.



Sure, if they only want to launch from there.  Is that where they would launch from in war, giving say the US time to react and counter-strike?

Are SSBNs the only nuc-powered subsurface threat?



> Russian/Chinese nuclear subs may transit under the arctic icepack on their way to stations to the south, but would under the ice with all the noise, etc. be the best place to try and intercept them with our own subs?  Would we be better using the advantage of quiet diesel subs positioned at the edge of the icepack to intercept them as they come out?



What if the diesel sub is snorting when they come out?  Are they 'quiet' then, or even on station?  optimized to detect other submerged contacts?  vulnerable and easy to detect when snorting for a distance by the 'quiet nuc' contacts?



> I totally get the range and endurance argument for nuclear vs conventional subs but with all the political and cost obstacles to going nuclear is it really worth it?  Would we be better off replacing our existing capability and supplementing it with other (cheaper) non-nuclear enablers?  More MPAs?  Maybe armed, unmanned subs or ASW patrol ships? Sensor systems at the NW passage choke points?



The best ASW system is a (better than your adversary's) submarine.  They can stay on station for days/weeks/months.  They can detect, track and if ever required, destroy submarines.  They carry much better torpedos for ASW and better sensors that 'live and breath' in the subsurface battlespace.  

If waterspace is iced-over, your manned/unmanned surface or air platform isn't necessarily going to be able to operate there, deploy sensors there or deploy kill stores there.  

Why spend so much time, effort and money on a system or system of systems that aren't optimized for that environment?  

This sort of ties in to a post I made in a related thread.  https://army.ca/forums/threads/16198/post-1590975.html#msg1590975


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> And have the civilians run DND?  Because that's where the majority of those numbers come from.  Projects are mostly civilians already.



17,000 is excessive overhead for approx 95,000 full and part time troops, I suspect we can slowly whittle that away and focus onto the non NDHQ aspects of the forces.


----------



## JMCanada

Seen the interest on nuclear subs, here it is one recent book review for those interested.


https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/under-pressure-book-review/


----------



## JMCanada

Nine months delay and overcosts detected in the starting year of Attack class boats project.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-14/audit-office-critical-of-future-submarine-procurement/11867134


----------



## Uzlu

> Comment: It’s time for us to start thinking about new subs
> 
> _Jeffrey F. Collins_
> 
> _A commentary by an adjunct professor in global affairs at the University of Prince Edward Island and a fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute._
> 
> Deficits and debt are spiking, and the pandemic has overwhelmed treasury decisions. But, at some point soon, Ottawa needs to make a decision on whether to acquire a submarine replacement.
> 
> It generally takes 15 years to procure new major capital equipment for the Canadian military, and the four existing Victoria-class diesel-electric submarines acquired secondhand from Britain in 1998 have a planned operational life to 2035. Overlaying this is the reality that the two sources of past Canadian sub buys, the British and the Americans, now operate nuclear-only undersea fleets.
> 
> Past attempts at Canada going nuclear in the 1964 and 1987 defence white papers revealed that option as too costly and politically contentious. When then-defence minister Peter MacKay floated the idea again in 2011, it met opposition pushback, despite the advantages nuclear subs hold in being able to transit Arctic ice, and was quickly dropped.
> 
> Even the price tag of a non-nuclear acquisition deterred the Trudeau government from including a replacement project in its 2017 Strong, Secure, Engaged defence policy or the National Shipbuilding Strategy, a multi-decade attempt to provide the Navy and coast guard with built-in-Canada vessels. Instead, the government opted for an estimated $2.5-billion modernization project in the mid-2020s to keep the Victorias going to 2035.
> 
> With no options for new or even second-hand buys from our two closest allies, consideration will have to turn to one of three options, one of which is to build overseas, preferably in collaboration with a country with similar requirements like Australia or Japan, or to build at home using one of the National Shipbuilding Strategy yards.
> 
> Neither will be cheap. A 2003 Department of National Defence audit picked a $3-billion to $5-billion price tag for four brand new subs. That was 17 years ago. Of course, Ottawa could scrap the 100-year-old submarine service entirely as Denmark did in 2004 once the best-before date passes.
> 
> However, going the Danish route would result in the loss of a vital capability that, by its very nature, is unknown to most Canadians. Subs, after all, work best when they are out of sight.
> 
> What is known though are the headlines: the tragic 2004 fire aboard the HMCS Chicoutimi, the 2002 flooding in the HMCS Corner Brook and its grounding in 2011. Despite being purchased in 1998, years of sitting mothballed in British waters, the need to restart spare-part supply lines and to “Canadianize” the subs to our navy’s operational standards meant that Victorias did not achieve full operational status until 2015. This year, it emerged that not one of the four subs actually went to sea in 2019 due to maintenance and repair issues.
> 
> Yet beneath the surface, there is much to consider in renewing the capability. Canada’s submarines, current and past, have provided our decision-makers with vital functions that few other countries possess. Submarines are known popularly for their weapons, but it is the combination of their very presence and intelligence and surveillance capabilities, including the ability to loiter for weeks undetected, that are their greatest assets.
> 
> For a country with the world’s longest coastline, bordering three oceans, submarines have proved instrumental in upholding Canadian sovereignty and strengthening critical alliances.
> 
> A mere “notice of intention” to deploy an Oberon-class submarine altered the political calculus of Spain during the 1995 “Turbot War” off Newfoundland in Ottawa’s favour. The Victorias regularly deploy to the Arctic during the summer months for covert surveillance missions. In the Caribbean, these subs participate in anti-drug monitoring.
> 
> Further afield are the 100-day-plus missions in 2017-18 in the Mediterranean and East Asia. Working with NATO and Japanese allies, respectively, the subs were involved in training, counter-smuggling and counter-terrorism operations.
> 
> In an attempt to boost familiarity with a complex and tense region, the Pacific deployment represented the first time a Canadian sub had deployed to Japan in 50 years. Tellingly, the subs are also up for consideration for deployment to monitor the enforcement of UN sanctions against North Korea.
> 
> Even before the onset of COVID-19, the Indo-Pacific was the scene of a naval arms buildup between major regional players, China, Japan, South Korea, India and Australia. Now, factor in the worsening tensions between Beijing and Washington.
> 
> With Canada looking to uphold multilateral security norms and diversify trade relations, helping secure our own waters and those of allies will become more important, not less in the years ahead. Now is the time to consider a future replacement — a lot happens in 15 years.


https://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-it-s-time-for-us-to-start-thinking-about-new-subs-1.24147700


----------



## MilEME09

If we did things properly projects would start so that they deliver just before a system reaches its end of life.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That would be a novel approach.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The easier approach, of course, is to just not replace equipment.


----------



## Dana381

I agree completely with Mr. Collins. Purchasing new subs would also help us meet our NATO defense spending commitment. This time we should buy new and license build a proven design here in Canada. We need to continue this path of rebuilding our shipyards military construction capability.


----------



## MilEME09

Dana381 said:
			
		

> I agree completely with Mr. Collins. Purchasing new subs would also help us meet our NATO defense spending commitment. This time we should buy new and license build a proven design here in Canada. We need to continue this path of rebuilding our shipyards military construction capability.



No, just no, submarines require highly specialized yards to be built, we have no capacity to build subs


----------



## blacktriangle

Well considering that submarines are designed to be neither seen nor heard, I don't think they are going to be high up on the priority list for the current government. There's more interest in showing the flag than creating genuine military capability. 

Also, I'm pretty sure foreign submarines rate even lower than UFOs on the "worry list" of the average Canadian.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> No, just no, submarines require highly specialized yards to be built, we have no capacity to build subs



I will have to agree, there is no hope of a export market and the skills will fade before the next batch is needed. I would rather run the AOP's for 12 years and begin selling them off while being replaced with newer improved AOP's.


----------



## Dale Denton

Off the rails here but I have a great idea. We tell everyone we are retiring the subs in 2024, but secretly send them out to the US or UK and have them gutted and remade into a giant ORCA XLUUV or RN MORAY testbed. 

Use them til they sink, nobody will get hurt, fewer will even know (if you berth them somewhere that would work).

Then, buy 6 A26 SSKs from Sweden/Ned like a growup country would. Doubly better since you now have 4 XLUUVs and 4-6 SSKs but everyone thinks you have zero.


----------



## NavyShooter

Definitely don't build in Canada.

Our yards have trouble building surface ships, let alone submarines....I would think it likely that if we had subs built by ISI, they'd best be unmanned...because I don't think we'd find a single sailor who'd trust their workmanship to sail in them.

NS


----------



## MilEME09

I bet if we approached the Americans we could get a redesigned Virginia class as a Diesel electric boat, really for such a ship to me, the US makes the best sense because if overhaul or repair is needed the specialized yards with all the experienced personal are right across the border.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As the French and Aussies are finding out, that is easier said than done.


----------



## Uzlu

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I would think it likely that if we had subs built by ISI, they'd best be unmanned...because I don't think we'd find a single sailor who'd trust their workmanship to sail in them.


The contract can state that the chief executive officer and president of Irving Shipbuilding Incorporated must both be in the submarine for every submarine’s initial sea trials.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I bet if we approached the Americans we could get a redesigned Virginia class as a Diesel electric boat, really for such a ship to me, the US makes the best sense because if overhaul or repair is needed the specialized yards with all the experienced personal are right across the border.



Why?  If we can't afford a "COTS" type buy of SSK boats, why would we have/pay the money to convert a (rather good) SSN to a SSK?  I am baffled at this suggestion.  

Who says the USN even wants to let us have our hands on the spec's for the steel on the hull, let alone the rest of the tech?  The US has no interest in sharing 'anything SSN' with us;  they have, in the past, worked closely with the RN but the RN has a nuc fleet; that topic forms part of the book Submarine - A Guided Tour Inside A Nuclear Warship, if you're interested in reading some on the USN and RN nuclear submarine programs.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Why not just straight up by something from Germany or similar on a current production run with common parts of a larger fleet? It would be a lot easier to get some IP arrangement to do the maintenance, and cheaper to maintain then an obsolete one off fleet of a few boats.


----------



## stellarpanther

I'm obviously no expert on this topic but is Canada always looking to buy from someone else?  We have smart people in this country that I'm sure can come up with designs and tech.


----------



## blacktriangle

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> I'm obviously no expert on this topic but is Canada always looking to buy from someone else?  We have smart people in this country that I'm sure can come up with designs and tech.



Did you build your own car or truck? Or did you go somewhere like Toyota or Ford and try to get the best vehicle you could for the best price possible?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Why not just straight up by something from Germany or similar on a current production run with common parts of a larger fleet? It would be a lot easier to get some IP arrangement to do the maintenance, and cheaper to maintain then an obsolete one off fleet of a few boats.



The German boats (U212-214)are about a 1,000 tons smaller, the U-214 class claims an endurance of 84 days, not sure if anyone has been able to do that. The 214 have had their own technical issues, although their AIP systems appears to be impressive. At the same time the German navy had all 6 subs out of service at the same time, mainly due to lack of spare parts. That must be really frustrating for their crews.


----------



## stellarpanther

reverse_engineer said:
			
		

> Did you build your own car or truck? Or did you go somewhere like Toyota or Ford and try to get the best vehicle you could for the best price possible?



Obviously I went to a company with strong reputation in Canada.


----------



## MilEME09

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Obviously I went to a company with strong reputation in Canada.



As I pointed out above submarines require very specialized yards to be built at, if we wanted to build subs we would need to build a yard from scratch first. We would then have no technical expertise to build them and have to contract in those who do.

This would add billions to the price tag, after we were done the yard would like sit idle and loose the skills just learned.

Submarines, along with really big ships like assault ships we can't build and shouldn't try.


----------



## Uzlu

Colin P said:
			
		

> The German boats (U212-214)are about a 1,000 tons smaller, the U-214 class claims an endurance of 84 days, not sure if anyone has been able to do that.


The Type 212, Type 214, and _Invincible_-class submarines are about 1 830 to 2 200 tonnes submerged displacement—probably too small for world-wide deployments preferred by the Royal Canadian Navy.  Does the Type 212CD also have a submerged displacement of about 2 200 tonnes?


----------



## NavyShooter

Uzlu said:
			
		

> The contract can state that the chief executive officer and president of Irving Shipbuilding Incorporated must both be in the submarine for every submarine’s initial sea trials.




That would simply prove that all levels of their employees are expendable to them.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile Netherlands' "expeditionary" subs:



> Dutch Navy confirms three corner fight for future sub program
> https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/5404-dutch-navy-confirms-three-corner-fight-for-future-sub-program



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Dutch also realize the current designs from the German yards are to small for oceanic deployments, not that is bad, just they are designed for other waters and you can't have a boat that is perfect for large ocean and also for shallow waters littoral fight.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Hindsight and all, but it's a bit too bad that they didn't lump a bunch of stuff together, when they put out RFI's. Something like, we need a design for AOR, AAW vessels and SSK's. Whoever put together the best bid, by whatever metric you weigh most important, gets all three pieces. For example, Navantia would build you 6 new subs, give you whatever you need for maintenance, and you also buy a couple CANTABRIA class and F-100 class to build at home. I'm certain there would be some discounts on such a bulk buy.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Hindsight and all, but it's a bit too bad that they didn't lump a bunch of stuff together, when they put out RFI's. Something like, we need a design for AOR, AAW vessels and SSK's. Whoever put together the best bid, by whatever metric you weigh most important, gets all three pieces. For example, Navantia would build you 6 new subs, give you whatever you need for maintenance, and you also buy a couple CANTABRIA class and F-100 class to build at home. I'm certain there would be some discounts on such a bulk buy.



Subs are really specialized, while AORs are basically commercial ships, and AAWs are common surface warships.  They would be built at separate yards anyway, and would each have their own particular skillsets needed for the design and engineering.

Why try and get a single shipbuilder that can build all three? Each would effectively be it's own project anyway, and you would rule out all kinds of yards that specialized in one or the other to try and get a one-size-fits-all project manager.  That seems like it would just add on extra overhead, contract complexity, and also give the super contractor a tonne of bargaining leverage.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Point taken. I just was thinking that since sub building isn't something that Canada should really get into, then there may be a benefit to rolling a couple of projects into one, with whoever you get to build your subs. So, maybe something smaller scale, then. Like we buy your subs, but then we get a better price on an OPV/Corvette design etc. I can see where it may be problematic, in some ways, though.


----------



## Dale Denton

The problem with the entire Victoria Class replacement is that we have put ourselves in this corner, and have chosen to go into the fetal-position instead of pushing out.


The 2004 Chicoutimi incident is too far into the public psyche, we have forever ruled-out buying used subs. No matter if the US offered up 10 used SSNs for a loonie, a decision-maker would never be able to escape the comparison to the bad Upholder purchase. 

 - It's too expensive to build MOTS in Canada, and our yards are too busy (the large yards) and inexperienced (haven't built large naval/CCG ships in decades).

 - It goes against our history to spend billions aboard with little chance of comparable CDN IRBs. 

 - Safe Secured Engaged even left out buying a sub altogether, when replacement project should be at the point of selecting a design or cutting steel.

My bets are on a divestment of this capability.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> My bets are on a divestment of this capability.



Sadly, at this point I find myself agreeing with you.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

LoboCanada I sincerely hope your wrong, but your logic is quite solid.


----------



## daftandbarmy

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> The problem with the entire Victoria Class replacement is that we have put ourselves in this corner, and have chosen to go into the fetal-position instead of pushing out.
> 
> 
> The 2004 Chicoutimi incident is too far into the public psyche, we have forever ruled-out buying used subs. No matter if the US offered up 10 used SSNs for a loonie, a decision-maker would never be able to escape the comparison to the bad Upholder purchase.
> 
> - It's too expensive to build MOTS in Canada, and our yards are too busy (the large yards) and inexperienced (haven't built large naval/CCG ships in decades).
> 
> - It goes against our history to spend billions aboard with little chance of comparable CDN IRBs.
> 
> - Safe Secured Engaged even left out buying a sub altogether, when replacement project should be at the point of selecting a design or cutting steel.
> 
> My bets are on a divestment of this capability.



Give our massive, national COVID 19 deficit you might also see the sub program sacrificed upon the altar of 'fiscal prudence'.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

I find the history of the submarine program interesting.  The Oberons were originally procured as training platforms to replace the British 6th Submarine Squadron, aka OPFOR, as the RCN focus at the time was ASW in the NA.

They were then upgraded in the 1970s and 1980s to make them capable of frontline combat and were used quite successfully, proving their worth particularly in the Turbot War and on other covert operations in the Atlantic.

By the 1990s, they were in need of replacement and we got the Upholder Class for a steal from the UK.  Since then though, the Submarine Program and it's raison d'etre, have stagnated and lost focus.

We've foolishly split a micro-fleet between two coasts and have two different FMF looking after what is an orphan fleet.  On top of this, 75% of the Subs are on the West Coast while all the trainers and school are on the East Coast.

The Sub Program doesn't need to be destroyed, it needs to be refocused.  I've already made a case elsewhere why the Subs should all be on the East Coast.  Lets get it done.


----------



## FSTO

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I find the history of the submarine program interesting.  The Oberons were originally procured as training platforms to replace the British 6th Submarine Squadron, aka OPFOR, as the RCN focus at the time was ASW in the NA.
> 
> They were then upgraded in the 1970s and 1980s to make them capable of frontline combat and were used quite successfully, proving their worth particularly in the Turbot War and on other covert operations in the Atlantic.
> 
> By the 1990s, they were in need of replacement and we got the Upholder Class for a steal from the UK.  Since then though, the Submarine Program and it's raison d'etre, have stagnated and lost focus.
> 
> We've foolishly split a micro-fleet between two coasts and have two different FMF looking after what is an orphan fleet.  On top of this, 75% of the Subs are on the West Coast while all the trainers and school are on the East Coast.
> 
> The Sub Program doesn't need to be destroyed, it needs to be refocused.  I've already made a case elsewhere why the Subs should all be on the East Coast.  Lets get it done.



The reason why 75% are on the West Coast is that the refit program and facilities are in Esquimalt. The goal was always to have one boat operational on each coast, one going in to major refit and one coming out of a major refit. FMF's Cape Scott and Cape Breton are tasked to keep the operational boats supported. The contractor (currently Babcock Marine) is responsible, in conjunction with ADM(MAT) to carry out the Extended Docking Work Period work.

The Subs are a critical strategic asset for Canada and they must be replaced. 6 are the minimum we should shoot for.


----------



## Dale Denton

We are a 3 Ocean navy with enough ships for 1, maybe 2 Oceans.

Why do we need to base _any_ submarines in the Atlantic in the first place? I get ASW, which we're historically good at, keep on at it - but - isn't that thinking too NATO-centric? Do we not care about our two 'besties' ANZACs?

Are we basing ships based on what NATO cares about (Europe) or what _we _care about? Our NATO commitment really only covers our one East-Ocean and is only starting to train near the arctic circle, yet we focus alot on the East-Coast. If Russia aggression is a concern then why isn't there a NATO Air Policing mission or a SNMG3 to support 2 of its members (US/CAN) with a direct border to Russia?

Plenty of wealthy countries in Europe with newer subs to patrol the Atlantic. Our SSKs can't operate under ice, so why not just base the sub fleet wholly in the Pacific? Start working with some Pacific friends and make a "PATO" to cover our Western flank? Throw a sack of change at the RN or USN in one of their XLUUV projects and use those on the East/North Coast instead.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Plus Russia has an effect on us both in the Atlantic and Pacific. So Pacific wise we have two potentiel threats, three if you count NK.


----------



## CBH99

I would have to agree...

While a resurgent Russian submarine force may be a formidable opponent in the Atlantic, we have the advantage of having a large number of allies in Europe, most of which have substantial naval infrastructure to control the waters around Europe.  

Lots of warships of all kinds, lots of ports, naval harbours, naval bases, substantial MPA capabilities on both sides of the Atlantic, plenty of AOR capabilities, etc etc.  The Atlantic, with all of the contributing naval forces of EU and NATO countries, has a robust naval presence and infrastructure, and can saturate the Atlantic with naval assets if need be.


We tend to forget how big the Pacific really is.  There is nowhere near the amount of naval infrastructure, or allied countries with professional 'western' military quality military forces.  When you get across the Pacific, yes - there is Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Guam, etc.  But even then, it isn't anywhere near the density of assets that the Atlantic offers.



Why not consolidate the sub fleet to the west coast, along with the training, simulators, support folks?  If our training & support for the fleet is out East, yet half the fleet is West, I'd have to agree that a 'refocus' of our submarine capability might have a real noticeable affect on the fleet's capabilities.   :2c:


----------



## Dana381

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Are we basing ships based on what NATO cares about (Europe) or what _we _care about? Our NATO commitment really only covers our one East-Ocean and is only starting to train near the arctic circle, yet we focus alot on the East-Coast. If Russia aggression is a concern then why isn't there a NATO Air Policing mission or a SNMG3 to support 2 of its members (US/CAN) with a direct border to Russia?



I agree with LoboCanada that we need to think more of our own interests. Except I think we need to go a little further and we need to consider our defense needs if our allies get tired of defending us or they side with our opponents. Trump has been vocal about his frustration with NATO countries not contributing their promised share while the U.S. contributes double 4%vs 2% GDP. I have been to the States and heard the people complain about their tax dollars being used to defend other countries. As the U.S. gets more and more financially strapped these sentiments will grow. 

The world is changing quickly these days and I don't believe the U.S. would let us be invaded by China or Russia but China can and will push their might as far as they can get away with. The Covid pandemic has shown the U.S.A's true colours when they wanted to cut off our supply of medical equipment. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed this time but it drove home the reality that the U.S. will always look out for itself first. U.S. companies own or control every large defense/aerospace company in Canada to the extent it looks intentional. If we ever get into a big enough row with the U.S. they could quickly cripple our defense companies.

China has been investing heavily in projects in Africa that the countries cannot afford so China has loaned them the money. This has given China great influence over these countries. China has also invested heavily in European companies and if they continue to grow those investments they could put a lot of pressure on those countries to vote against us at the UN or NATO. Money talks loudest of all!

No one likes a leach. And by not honouring our NATO/UN commitments we are that leach. We need to honour our NATO/UN commitments and go beyond them so as to maintain our reputation while keeping mind of the fact those organizations can be corrupted.

This is why earlier I suggested we need to develop these technologies ourselves. Babcock has tore these subs almost completely apart and rebuilt them in recent years. If they acquire a license to build a European design the licensee will have to teach them how to build their sub from the keel up. They may hold onto certain technologies like the AIP/nuclear systems and insist on installing them. However we would still advance our abilities in sub building/maintaining greatly.

I advocate for a under ice capable submarine with enough to run 1-2 in each ocean at all times. If Australia can afford to operate 6 subs than why can't we afford 8-10. I believe the RCN should also have a fleet of the heaviest class ice breaker to respond to any sovereignty challenges that may occur in the arctic but that is for another discussion.


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I bet if we approached the Americans we could get a redesigned Virginia class as a Diesel electric boat, really for such a ship to me, the US makes the best sense because if overhaul or repair is needed the specialized yards with all the experienced personal are right across the border.



It's a good idea but the US doesn't share their submarine tech except in very specific circumstances.  They also have no experience building SSK's which are very very different from SSN's.


----------



## Dale Denton

Dana381 said:
			
		

> I advocate for a under ice capable submarine with enough to run 1-2 in each ocean at all times. If Australia can afford to operate 6 subs than why can't we afford 8-10. I believe the RCN should also have a fleet of the heaviest class ice breaker to respond to any sovereignty challenges that may occur in the arctic but that is for another discussion.



We choose not to, historically we've tried to get SSN's and it's never worked. The RAN and its gov't are concerned with their neighborhood. They have been having many issues building the Attack Class, and that deal has almost falled apart multiple times, and could still fall apart. Our neighborhood has never been under threat directly. It would take a Russian sub waving as they sailed South past Iqaluit for our citizenry to call out, then maybe someone would bring up SSNs of our own.

Ideally, the US gov't wouldn't care too much about selling a couple used Los Angeles SSNs, we did a Canadianize-refit and just leveraged their support and knowledge base, but we can't buy used anymore, that option has soured. US gov't would bypass the nuclear security for the sake of a sale to us. Would carry us favour for a while re:not meeting our 2% and it would make them happy. 


I think we should be the leader in icebreaking design and building, or at least reach out to some Nordic yards for partnerships. Partnering with CDN and European universities to advance AIP tech to find out how to squeeze more out of a lithion-ion AIP cell. Partnering with USN/RN on XLUUVs to act as scouts, blowing holes in the ice for our subs to breathe, extending their range. 

i'd prefer 6 A26s built abroad, research AIP in Canada to refit it them later. They build subs in modules (Swedes), so make a super-duper long A26-ER and pack it with cells.


----------



## Uzlu

Dana381 said:
			
		

> I advocate for a under ice capable submarine with enough to run 1-2 in each ocean at all times.


I, too, would like lots of nuclear-powered attack submarines.  But enough to run one or two in each ocean at all times probably means at least fifteen to thirty nuclear-powered attack submarines since it takes a minimum of five submarines to keep at least one deployed at all times.  If every boat has a double crew, we might get by with twelve to twenty-four subs.  I shall be happy with something a lot more modest—six diesel-electric or non-nuclear air-independent-propulsion submarines with a submerged displacement of at least 3 000 tonnes.


----------



## GR66

E.R. Campbell had this interesting post on his blog some time back about an article in the Canadian Naval Review that discusses the possibility of a Canadian micro reactor for possible "hybrid" nuclear submarine use (https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2020/03/17/nuclear-submarines/).

Totally agree that we as a nation have the need for a fleet of submarines (and ideally under ice capable) but I also fear that we're unlikely to get them.


----------



## Dana381

I guess I should clarify. I should have said one operational on each coast at all times, re-reading what I wrote it looks like I meant one underway at all times. Sorry for the confusion.

 The four Victoria's were supposed to be able to have one on each coast (pacific and atlantic) operational at all times. If they were a more reliable sub would that not be possible? my understanding is if not for the fire and the grounding that would have been achievable. Would that not allow 3 continually operational with a fleet of 7 or 8 newer, more reliable subs?

I believe somewhere in this thread I read that AIP technology is suitable for under ice operations? Today is anyone still building conventional subs? AIP seems to be the new entry level sub. The Victoria's have around 2400 tonnes displacement and 30 days endurance according to Wiki. that dosen't seem long enough. Would a 3000t AIP have enough endurance? I don't know how much heavier/bulkier the technology is?


----------



## Uzlu

Dana381 said:
			
		

> I believe somewhere in this thread I read that AIP technology is suitable for under ice operations?


But has any non-nuclear air-independent-propulsion submarine deployed in the Arctic?  As an aside, the United Kingdom had four _Resolution_-class submarines each with a double crew.  Four was the minimum required to keep at least one boat deployed at all times.  The United Kingdom has four _Vanguard_-class  submarines each with a double crew.  Four is the minimum required to keep at least one boat deployed at all times.  

The United Kingdom plans to operate four _Dreadnought_-class submarines each with a double crew.  Four is the minimum required to keep at least one boat deployed at all times.  This is, again, with a double crew.  With a single crew, a minimum of five submarines is required to allow a minimum of one boat to be deployed at all times.  Why?  Submarines will be unavailable for things like repairs, maintenance, and refits.  Crews must have time off from patrols.  Submarines need time to travel to their patrol areas.


----------



## Dale Denton

^Was discussed earlier in this thread about the limitations. What I took away from it was that new AIP cells are a technology no-longer in the developmental stage and is now operational in a number of submarine classes. It's not as safe to transit under ice (as an SSN) as you need to be able to penetrate the ice to breathe. Too high a risk of losing an entire sub if they can't find thin enough ice to push through. Although its just a matter of time before that's possible.

Quoting HI Sutton:
"The fuel cell AIP provides an alternative power source while the boat is submerged, increasing underwater endurance by a couple of weeks. It is used to directly power the electric motor and, in exceptional circumstances, to top up the batteries. The fuel cells are relatively weak so the submarine can only cruise slowly on them. So the batteries are retained to provide high power for fast dashes, and as a fall-back. And the diesel generators are also retained to recharge the batteries and for surface running. but because it has to run the diesels less frequently, it has to snorkel less frequently. This will increase stealth."
http://www.hisutton.com/U212-AIP-Submarine.html

I wonder if a lightweight torp could be shot out to blow a hole in the ice so an SSK could breathe. Noisy yes but the range it would give you may be worth it. 
Or even have a HDW Class clear the way and have a sub follow behind?
Or use an XLUUV in a two-ship group to extend the sensor range under thicker ice to reduce the risk of the mother/command SSK?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dana381 said:
			
		

> I guess I should clarify. I should have said one operational on each coast at all times, re-reading what I wrote it looks like I meant one underway at all times. Sorry for the confusion.
> 
> The four Victoria's were supposed to be able to have one on each coast (pacific and atlantic) operational at all times. If they were a more reliable sub would that not be possible? my understanding is if not for the fire and the grounding that would have been achievable. Would that not allow 3 continually operational with a fleet of 7 or 8 newer, more reliable subs?
> 
> I believe somewhere in this thread I read that AIP technology is suitable for under ice operations? Today is anyone still building conventional subs? AIP seems to be the new entry level sub. The Victoria's have around 2400 tonnes displacement and 30 days endurance according to Wiki. that dosen't seem long enough. Would a 3000t AIP have enough endurance? I don't know how much heavier/bulkier the technology is?



Wiki claims 84 days for the U-214 which is a 1,000 tons smaller, I will take that with a grain of salt. If the Vic's were newer, we could add a AIP section to them, but it's not worth it at this point I suspect. A possible future upgrade could in the batteries, giving them extended submerged operating times.


----------



## Dana381

According to Saab the "Compact, modular and manageable, Stirling AIP systems can be dimensioned for fully submerged missions up to 45 days. Thanks to the durability and low cost of operation, the technology is used continuously at patrol speed."

Quote from https://saab.com/naval/submarines-and-surface-ships/submarines/submarines/?gclid=CjwKCAjw5vz2BRAtEiwAbcVIL9rNdfydyy60kZ5IoprfbTjdDAd9lh64bBFEA5x2ITNmiSyAnh7S7hoCsYUQAvD_BwE

That really puts them near par operationally to an SSN. How often would you need to stay down longer than that. In just about any scenario surely sometime in a 45 day stretch you could snorkel undetected. How often do the Vic's need to snorkel?


----------



## Swampbuggy

There's more to it than just endurance and ability to break through ice, I believe. I've been told in the past that one of the most important reasons that you want a nuclear powered sub under ice, is if you have a fire. I believe it has to do with the power requirements to change over the "atmosphere" inside the sub. Conventional or AIP is currently not up to that, as I understand it. I'm certain someone here could likely speak to that better than I can.


----------



## Swampbuggy

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Or even have a HDW Class clear the way and have a sub follow behind?



I think the major drawback here would be having everyone know where your subsurface asset is.


----------



## Cronicbny

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I think the major drawback here would be having everyone know where your subsurface asset is.



And that the escort surface asset would have no idea where the submarine was


----------



## Underway

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> ^Was discussed earlier in this thread about the limitations. What I took away from it was that new AIP cells are a technology no-longer in the developmental stage and is now operational in a number of submarine classes. It's not as safe to transit under ice (as an SSN) as you need to be able to penetrate the ice to breathe. Too high a risk of losing an entire sub if they can't find thin enough ice to push through. Although its just a matter of time before that's possible.
> 
> Quoting HI Sutton:
> "The fuel cell AIP provides an alternative power source while the boat is submerged, increasing underwater endurance by a couple of weeks. It is used to directly power the electric motor and, in exceptional circumstances, to top up the batteries. The fuel cells are relatively weak so the submarine can only cruise slowly on them. So the batteries are retained to provide high power for fast dashes, and as a fall-back. And the diesel generators are also retained to recharge the batteries and for surface running. but because it has to run the diesels less frequently, it has to snorkel less frequently. This will increase stealth."
> http://www.hisutton.com/U212-AIP-Submarine.html
> 
> I wonder if a lightweight torp could be shot out to blow a hole in the ice so an SSK could breathe. Noisy yes but the range it would give you may be worth it.
> Or even have a HDW Class clear the way and have a sub follow behind?
> Or use an XLUUV in a two-ship group to extend the sensor range under thicker ice to reduce the risk of the mother/command SSK?



The air issue is more about fire then it is about operations.  A nuke boat has oodles of power to create O2 though electrolysis.  A diesel sub usually doesn't create O2, it either stores it (LOx) or scrubs CO2 instead.  Also before everyone starts talking Li batteries like this conversation usually turns to, Li batteries are the equivalent of a firecracker.  The surface fleet doesn't even use Li UPS because of the  "energetic" fire risk and toxic gases they produce in a fire.


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:
			
		

> Also before everyone starts talking Li batteries like this conversation usually turns to, Li batteries are the equivalent of a firecracker.  The surface fleet doesn't even use Li UPS because fo the  "energetic" fire risk and toxic gases they produce in a fire.


Well, there is this and this.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Well, there is this and this.



Well, there's clearly a role for our buddy Elon Musk in this (engine) space


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:
			
		

> The air issue is more about fire then it is about operations.  A nuke boat has oodles of power to create O2 though electrolysis.  A diesel sub usually doesn't create O2, it either stores it (LOx) or scrubs CO2 instead.  Also before everyone starts talking Li batteries like this conversation usually turns to, Li batteries are the equivalent of a firecracker.  The surface fleet doesn't even use Li UPS because of the  "energetic" fire risk and toxic gases they produce in a fire.



The toxic gas argument is a bit of a red herring; any ship fire will quickly pump out all kinds of toxic gases. Just the paint on a bulkhead or the insulation on a cable will quickly make it uninhabitable.

It's because they tend to explode if they get hit by shrapnel with a pretty impressive arc then burn really hot. That can also happen if your trickle charger circuit malfunctions and keeps charging once it's at 100%. No one seems to think twice about slapping laptops everywhere though with no controls, so at least this way you could actually look at the issue and mitigate the risks (separate compartments, fitted systems etc). Lead acid batteries have their own safety issues, so it's just a question of risk/benefits, and seeing if you can engineer things until it's reasonably safe.

Usually involves a bunch of testing, and doing fun things like firing shrapnel at Li batteries to see what happens. Destructive testing is probably the most fun you can have while getting paid.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The toxic gas argument is a bit of a red herring; any ship fire will quickly pump out all kinds of toxic gases. Just the paint on a bulkhead or the insulation on a cable will quickly make it uninhabitable.
> 
> It's because they tend to explode if they get hit by shrapnel with a pretty impressive arc then burn really hot. That can also happen if your trickle charger circuit malfunctions and keeps charging once it's at 100%. No one seems to think twice about slapping laptops everywhere though with no controls, so at least this way you could actually look at the issue and mitigate the risks (separate compartments, fitted systems etc). Lead acid batteries have their own safety issues, so it's just a question of risk/benefits, and seeing if you can engineer things until it's reasonably safe.
> 
> Usually involves a bunch of testing, and doing fun things like firing shrapnel at Li batteries to see what happens. Destructive testing is probably the most fun you can have while getting paid.



Laptop batteries and phone batteries are minor risks compared to a Li UPS which are generally much bigger.  I'm not talking toxic gases that cause long term health effects here, I'm talking burnt halon coated wire level toxicity where you are going to die very quickly from low concentrations.  The RCN policy is no Li UPS, as currently constructed.  You can get waivers for specific equipment where Li is absolutely required.

As for the Japanese submarines, they may use a different form of Li-battery tech, have extremely good fire control measures, excellent compartmentalization or just assume the risk.


----------



## Dale Denton

Thanks for the insight Underway and others.

Stepping back, i'm sure these concerns were very much on the mind of engineers, sailors, politicians and many more in the advent of nuclear-powered submarines as well. Now its almost the norm.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My guess is the battery compartment and supporting systems would have to be re-engineered to accept them, it would certainly not be a case of pull a lead acid and stick a Li battery in.


----------



## JMCanada

Underway said:
			
		

> The air issue is more about fire then it is about operations.  A nuke boat has oodles of power to create O2 though electrolysis.  A diesel sub usually doesn't create O2, it either stores it (LOx) or scrubs CO2 instead.



AIP usually needs a big amount of stored LOx (liquid oxygen), either for the stirling engine or for the fuel cells, so that oxygen needed for the crew to breath for 2-3 weeks is only a small fraction of the stored LOx (quite below 5%). Replenish oxygen to the boat in case of fire should not be a problem.

However AFAIK, in order to crack the ice cap and emerge in the Arctic, two features are needed: buoyancy and strengthened hull (and sail, rudder, hydroplanes, sensors, etc). So the options would lead for something about 3,000 tons or above.

This year dutchs are to select their future subs among A26, Type 212 or a French Barracuda variant. Japan is retiring from Stirling technology but it has shown up as a robust technology. Unfortunately it seems too late to join the Netherlands and work together to develop and build a common boat.


----------



## stellarpanther

What is the cost to build and then operate any potential new subs?  Without having any real knowledge, I'm guessing it's a lot and maybe that program should be eliminated.  Going a little off topic, I realize we have a relatively small military as it is but perhaps we should shrink it even more and have a military that we can properly maintain and keep up to date with modern equipment and weapons.  We also need to accept the fact that we are a small country (population) and start doing only what we can afford and stop trying to punch above our weight class.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> What is the cost to build and then operate any potential new subs?  Without having any real knowledge, I'm guessing it's a lot and maybe that program should be eliminated.  Going a little off topic, I realize we have a relatively small military as it is but perhaps we should shrink it even more and have a military that we can properly maintain and keep up to date with modern equipment and weapons.  We also need to accept the fact that we are a small country (population) and start doing only what we can afford and stop trying to punch above our weight class.



You are right about one thing...you don’t have any real knowledge.

Those of us who do have real knowledge of submarines are terrified by the Sovereignty, security, strategic and foreign policy debacle that would occur should we give up a submarine capability. Believe me when I say the capability is worth every penny (and more).


----------



## stellarpanther

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You are right about one thing...you don’t have any real knowledge.
> 
> Those of us who do have real knowledge of submarines are terrified by the Sovereignty, security, strategic and foreign policy debacle that would occur should we give up a submarine capability. Believe me when I say the capability is worth every penny (and more).



Pretty sure I don't need to read your sarcastic BS.  You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> Pretty sure I don't need to read your sarcastic BS.  You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.



I wasn’t being sarcastic to you in any way, shape or form.

There are opinions. And then there are informed opinions.

Which was yours, again?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You are right about one thing...you don’t have any real knowledge.
> 
> Those of us who do have real knowledge of submarines are terrified by the Sovereignty, security, strategic and foreign policy debacle that would occur should we give up a submarine capability. Believe me when I say the capability is worth every penny (and more).



Not to mention the corporate knowledge and skillsets we have built up around the Victoria Class, both onboard and ashore. These subs give Canada way more than people realize. If they divest the fleet, my guess is many of the trained personal will be offered jobs with the RAN to man their new subs coming online.


----------



## quadrapiper

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I wasn’t being sarcastic to you in any way, shape or form.
> 
> There are opinions. And then there are informed opinions.


Also: standpoints (subs are a Good Thing To Have) that're foundational in nature.


----------



## Uzlu

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> What is the cost to build and then operate any potential new subs?  Without having any real knowledge, I'm guessing it's a lot and maybe that program should be eliminated.  Going a little off topic, I realize we have a relatively small military as it is but perhaps we should shrink it even more and have a military that we can properly maintain and keep up to date with modern equipment and weapons.  We also need to accept the fact that we are a small country (population) and start doing only what we can afford and stop trying to punch above our weight class.


Submarines have been expensive, are expensive, and probably always will be expensive.  Lots of good reasons for submarines have been given in this thread.  Shrink Canada’s military spending even more?  After we promised the Americans to spend a minimum of 2% of our gross domestic product on the military?
  
Canada should act honourably and keep its promises.  Canada has a relatively small population.  But, by gross domestic product, it is, in the world, number ten.  We shall be punching above our weight class when we spend more than 2% of our gross domestic product on the military.


----------



## PuckChaser

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Those of us who do have real knowledge of submarines are terrified by the Sovereignty, security, strategic and foreign policy debacle that would occur should we give up a submarine capability. Believe me when I say the capability is worth every penny (and more).



Considering all 4 subs had 0 sea days last year, you must have spent the whole year terrified. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632

Strong, Secure, Engaged even has that replacement boats aren't coming until 2040. Comd RCN says in the article we can operate the boats into the 2030s... whether that's early, middle or late will determine how many years we'll be completely without a viable submarine capability (just like last year).

The article even says we've spent $750M CAD in 2 years on maintenance, repairs and upkeep, and a quick look at Wikipedia's cited news articles shows an absolutely terrible number of sea days we've gotten out of the Upholders for the money we're dropping on them. SP has a point, we're flushing money down the drain to keep lemons barely at sea. Either we start a replacement project now and hope to drag out their life with existing contracts until we have the first new hull in the water, or cut our losses to retire them now and just begrudgingly accept that the Government of Canada does not value a submarine force as much as the people who are advising on naval tactics.


----------



## Stoker

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Considering all 4 subs had 0 sea days last year, you must have spent the whole year terrified. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632
> 
> Strong, Secure, Engaged even has that replacement boats aren't coming until 2040. Comd RCN says in the article we can operate the boats into the 2030s... whether that's early, middle or late will determine how many years we'll be completely without a viable submarine capability (just like last year).
> 
> The article even says we've spent $750M CAD in 2 years on maintenance, repairs and upkeep, and a quick look at Wikipedia's cited news articles shows an absolutely terrible number of sea days we've gotten out of the Upholders for the money we're dropping on them. SP has a point, we're flushing money down the drain to keep lemons barely at sea. Either we start a replacement project now and hope to drag out their life with existing contracts until we have the first new hull in the water, or cut our losses to retire them now and just begrudgingly accept that the Government of Canada does not value a submarine force as much as the people who are advising on naval tactics.



I think that's a very unfair thing to say. Four submarines and the frequency of maintenance and circumstances beyond the RCN's control almost guarantees that we will have times where no units are available. Last year was such a year. Cutting our losses is not a option I hope, although with this government I am very surprised that it hasn't occurred yet as it is a very big target given he amount of money spent by the government during the last 90 days.


----------



## MilEME09

How much is it these days roughly to operate a sub vs a surface ship? I cannot find any accurate modern statistics, however a senate defense report from the 80s said 12 subs would be cheaper then 12 surface ships to operate. Does that still hold true? Of course this is assuming you had a brand new sub vs a brand new warship.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Considering all 4 subs had 0 sea days last year, you must have spent the whole year terrified. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632
> 
> Strong, Secure, Engaged even has that replacement boats aren't coming until 2040. Comd RCN says in the article we can operate the boats into the 2030s... whether that's early, middle or late will determine how many years we'll be completely without a viable submarine capability (just like last year).
> 
> The article even says we've spent $750M CAD in 2 years on maintenance, repairs and upkeep, and a quick look at Wikipedia's cited news articles shows an absolutely terrible number of sea days we've gotten out of the Upholders for the money we're dropping on them. SP has a point, we're flushing money down the drain to keep lemons barely at sea. Either we start a replacement project now and hope to drag out their life with existing contracts until we have the first new hull in the water, or cut our losses to retire them now and just begrudgingly accept that the Government of Canada does not value a submarine force as much as the people who are advising on naval tactics.



The problem is the RCN can't broadcast the Subs actual sailing and maintenance schedule because it's a secret.  You can imagine how COVID-19 has played havoc on everyone's schedule though.


----------



## dimsum

Colin P said:
			
		

> If they divest the fleet, my guess is many of the trained personal will be offered jobs with the RAN to man their new subs coming online.



So really, no change from what the ADF did (and still does) for many trades.


----------



## Navy_Pete

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> How much is it these days roughly to operate a sub vs a surface ship? I cannot find any accurate modern statistics, however a senate defense report from the 80s said 12 subs would be cheaper then 12 surface ships to operate. Does that still hold true? Of course this is assuming you had a brand new sub vs a brand new warship.



There used to be a AMD(Fin-CS) report that had the operating costs for all equipment on the DWAN that broke down the personnel, maintenance, and operating expenses. Don't think it's been updated in a few years, but that might have the total spend. That info is all public, as it's just line items in various budgets. They included cost per sea day, which was just a cumulative total of the # of sea days for each class, averaged out over the whole fleet. Also had the cost of aircraft and army vehicles there as well.

Can't see subs being cheaper to operate overall though; they might have slightly smaller crews then some ships, and use less fuel per day, but the maintenance costs alone completely dwarf a surface ship by a multiple (5? 10?).


----------



## JMCanada

Let me drop an open question for which myself have no clear answer... would it be smart to buy 4 SSNs from UK (Astute class) or France (Barracuda class)? As they are, with minimum canadianizing to avoid or minimize cost overruns, project risks and delays.

Both countries will finish their production by late 2020s, so probably could deliver 4 more units sometime between 2030 and 2035, should the agreement come soon, let's say before 2023-24.
Both allies may not be interested on stretching their series since they will also need to start production for the next, SSBN series for replacement of the current ones. But once the production line is on place... having an extended series for a trustworthy ally is always interesting, allows to reduce overall costs and provides further collaboration contracts for maintenance. 

Of course, my proposal implies that some agreement should be in place for local maintenance and refuelling up to some extent. I'm pretty sure Canadian nuclear sector is or would be able to do so.

This should be a bipartisan agreement and would allow for Arctic surveillance as well. Later on, planning could be done for further AIP SSKs, maybe 6 to 8, to be built with some local content. 

I know that an "hybrid" fleet with two types of submarines (SSNs and SSKs) is more expensive, but wouldn't it be worth it? Could base one type on each coast. SSNs would be Canadian "non-nuclear deterrence", but "arctic deterrence" instead, providing the capability to effectively monitor and show sovereignty under the Arctic.

Problem is that politicians would be comfortable after first SSNs were on duty and would never after try to get the AIP ones, the second batch. Once again four boats only.


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:
			
		

> would it be smart to buy 4 SSNs from UK (Astute class) or France (Barracuda class)?


Are you sure the Americans will allow this?


----------



## Stoker

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Let me drop an open question for which myself have no clear answer... would it be smart to buy 4 SSNs from UK (Astute class) or France (Barracuda class)? As they are, with minimum canadianizing to avoid or minimize cost overruns, project risks and delays.
> 
> Both countries will finish their production by late 2020s, so probably could deliver 4 more units sometime between 2030 and 2035, should the agreement come soon, let's say before 2023-24.
> Both allies may not be interested on stretching their series since they will also need to start production for the next, SSBN series for replacement of the current ones. But once the production line is on place... having an extended series for a trustworthy ally is always interesting, allows to reduce overall costs and provides further collaboration contracts for maintenance.
> 
> Of course, my proposal implies that some agreement should be in place for local maintenance and refuelling up to some extent. I'm pretty sure Canadian nuclear sector is or would be able to do so.
> 
> This should be a bipartisan agreement and would allow for Arctic surveillance as well. Later on, planning could be done for further AIP SSKs, maybe 6 to 8, to be built with some local content.
> 
> I know that an "hybrid" fleet with two types of submarines (SSNs and SSKs) is more expensive, but wouldn't it be worth it? Could base one type on each coast. SSNs would be Canadian "non-nuclear deterrence", but "arctic deterrence" instead, providing the capability to effectively monitor and show sovereignty under the Arctic.
> 
> Problem is that politicians would be comfortable after first SSNs were on duty and would never after try to get the AIP ones, the second batch. Once again four boats only.



I'm sure if we did a search on Canada procuring Nuclear submarines you would find many such posts advocating for just that. Yes for Arctic sovereignty they are what you want, talk about AIP all you want its too finicky to retro fit into the Upholders and no one has placed a AIP sub under the ice yet. Canada procuring nuclear submarines is a dead issue, our government and the public will never allow it, not to mention other external influences that already scuttled the governments attempt to procure such platforms in the past. If people are complaining about what the Upholders are costing us, try imagining what nuclear boats would cost in maintenance and infrastructure alone. 
My take on the matter given the financial mess we are currently in do to Covid we will be lucky to hold on to what we have let along buying anything else. More than likely we will continue to limp on with the upholders until we have no other option to retire the boats with no replacement.


----------



## Navy_Pete

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Let me drop an open question for which myself have no clear answer... would it be smart to buy 4 SSNs from UK (Astute class) or France (Barracuda class)? As they are, with minimum canadianizing to avoid or minimize cost overruns, project risks and delays.
> 
> Both countries will finish their production by late 2020s, so probably could deliver 4 more units sometime between 2030 and 2035, should the agreement come soon, let's say before 2023-24.
> Both allies may not be interested on stretching their series since they will also need to start production for the next, SSBN series for replacement of the current ones. But once the production line is on place... having an extended series for a trustworthy ally is always interesting, allows to reduce overall costs and provides further collaboration contracts for maintenance.
> 
> Of course, my proposal implies that some agreement should be in place for local maintenance and refuelling up to some extent. I'm pretty sure Canadian nuclear sector is or would be able to do so.
> 
> This should be a bipartisan agreement and would allow for Arctic surveillance as well. Later on, planning could be done for further AIP SSKs, maybe 6 to 8, to be built with some local content.
> 
> I know that an "hybrid" fleet with two types of submarines (SSNs and SSKs) is more expensive, but wouldn't it be worth it? Could base one type on each coast. SSNs would be Canadian "non-nuclear deterrence", but "arctic deterrence" instead, providing the capability to effectively monitor and show sovereignty under the Arctic.
> 
> Problem is that politicians would be comfortable after first SSNs were on duty and would never after try to get the AIP ones, the second batch. Once again four boats only.



One thing to keep in mind that we would need dedicated new base(s) for any nuclear ships to allow a suitable security cordon, so that would be a big expense (with a dedicated maintenance wing, etc). Also, some people consider them a nuclear weapon system, so there would be massive political pushback, on top of the pushback about the expense.

Honestly can't see it happening for those reasons, regardless of whether or not it's a big strategic advantage. If we didn't get into it during the cold war, not going to happen now, and the US is openly against us having a nuc sub fleet.  We can make non-nuclear subs work in our current infrastructure, so would just be happy if we aren't seriously sailing them around for their 50th birthday before replacing them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

stellarpanther said:
			
		

> What is the cost to build and then operate any potential new subs?  Without having any real knowledge, I'm guessing it's a lot and maybe that program should be eliminated.  Going a little off topic, I realize we have a relatively small military as it is but perhaps we should shrink it even more and have a military that we can properly maintain and keep up to date with modern equipment and weapons.  We also need to accept the fact that we are a small country (population) and start doing only what we can afford and stop trying to punch above our weight class.



I'd be curious to see why you want to eliminate a program capability after stating you have no knowledge of submarines or their (tactical, operational and/or strategic) capability.

If you eliminate the submarine fleet and their cap's and lim's (capabilities and limitations), what would the CAF gain and what would we lose, in your opinion?

If you have no knowledge, are you interested in attaining some?


----------



## GR66

My personal opinion is that while nuclear subs would be a great asset for Canada it's just not going to happen for the many reasons that have been mentioned here.

I think if we do get replacement subs then we should definitely partner with an ally to make a joint purchase so that we don't have an orphan fleet that is 100% unique to us.  I'm guessing that the Australian Attack-Class would best match our requirements and specs over one being built for a European navy?


----------



## PuckChaser

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The problem is the RCN can't broadcast the Subs actual sailing and maintenance schedule because it's a secret.  You can imagine how COVID-19 has played havoc on everyone's schedule though.



That's no different than any other operational deployment, dates are supposed to be secret. The reality is that CBC picked up CHICOUTIMI's departure about 2 weeks-ish after it happened, and a DND news release points out the day it returned as well as the length of its deployment (197 days). CanadianDefenseReview has an article with specific years that each sub is entering EDWP... 

http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/Featured_content?blog/125


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> There used to be a AMD(Fin-CS) report that had the operating costs for all equipment on the DWAN that broke down the personnel, maintenance, and operating expenses. Don't think it's been updated in a few years, but that might have the total spend. That info is all public, as it's just line items in various budgets. They included cost per sea day, which was just a cumulative total of the # of sea days for each class, averaged out over the whole fleet. Also had the cost of aircraft and army vehicles there as well.



It used to be called the Cost Cofactors Manual.  I'm sure it has a new name now.  But it doesn't cost out the maintenance correctly.  It gives cost per day of operation of the ship and usually the average sailing days.  It doesn't take into account (that I know of) docking work periods etc...



			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Can't see subs being cheaper to operate overall though; they might have slightly smaller crews then some ships, and use less fuel per day, but the maintenance costs alone completely dwarf a surface ship by a multiple (5? 10?).



I have no numbers to share but that is definitely the perception.  I'm not the first MSE/CSE to complain about how much staffing, effort and money goes into the Subs while "my ship" is neglected.  Its much more money per unit because of the SUBSAFE program.  Essentially Air Safety but for submarines.


----------



## NavyShooter

Canada would never divest itself of a crucial capability like submarines.  

In the same way that we'd never divest:

Air Defence capability
Tracked Artillery
Tanks (only we had to bring them back for a war...)
etc...

Subs are a line item in the budget that are subject to the vagaries of our nation's focus on defence...or lack thereof.

Subs are a huge capability - and will be easily changed to a capability gap with the stroke of a pen.


----------



## Dana381

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Are you sure the Americans will allow this?



Why the H3ll would we ever sign a treaty that allows the U.S. to block us buying SSN's from someone else? :brickwall:

Does anyone know when this treaty expires? I guess if we do decide to get SSN's we need to build the reactors here in Canada. 

Everyone is pointing out that the Vic's spent zero days at sea in 2019 but they never mention just how much they were at sea in 2018. I don't have the time right now to find it but someone posted the subs 2018 deployments upthread and it was a lot.


----------



## PuckChaser

Just renegotiate it or threaten to pull out. Worked for NAFTA.


----------



## Underway

Dana381 said:
			
		

> Why the H3ll would we ever sign a treaty that allows the U.S. to block us buying SSN's from someone else? :brickwall:


 
For a lot of reasons.  There's nothing stopping Canada from walking away from the agreement at any time.  I recommend we announce it via twitter at 3am.


----------



## dapaterson

Underway said:
			
		

> For a lot of reasons.  There's nothing stopping Canada from walking away from the agreement at any time.  I recommend we announce it via twitter at 3am.



I'm old school.  I say we put the plans to walk away on display.

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”


----------



## Colin Parkinson

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Considering all 4 subs had 0 sea days last year, you must have spent the whole year terrified. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632
> 
> Strong, Secure, Engaged even has that replacement boats aren't coming until 2040. Comd RCN says in the article we can operate the boats into the 2030s... whether that's early, middle or late will determine how many years we'll be completely without a viable submarine capability (just like last year).
> 
> The article even says we've spent $750M CAD in 2 years on maintenance, repairs and upkeep, and a quick look at Wikipedia's cited news articles shows an absolutely terrible number of sea days we've gotten out of the Upholders for the money we're dropping on them. SP has a point, we're flushing money down the drain to keep lemons barely at sea. Either we start a replacement project now and hope to drag out their life with existing contracts until we have the first new hull in the water, or cut our losses to retire them now and just begrudgingly accept that the Government of Canada does not value a submarine force as much as the people who are advising on naval tactics.



Even the Germans with 6 subs and strong sub building industry had all 6 of their subs out of action in 2017, for much of the same reasons as well https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/10/20/all-of-germanys-submarines-are-currently-down/


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Even the Germans with 6 subs and strong sub building industry had all 6 of their subs out of action in 2017, for much of the same reasons as well https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/10/20/all-of-germanys-submarines-are-currently-down/



And the opposition knows that having all subs out of the water doesn't mean that you have no sub capability.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Dana381 said:
			
		

> Why the H3ll would we ever sign a treaty that allows the U.S. to block us buying SSN's from someone else? :brickwall:
> 
> Does anyone know when this treaty expires? I guess if we do decide to get SSN's we need to build the reactors here in Canada.



Does anyone know the name of this treaty? The Wikipedia article references a book which does not provide a further reference. 

Edit: it’s not this treaty: 1958 US Arms Control Export Act


----------



## Uzlu

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Does anyone know the name of this treaty?


It might be this.

This might prevent submarine nuclear reactors from the United Kingdom or France from being acquired by Canada without permission from the United States:





> Detailed procedures shall be jointly established to effectuate the foregoing provisions, and all situations not specifically covered shall be settled by mutual agreement governed by the basic principle of equivalent benefits to both Parties.


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:
			
		

> It might be this.
> 
> This might prevent submarine nuclear reactors from the United Kingdom or France from being acquired by Canada without permission from the United States:



This may have been superseded with the ITAR rules.  As an example the US needed to give Australia permission to sell us their F-18's even though we already have the same vintage models in stock.

However, there is always French nuclear tech.  Developed separately from the US/British models.  And wholly owned by the French.  And they'll sell weapons to anyone.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:
			
		

> However, there is always French nuclear tech.  Developed separately from the US/British models.  And wholly owned by the French.  And they'll sell weapons to anyone.



As opposed to Canada, which only sells nuclear power to countries that promise not to use the technology to support nuclear weapons programs.  Countries such* as....well, you know...Pakistan and India. #peacefulCANDU

*edit - spelling


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As opposed to Canada, which only sells nuclear power to countries that promise not to use the technology to support nuclear weapons programs.  Countries suck as....well, you know...Pakistan and India. #peacefulCANDU



Are you suggesting Canadian nuclear technology is only used by untrustworthy actors?


----------



## MarkOttawa

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting Canadian nuclear technology is only used by untrustworthy actors?



It is also quite possible that South Korea will choose to develop nuclear weapons in the not too distant future as they realize they cannot rely on the US (maybe even under another president):
http://www.candu.org/Pages/KHNP.aspx

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> As opposed to Canada, which only sells nuclear power to countries that promise not to use the technology to support nuclear weapons programs.  Countries such* as....well, you know...Pakistan and India. #peacefulCANDU
> 
> *edit - spelling



The whole point of CANDU reactors is that they can run on natural uranium, whereas for a weapons program you need enriched uranium. You can read the history on wikipedia, but most of the reactors are in Canada, with South Korea, Romania and Argentina as other countries that have them without a nuclear weapons program. We stopped selling to India after they detonated a nuclear bomb, but they already had the technology and know how so they keep building CANDU derivatives.

It's old tech, but was something they came up with that they could use to make electricity without having access to the then classified enrichment equipment. That has been OBE with improvements in enrichment methods, but the heavy water reactors are something you can do without risking having enriched uranium floating around, but also doesn't need the same kind of massive scale of machining either. If you already have a nuclear weapons program, that may not be an issue for you, but it was meant to be a less complicated way to make power without having atom bomb proliferation.


----------



## Spencer100

I don't think any one has mentioned South Korea's new sub's

The South Korea arms manufacturing is moving up on the world.  Looking to build a 5/6 gen fighter etc.

They have the worlds most efficient ship building industry.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosan_Ahn_Changho-class_submarine

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/06/rok-navys-1st-3000-tons-kss-iii-submarine-dosan-ahn-chang-ho-started-sea-trials/

This sub looks to have about everything Canada would need.   I bet priced the best too.

As an aside the The Sejong the Great class DDG look to beasts.


----------



## Uzlu

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I don't think any one has mentioned South Korea's new sub's


https://army.ca/forums/threads/130772/post-1577846.html#msg1577846


----------



## MarkOttawa

The whole point of CAND





> U reactors is that they can run on natural uranium, whereas for a weapons program you need enriched uranium.
> 
> Actually, from a nuclear weapons development standpoint, the beauty of CANDU is that is produces plutonium, the other bomb material, without the need to enrich uranium to run a reactor--p. 2 PDF here:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> First, at a CANDU 6 plant it is comparatively easy to divert spent fuel in order to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons...
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.joint-project.org/upload/file/Risks_associated_with_CANDU_reactors.pdf
Click to expand...


This natural uranium fueled (heavy water moderation), Canadian supplied research reactor led to this:



> ...CIRUS reactor provided the plutonium for India's 1974 "peaceful nuclear explosions."..
> https://www.nti.org/learn/facilities/832/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I don't think any one has mentioned South Korea's new sub's
> 
> The South Korea arms manufacturing is moving up on the world.  Looking to build a 5/6 gen fighter etc.
> 
> They have the worlds most efficient ship building industry.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosan_Ahn_Changho-class_submarine
> 
> https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/06/rok-navys-1st-3000-tons-kss-iii-submarine-dosan-ahn-chang-ho-started-sea-trials/
> 
> This sub looks to have about everything Canada would need.   I bet priced the best too.
> 
> As an aside the The Sejong the Great class DDG look to beasts.



The timeframe works for us as well, as they near the end of production we can tap in to it and start replacing our subs, where we have gotten benefits from the latest upgrade and they are beyond economical repair. Plus the Canadian mods (weapons systems most likely) can be incorporated at the building phase and we would benefit from their learning curve and any upgrades they do. The same applies to both the Japanese and planned Aussie sub

I found this interesting: 

_The Sōryū class is relatively young: the first sub was launched in 2009, and in many navies it’s difficult to imagine work already proceeding on a replacement. Japan however typically keeps its submarines in service for just twenty years, a relatively short time for modern warships. So it’s not exactly surprising that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, one of Japan’s top submarine builders, has already unveiled the country’s next-generation submarine design, designated 29SS. The sub due in the late-2020s. (The designation “29SS” is derived from the 29th year of the reign of Emperor Akihito, otherwise known to everyone else as 2017, and SS is the international shorthand for non-nuclear attack submarine.)_

from https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a28184939/29ss-japan-submarine/


----------



## JMCanada

Both Japan and south Korea are good examples of planning  and continuous production, both for warships and subs. Long times between batches make loss of design and know-how capabilities.

These are to make a case study.

Back to korean boats...
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/madex-2019/2019/10/madex-2019-dsme-on-track-with-kss-iii-batch-2-submarine-program-for-rok-navy/

... with 4 x 150 kW fuel cells plus LIBs, should be able to sail at 8 knots just on FC and use the batteries for sprints. Will be able to recharge quickly the batteries with the AIP (FC). 600 kW more than doubles the FC power of the U-212 boats (240kW)... 
if my data are correct.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> The timeframe works for us as well, as they near the end of production we can tap in to it and start replacing our subs, where we have gotten benefits from the latest upgrade and they are beyond economical repair. Plus the Canadian mods (weapons systems most likely) can be incorporated at the building phase and we would benefit from their learning curve and any upgrades they do. The same applies to both the Japanese and planned Aussie sub
> 
> I found this interesting:
> 
> _The Sōryū class is relatively young: the first sub was launched in 2009, and in many navies it’s difficult to imagine work already proceeding on a replacement. Japan however typically keeps its submarines in service for just twenty years, a relatively short time for modern warships. So it’s not exactly surprising that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, one of Japan’s top submarine builders, has already unveiled the country’s next-generation submarine design, designated 29SS. The sub due in the late-2020s. (The designation “29SS” is derived from the 29th year of the reign of Emperor Akihito, otherwise known to everyone else as 2017, and SS is the international shorthand for non-nuclear attack submarine.)_
> 
> from https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a28184939/29ss-japan-submarine/



Japan doesn't seem to build large numbers of the same ship class.  It seems more like they build four or five and then a new ship class is produced.Very interesting how they work.  But hey, worlds second most powerful navy can do what they want.  It works for them.


----------



## Spencer100

French are having problems too

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/06/16/french-submarine-burns-in-unbelievably-fierce-fire-for-14-hours/

Maybe a total loss.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I've exercised with the _Perle_ in the past (Dynamic Manta 15);  how unfortunate.  Happy there are no reports of injury or fatalities!


----------



## MilEME09

https://americanmilitarynews.com/2020/06/navy-awards-10-billion-contract-for-next-generation-columbia-class-submarine-made-by-electric-boat/?utm_source=militarymemes&utm_campaign=alt&utm_medium=facebook

In related news, US signs for 2 new next gen Columbia class SSBN. Maybe we can get a few and make them SSGN's?


----------



## Gorgo

Oh, wouldn't that be nice.  And convert our SSGNs into ABM platforms launching the enhanced Standards instead?

Ah, it's such a great dream, isn't it...?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

And a dream is all it will stay: Think about the money spent and the cost of changing the torpedoes on the VICTORIA's - and that was just to replace tube and handling systems from Tigerfish to Mk 48's.

How much more complex do you think it would be to modify a SSBN meant to fire ICBM's so they carry and fire the much much smaller diameter  SM-3? Moreover, where on earth do you put all the associated radar work you need to do ABM on a submarine? Finally, do you know what is required to adapt a missile so it is possible to fire it from underwater?

Some dreams are just that, sorry.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Not to mention: does anyone seriously think that the USN will let any foreigner near their newest strategic asset, much less sell them to Canada.

What else do you want: the Starship Enterprise? It is the same level of reality involved in these “dreams”.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We restarted our sub arm by leasing US boats. I wonder if another country would lease us subs, perhaps placing the Vics on one coast and the leased boats on another.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> Oh, wouldn't that be nice.  And convert our SSGNs into ABM platforms launching the enhanced Standards instead?
> 
> Ah, it's such a great dream, isn't it...?



Uhh... ?


----------



## Uzlu

> The Advanced Thinking Behind Sweden’s New A-26 Submarine
> 
> The Swedish Navy’s submarines are famous for their stealth. This was amply demonstrated in 2006 when Sweden loaned one of its subs, HMS Gotland, to the U.S. Navy. The AIP (Air Independent Power) equipped submarine repeatedly avoided detection. And it was able to score notable ‘victories’ against an Aircraft Carrier during exercises.
> 
> Sweden's next type of submarine, the A-26 Blekinge Class, promises to take stealth to another level. And not just by even quieter AIP. One of its secret ingredients will be uncrewed underwater vehicles (UUVs). These are basically robot submarines that can allow the submarine to remain hidden while taking the fight to the enemy.
> 
> The UUVs can perform many missions traditionally done by the submarine itself. And also missions which a full-size submarine could be used. The first set of missions assigned to these robots is likely to be ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance). For example the UUV might swim ahead of the submarine and use a electro-optical mast (like a modern periscope) to observe an enemy port. It can then discretely report back to the submariner which can move into a firing position. Other roles might include acting as off-board ears to listen for enemy submarines. Or acting as a decoy.
> 
> The use of the submarine's own UUVs could significantly enhance its military utility. Speaking at Saab’s 2020 Submarine Seminar, the chief of the Swedish Navy, Rear Admiral Ewa Ann-Sofi Skoog Haslum, emphasized this. She pointed out that the incorporation of more capable UUVs will transform the way submarines are used. Historically submarines operated in two modes. They were even staying hidden and listening, or were shooting torpedoes. If a submarine fires its torpedoes, then it is generally detected and loses its stealth. So there were very few options in between.
> 
> This resonates with the ways submarines are used in other navies and is a basic truth of submarine warfare for the past 50 years. But the Swedish concept sees UUVs as part of the answer to this conundrum. The UUVs can act as the submarine’s eyes and ears, and be much closer to the target than the submarine. They can, for example, use active sonar which would normally give the submarine away. It might give the UUV away, but the submarine can remain hidden, quietly launching torpedoes at the targets reported by the UUV.
> 
> The A-26 design is not just for the Swedish Navy. Unlike the nuclear powered submarines built in the U.S and Britain, Swedish conventional subs are available on the export market. This has been baked in to the design, with the modular. This approach allows tailoring to a specific nations needs. The A-26 design comes in a range of sizes, from very small to the extended range version with cruise missile tubes added.
> 
> In terms of a market outlook, Lars Brännström the Chief Marketing Officer at Saab Kockums, hinted towards Canada. This is would be particularly interesting as the Canadian Navy will need to replace its Victoria Class submarines. The Netherlands is known to be considering the A-26 to replace its Walrus Class boats. And there will be other natural opportunities in the coming years. Brännström also mentioned that some navies who do not currently have submarines are talking to Saab about gaining that capability.
> 
> So the A-26 submarines in't only advanced in terms of its equipment. There is advanced thinking behind the way it can be used. As bystanders we can fall into a trap of seeing submarines in terms of technical specifications. But to navies, it is really about how they can be used.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/hisutton/2020/09/04/the-advanced-thinking-behind-swedens-new-a-26-submarine/#5a136d153760


----------



## MilEME09

The million dollar question is, is the company lobbying the Canadian government to buy subs from them? Or is the company just saying that they have identified canada as a potential market.

The A-26 seems to be a vary capable sub if we got it in the right configuration. If we really wanted to get in the strategic capability, its reported the Oceanic Extended range configuration can house a 18 tube VLS for cruise missiles. Not that we could afford a capability like that, but one can dream.


----------



## Dale Denton

Agreed^. 

The cost of the A-26 seems competitive as well, with future-growth built into the design like the Gotland.

Paired up with something like the below, and you have a decent proposal.

*Kraken Robotics announces ThunderFish XL AUV development*
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/kraken-robotics-announces-thunderfish-xl-auv-development


For those who haven't read H.I. Sutton's work:

http://www.hisutton.com


----------



## Spencer100

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> The million dollar question is, is the company lobbying the Canadian government to buy subs from them? Or is the company just saying that they have identified canada as a potential market.
> 
> The A-26 seems to be a vary capable sub if we got it in the right configuration. If we really wanted to get in the strategic capability, its reported the Oceanic Extended range configuration can house a 18 tube VLS for cruise missiles. Not that we could afford a capability like that, but one can dream.



I don't think Canada would even think about VLS tubes even if money was not a problem.  I do not see the Government (and especially this gov but not exclusively)  wanting to have a capability that is so offensive in nature.  And we have no real strategic weapon systems.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well our CSC are getting VLS capability from what I can tell and having it in our subs as well would make sense. The combination of the CSC's, new subs with VLS and other tech, along with new AOR's makes the RCN a small but potent force.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well our CSC are getting VLS capability from what I can tell and having it in our subs as well would make sense. The combination of the CSC's, new subs with VLS and other tech, along with new AOR's makes the RCN a small but potent force.



There is a difference, when you think of sub launched missiles you thing of nukes or conventional cruise missiles and a sub can silently approach the coast and launch, offensive in nature. When you think of a VLS for a CSC Anti Aircraft/defensive comes to mind. Canada will never have cruise missiles.


----------



## suffolkowner

Fair bit of options out there for subs. It will be interesting to see what gets offered for the Dutch replacement. If they didn't like the Navantia/S-80 offering its hard to see Naval Group making the cut. Is the A-26 Oceanic ER just 20m longer? And can you just do that with subs and keep extending them or do they get too long and narrow from an acoustic or propulsion perspective?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> There is a difference, when you think of sub launched missiles you thing of nukes or conventional cruise missiles and a sub can silently approach the coast and launch, offensive in nature. When you think of a VLS for a CSC Anti Aircraft/defensive comes to mind. Canada will never have cruise missiles.



Under our current government absolutely, but events in the next 20-30 years are hard to predict and I would rather have capability built in and not used, than not to have it. Plus technology is rapidly changing, there may be a lot of uses for VLS other than cruise missiles including a reconnaissance capability.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Under our current government absolutely, but events in the next 20-30 years are hard to predict and I would rather have capability built in and not used, than not to have it. Plus technology is rapidly changing, there may be a lot of uses for VLS other than cruise missiles including a reconnaissance capability.



Unfortunately the government doesn't think that way.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

But maybe if we gave the crew and captain funky looking socks they can pose with, they might change their mind?  ;D


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> But maybe if we gave the crew and captain funky looking socks they can pose with, they might change their mind?  ;D



Tell them it will come with a UNSC seat


----------



## YZT580

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Unfortunately the government doesn't think.



Is this what you meant?


----------



## tomahawk6

Buy UK subs.


----------



## Good2Golf

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Buy UK subs.



Lol, thanks for the chuckle, T6! ;D


----------



## Uzlu

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see what gets offered for the Dutch replacement. If they didn't like the Navantia/S-80 offering its hard to see Naval Group making the cut.


Why?





> Navantia failed to make the cut on the industrial-cooperation front, according to Visser’s missive to lawmakers, known as a B-Letter in local military-acquisition speak. In other words, the Netherlands is “uncertain” cooperation with Spain would work out and that it would offer fewer touchpoints compared with the governments of the other three bidders — France, Germany and Sweden.


https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/12/17/dutch-walrus-submarine-program-shuffles-forward-but-not-by-much/


----------



## tomahawk6

I should have been more specific as to the type of UK sub- nuclear.


----------



## dapaterson

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I should have been more specific as to the type of UK sub- nuclear.



UK nuclear subs use US technology, and therefore require US approval to transfer to a third nation (such as Canada).


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> UK nuclear subs use US technology, and therefore require US approval to transfer to a third nation (such as Canada).



Given the cost of the Astute at over 1.6 billion pounds per ship, I doubt we would jump on that boat, but compared to our ship programs that is a good price. Buying the Trafalgar's used would be a bad deal given they are just as old or older then the Vic's. The only new ish subs due to be replaced soon are the Vanguards but I doubt the Canadian public would approve of buying SSBN's even if we converted them to SSGN's.


----------



## JMCanada

Buying just 4-6 Astutes or Suffrens, would be nice especially to patrol the Arctic. The time for such deal is now, for UK/ France to put them in their production line. In one decade they both will end their SSN building program and start with their next generation of SSBNs.
Purchase should be "off- the-shelf" as much as possible, otherwise the cost would double and delivery would be delayed.

As for the dutch programme... my opinion is that they will finally buy german, not to forget Germany has recently signed a contract with Damen for the MKS 180 frigates.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/06/damen-leading-role-for-german-frigate-project-mks-180/

Finally, ... VLS look attractive, but in the end cruise missiles (as well as anti-ship ones) can also be fired from torpedo tubes. I don't see that as a great capability increase.


----------



## GR66

JMCanada said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> Finally, ... VLS look attractive, but in the end cruise missiles (as well as anti-ship ones) can also be fired from torpedo tubes. I don't see that as a great capability increase.



The best weapon of a submarine is its stealth.  A sub with 18 x VLS tubes could launch a significant attack while only exposing its position for a relatively short period of time.  Launching a significant missile strike from tubes would require you to be exposed for longer period of time (and how many missiles could you store for use from the torpedo tubes?).  And also, each missile you load into the torpedo tubes is one less torpedo available to defend yourself against any enemy subs that are in the area.


----------



## suffolkowner

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Why?https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/12/17/dutch-walrus-submarine-program-shuffles-forward-but-not-by-much/



It's just my opinion but I don't think they're going to find Naval Group easy to work with. There's also the little problem that they don't have a sub to offer. I think (and again it's just my opinion) that the Swedish and German sub designs are at a much more advanced stage


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> There is a difference, when you think of sub launched missiles you thing of nukes or conventional cruise missiles and a sub can silently approach the coast and launch, offensive in nature. When you think of a VLS for a CSC Anti Aircraft/defensive comes to mind. Canada will never have cruise missiles.



The Navy needs to get out of this mindset that they are some sort of pseudo-constabulary force.  I hear this line of thinking often from Naval Officers regarding "offensive" weapons.  A Harpoon Block II Missile is an offensive weapon that is also capable of land attack.  Our Frigates are already equipped with those.  

Our CSC should seek to build on that capability and Naval Leadership should be aggressively pursuing a Naval Strike capability.  The Balkans, Libya, Iraq/Syria all provide ample CAF examples of where this capability would be incredibly useful and would allow the Navy to make a far greater contribution to CAF Ops.

It's time the Navy get some skin in the game and start contributing to joint ops.  Navy leadership should be saying they want a Naval Strike Capability, they should also be saying they want submarines.

It's very unhelpful when Flag Officers tell a room full of Naval personnel that things like Submarines isn't something the Canadian Navy should be doing.


----------



## Stoker

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The Navy needs to get out of this mindset that they are some sort of pseudo-constabulary force.  I hear this line of thinking often from Naval Officers regarding "offensive" weapons.  A Harpoon Block II Missile is an offensive weapon that is also capable of land attack.  Our Frigates are already equipped with those.
> 
> Our CSC should seek to build on that capability and Naval Leadership should be aggressively pursuing a Naval Strike capability.  The Balkans, Libya, Iraq/Syria all provide ample CAF examples of where this capability would be incredibly useful and would allow the Navy to make a far greater contribution to CAF Ops.
> 
> It's time the Navy get some skin in the game and start contributing to joint ops.  Navy leadership should be saying they want a Naval Strike Capability, they should also be saying they want submarines.
> 
> It's very unhelpful when Flag Officers tell a room full of Naval personnel that things like Submarines isn't something the Canadian Navy should be doing.



Its not the Navy, its the government where over the years the idea of offensive power or any type of power projecting is seen as Uncanadian. To be honest I was surprised to see the offensive capabilities of the CSC.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sadly there will be useful idiots at the top telling said government what it wants to hear to further themselves at the expense of the Service. The government will latch onto them as proof they are right.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Finally, ... VLS look attractive, but in the end cruise missiles (as well as anti-ship ones) can also be fired from torpedo tubes. I don't see that as a great capability increase.



BLUF;  IMO, your observation in yellow above is misguided, but that is (likely) from not being aware of, and appreciating, some important factors.

To that end, here's some information to consider that will (hopefully) provide you with some 'tactical/operational level' points to consider;  how limiting it is to sub, skipper and crew in a combat situation to have to 'pick/chose' what things to fire out torpedo tubes, if other than torpedos, _"weapons make noise, making noise can kill you"_...realities of sub-surface warfare.

This is somewhat dated, and open source *but* still very relevant points to consider.  I've taken some of the discussion from Submarine: A Guided Tour Inside a Nuclear Warship and put it into a PDF file (highlights mine for emphasis) attached below.


Additionally;  when deciding on what 'caps and lims' you're willing to accept, it's often prudent to look at your potential/likely adversaries in the near/middle/distant future...

RFN Yasen Class submarine

RFN Borei Class submarine

People's Liberation Army Navy Submarine Force (PLANSF)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:
			
		

> UK nuclear subs use US technology, and therefore require US approval to transfer to a third nation (such as Canada).



Are they now, though?  I'd certainly agree more with that with the _Swiftsure_ and _Trafalgar_ class boats but...Astute?  I think even more of the "nuclear" system are more "home grown" (I'm not able to recall the open source info on that I'd refer to...).  I'll sleep on it and see if morning coffee helps the mental cob-webs...

I'd agree that 'some' of the tech would be "US"...or "based on".

Regardless, having flown on a few A-boats, I'll say "_I wish we had a few of 'em_"...


----------



## dapaterson

Wikipedia reports that it's the Rolls-Royce PWR ticking away inside the _Astute_ class.

I may have misstated the friction point; the wiki article on the failed 1987 white paper nuclear submarine purchase states that there are provisions in the US/UK Mutual Defence agreement and in a 1959 Canada / US agreement.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I may have misstated the friction point; the wiki article on the failed 1987 white paper nuclear submarine purchase states that there are provisions in the US/UK Mutual Defence agreement and in a 1959 Canada / US agreement.



Check;  I didn't know about those at all; thanks for that.


----------



## Uzlu

> The S5W proved extremely successful.  The British tried to develop their own submarine reactor but lacked sufficient technical manpower; the Magnox civilian power reactors had higher priority.  In negotiations with the U.S. Navy in 1958, Britain was offered the _Skate_ reactor but ended up with the more powerful S5W.  HMS _Dreadnought_, the prototype British SSN, had, in effect, a _Skipjack_ tail welded onto her slightly larger-diameter British front end.  The British believed that they returned the favor by providing the U.S. Navy with the rafting (silencing) technology that proved crucial at just about the same time.  All later British submarine reactors incorporate some S5W technology, although just how much is a matter of dispute.


Source: _U.S. Submarines Since 1945: An Illustrated Design History_, page 127.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Wikipedia reports that it's the Rolls-Royce PWR ticking away inside the _Astute_ class.



Coffee-aided, I think I found the quick discussion on the RN nuc "beginnings", also from _Submarine:  A Guided Tour Inside a Nuclear Submarine_.  Excerpt attached in a PDF.

FWIW, this is the foreword to that book.

Foreword

The transformation of Tom Clancy’s wonderful fictional account of submarining in The Hunt for Red October to the reality of actual modern nuclear submarine capabilities and operations is long overdue. Now he brings a unique account of the nuclear-powered submarine, a vital component of naval power, to the public for the first time. This book explains the world of undersea warfare, from how people live within a steel tube for months at a time, to the many arrows a submarine puts in the quiver of national military power.

Twice in this century submarine warfare has threatened the existence of major powers. Submarines have always been a flexible and adaptable national asset, capable of many roles and missions. The submarines of World War I and II had some inherent stealth and could submerge to conduct attacks, but this property was limited by a lack of sustained power while under the sea’s surface. The advent of nuclear propulsion made the submarine a truly stealthy platform. A so-called stealth aircraft can still be seen by the naked eye. A nuclear powered submarine is truly invisible and not readily detectable. It is the original stealth machine and can remain undetected indefinitely. From this enduring covertness springs the awesome power of the modern submarine. Through the advances of ballistic and cruise missile technology the strategic nuclear deterrence mission and land attack capability have become an integral part of this military power. For decades the principal mission of a submarine has been to sink ships and submarines. Today, the nuclear-powered submarine’s ability to affect events on land is one of its dominant features.

With Tom Clancy as our tour guide, let us view the submarine’s history, its missions, the people and their families, the training, the boat itself with all its compartments and systems, and consider what these can do. If you spend years on the bridge of a submarine, as I have, you will notice how the dolphins that “ride” the crest of the exhilaratingly beautiful bow wave along the tear-shaped submarine hull do so at different positions for different classes or shapes of submarines. Why? I have always wondered. This tour you are about to take will come close to answering such questions, which are inherent to the mystique of a submarine.

I may not agree with all of the points present herein, but I do believe that upon completion of your tour you will understand why the submarine is the only naval platform that combines stealth, surprise, survivability, mobility, and endurance in a single unit. The employment of these characteristics provides a nation with a formidable maritime power, which should be understood by the public.

—Vice Admiral Roger Bacon, USN
Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Undersea Warfare
January 1993


----------



## JMCanada

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Additionally;  when deciding on what 'caps and lims' you're willing to accept, it's often prudent to look at your potential/likely adversaries in the near/middle/distant future...



Thanks a lot for the interesting links. Don't want to dissapoint you, but it's also good to look at what our allies do. Astute, Barracuda (Suffren) or Type 212 don't have VLS fitted, even though they have been launched in the last 20 years, meaning VLS were already fitted in Los Angeles class batch II. Surprisingly, Barracuda is supossed to have only four torpedo tubes (I'd rather ask for 6 at least!).

I agree VLS are nice-to-have, but there are other assets mentioned in your pdf that IMHO are rated fist in my wish-list, I mean, a kind of compromise between wishes and affordability :
- design to allow under-ice operation
- up-to-date combat system
- anechoic coating
- habitability (something that LA class had to sacrifice)

Of course, we may have different perceptions and surely yours is better based, mine is only an amateur's one.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Thanks a lot for the interesting links. Don't want to dissapoint you, but it's also good to look at what our allies do. Astute, Barracuda (Suffren) or Type 212 don't have VLS fitted, even though they have been launched in the last 20 years, meaning VLS were already fitted in Los Angeles class batch Flight II. Surprisingly, Barracuda is supossed to have only four torpedo tubes (I'd rather ask for 6 at least!).



WHY they don't is a good question (I don't know the answer).

Budget restraints?  Doctrine-driven decision to not include?  The RFN and PLANSF are considered to be 'stand alone naval forces' their political masters don't view as ever being part of a coalition?  



> I agree VLS are nice-to-have, but there are other assets mentioned in your pdf that IMHO are rated fist in my wish-list, I mean, a kind of compromise between wishes and affordability :
> - design to allow under-ice operation
> - up-to-date combat system
> - anechoic coating
> - habitability (something that LA class had to sacrifice)
> 
> Of course, we may have different perceptions and surely yours is better based, mine is only an amateur's one.



True.  In my initial reply to your post, I was replying specifically to the "anti-surface and land attack weapons can be launched from torp tubes vs VLS with no real capability change" piece.

Personally, and regrettably, I don't think we will ever see those types of capabilities/weapons in the RCN arsenal.  We (Canada) just don't take our military seriously enough.

**  Habitability;  I've been inside our SSKs...I bet our submariners would love the luxuries that LA crews have/had.  ;D


----------



## Karel Doorman

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Buying just 4-6 Astutes or Suffrens, would be nice especially to patrol the Arctic. The time for such deal is now, for UK/ France to put them in their production line. In one decade they both will end their SSN building program and start with their next generation of SSBNs.
> Purchase should be "off- the-shelf" as much as possible, otherwise the cost would double and delivery would be delayed.
> 
> As for the dutch program... my opinion is that they will finally buy german, not to forget Germany has recently signed a contract with Damen for the MKS 180 frigates.
> https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/06/damen-leading-role-for-german-frigate-project-mks-180/
> 
> Finally, ... VLS look attractive, but in the end cruise missiles (as well as anti-ship ones) can also be fired from torpedo tubes. I don't see that as a great capability increase.



Hmm,could be the case(i don't think so personally), don't forget Damen is the Lead contractor in that build,but the majority/allmost all  of that budget(money)will stay in Germany.

I doubt that Germany will agree to do the same if chosen. :tsktsk:

My thoughts are that Damen/Saab are the frontrunners in this competition,also because the procurement is done the same way in Sweden as it's done in The Netherlands.(will be a big factor,IMO.)

What does that mean?

Here(and in Sweden)Defence,Technological Institutes and Businesses all work,and listen,to each other to get the best possible result(and price)it's called "De Gouden Driehoek"

Roughly translated as "the Golden Triangle" 

That's the reason that we allmost allways get very capable ships a lot cheaper of the cost of other classes(countries),offcourse compare class to class.

And no way Canada is going nuclear,IMO.


----------



## JMCanada

Everybody is now focused on CSC and PBO's report,
... meanwhile in Australia, another mega-project (aus$ 80 Billion for 12 submarines) is also under scrutiny:









						What would it take for Australia to walk away from the French submarine deal? | The Strategist
					

Media reports this week have claimed that Prime Minister Scott Morrison has commissioned a Defence Department review into potential alternatives to the Attack-class submarine. That’s prompted a flurry of speculation about whether the government is ...




					www.aspistrategist.org.au
				




"And that’s where the discussion needs to focus—on the capability. Are we getting the capability we need when we need it, and is it value for money? Many minds are already made up, such as those who believe we should be getting nuclear-powered submarines, or those who believe other approaches offer more capability for less money and/or risk—whether they involve smaller submarines, autonomous systems, long-range strike missiles and aircraft, or combinations of them all."

Someone suggests to opt for the already developed nuclear version of Barracuda.





						Election Winning Sub Deals: Japan Delay or French SSN?
					

A professional level blog on strategic matters, especially submarines (nuclear and conventional) in English, Hindi & most other major languages.




					gentleseas.blogspot.com
				




Then i wonder, ... i'd rather say I dream of a tripartite deal (FRA-AUS-CAN) where submarines could be build in Australia (might some modules be produced in Canada?), maybe six for Oz and six for CAN, Canada being involved in combat and sonar systems (for instance) and refueling the australian units during their life-time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If we had balls and not pretty socks, we could buy French nuclear attack subs as part of their production and make the deal to have them refueled in French facilities. (I feel better exposing my deep fantasises)


----------



## Czech_pivo

We’d have to jump through all the same hoops that we tried to jump through in the 90’s under Mulroney in convincing the Americans to allow the French to sell to us. At least this time we’d have the Australians to hold hands with


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don't think the French are under the same restraints as UK would. I also don't think the US now would put up such a resistance to Canada stepping up it's game. Nuke subs, new AORs and a bunch of Type 26's would make for a potent force


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Czech_pivo said:


> We’d have to jump through all the same hoops that we tried to jump through in the 90’s under Mulroney in convincing the Americans to allow the French to sell to us. At least this time we’d have the Australians to hold hands with


No- the French do not use US technology in their reactors. The US might object to us obtaining SSNs, but not on grounds of CTAT.


----------



## Czech_pivo

SeaKingTacco said:


> No- the French do not use US technology in their reactors. The US might object to us obtaining SSNs, but not on grounds of CTAT.


Thanks for clarifying!
SSN makes the most sense for us to patrol the Arctic.... sadly I doubt we’d ever go that route, we’d rather abdicate our sovereignty to the US and the UK on this issue.


----------



## JMCanada

Colin Parkinson said:


> If we had balls and not pretty socks, we could buy French nuclear attack subs as part of their production and make the deal to have them refueled in French facilities. (I feel better exposing my deep fantasises)


Why having them refueled in French facilities?
Australia needs that because they don't have  inland nuclear plants, but Canada has a significant nuclear industry and expertise. Just need a bit of technology transfer and training to put hands on a submarine (at least I think so).


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> I don't think the French are under the same restraints as UK would. I also don't think the US now would put up such a resistance to Canada stepping up it's game. Nuke subs, new AORs and a bunch of Type 26's would make for a potent force


I think we missed an opportunity when Trump was calling us out on defence expenditures. That would've been an ideal time to make a play for SSN's built in the US. It would have been winners all around...We get something capable of under ice patrol, impress NATO/US with a funding and capability boost and he gets to tell the world he made a major sale.


----------



## stoker dave

JMCanada said:


> Canada has a significant nuclear industry and expertise. Just need a bit of technology transfer and training to put hands on a submarine (at least I think so).


Yes, you are correct on the nuclear industry and experience.

As I have said before, what is lacking is the necessary 'culture' to safely operate nuclear reactors at sea.  It requires a fundamental change in philosophy - by everyone and all ranks.  For example, strict compliance with written procedures is required at all times.  I don't think the Navy currently operates that way.   Without that extreme culture of compliance, accidents are possible and indeed foreseen.  There are no shortcuts.  The CO cannot order someone to violate procedures (indeed, no one can direct someone else to violate a documented procedure except in case of extreme emergency).  It is by the book all the time every time.  And the documented procedures are EXTREMELY prescriptive.  They cover every single step of every operation.  Orders of magnitude more procedures than currently exist.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

stoker dave said:


> Yes, you are correct on the nuclear industry and experience.
> 
> As I have said before, what is lacking is the necessary 'culture' to safely operate nuclear reactors at sea.  It requires a fundamental change in philosophy - by everyone and all ranks.  For example, strict compliance with written procedures is required at all times.  I don't think the Navy currently operates that way.   Without that extreme culture of compliance, accidents are possible and indeed foreseen.  There are no shortcuts.  The CO cannot order someone to violate procedures (indeed, no one can direct someone else to violate a documented procedure except in case of extreme emergency).  It is by the book all the time every time.  And the documented procedures are EXTREMELY prescriptive.  They cover every single step of every operation.  Orders of magnitude more procedures than currently exist.


True, but in my experience with the RCN, the submariners are actually closer to that culture than the surface fleet is. This pretty hypothetical, since the political class and punditariat in Canada would never in a million years go for SSNs.

The surface fleet, is in a word, shambolic, at putting ships to sea that are in no engineering state ready to be at sea. I have personally lived very bad things happening because nobody wanted to give the stokers either time or money to do PM. I have seen rules ignored, because they are inconvenient, even though those rules were written in blood (and then shock, anger and pouting when the RCN Chain of Command gets called on it).

It is sad, because when I first started sailing, I thought the Navy actually had pretty high standards of Engineering readiness. It has definitely slipped over the decades.


----------



## CBH99

Swampbuggy said:


> I think we missed an opportunity when Trump was calling us out on defence expenditures. That would've been an ideal time to make a play for SSN's built in the US. It would have been winners all around...We get something capable of under ice patrol, impress NATO/US with a funding and capability boost and he gets to tell the world he made a major sale.


I think you are probably right, and it could have applied to more than just subs.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> True, but in my experience with the RCN, the submariners are actually closer to that culture than the surface fleet is. This pretty hypothetical, since the political class and punditariat in Canada would never in a million years go for SSNs.
> 
> The surface fleet, is in a word, shambolic, at putting ships to sea that are in no engineering state ready to be at sea. I have personally lived very bad things happening because nobody wanted to give the stokers either time or money to do PM. I have seen rules ignored, because they are inconvenient, even though those rules were written in blood (and then shock, anger and pouting when the RCN Chain of Command gets called on it).
> 
> It is sad, because when I first started sailing, I thought the Navy actually had pretty high standards of Engineering readiness. It has definitely slipped over the decades.



That is the most accurate post about RCN operational culture I have ever seen.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Halifax Tar said:


> That is the most accurate post about RCN operational culture I have ever seen.


And to be clear- handing absolute control to when/if a ship sails to the Engineers is no solution either, as risk adversion would demand “perfect” (there is no such thing as perfect in complex machines).

There has to be a realistic balance between the operators and the maintainers. Right now, the balance is skewed heavily to the operators having the hammer and it shows. An aviation anology would be that aircrew are allowed to go onto the hangar floor, pick an airframe and go flying regardless of the state of maintenance.

None of this much has to do with submarines specifically, except the leadership of the RCN, if they expect to be entrusted with expensive machines and the lives of sailors, had better start knowing and enforcing rules around engineering readiness and had better doing actual risk assessments before sailing a ship with known defects. If they need to learn how, they can ask the RCAF. The Air Force is not without faults, but deliberately and knowing flying a non-airworthy airframe is not one of those faults.


----------



## Halifax Tar

SeaKingTacco said:


> And to be clear- handing absolute control to when/if a ship sails to the Engineers is no solution either, as risk adversion would demand “perfect” (there is no such thing as perfect in complex machines).
> 
> There has to be a realistic balance between the operators and the maintainers. Right now, the balance is skewed heavily to the operators having the hammer and it shows. An aviation anology would be that aircrew are allowed to go onto the hangar floor, pick an airframe and go flying regardless of the state of maintenance.
> 
> None of this much has to do with submarines specifically, except the leadership of the RCN, if they expect to be entrusted with expensive machines and the lives of sailors, had better start knowing and enforcing rules around engineering readiness and had better doing actual risk assessments before sailing a ship with known defects. If they need to learn how, they can ask the RCAF. The Air Force is not without faults, but deliberately and knowing flying a non-airworthy airframe is not one of those faults.


Agreed.  Operations, Engineering and Logistics all need to be equal players at the table.


----------



## stoker dave

SeaKingTacco said:


> And to be clear- handing absolute control to when/if a ship sails to the Engineers is no solution either, as risk adversion would demand “perfect” (there is no such thing as perfect in complex machines).


Thanks, Mr Tacco, you make some valid points.    

However, I would point out that with a nuclear powered vessel, the engineering staff does not get to choose when the ship sails.  If the documented and approved procedures say the ship can sail, it can sail.  If the procedures say it can't, it can't. 

These procedures will have been EXTENSIVELY developed and reviewed.  Operators will be extensively trained on them in classrooms, simulators and shore facilities.  If something in those procedures stops the process for getting ready for sea, the process stops.  End of story.  Again - no one can 'over ride' the procedure.  

The US Navy has an incredibly good history of operating nuclear reactors - much better than the civilian power reactors.  That record is based on a very strict culture.    I have worked with quite a number of former US Navy nuke guys and they are all 'cut from the same cloth'.  

Here is an example:  the startup procedure for the reactor instructs the operator to press the RED button.  During a recent refit, the supply department was out of RED buttons so they installed a PURPLE button.  The buttons are exactly alike in every way except the colour.  Guess what?  That ship is NOT sailing until either the button is replaced or someone at an admiral level approves the change in the procedure.   And that is how operations, engineering, supply, support, etc. all have to work together.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

That is precisely how airworthiness works. If it ain’t exactly the same part, a deviation must be put in place. No exceptions.


----------



## stoker dave

SeaKingTacco said:


> That is precisely how airworthiness works. If it ain’t exactly the same part, a deviation must be put in place. No exceptions.


Thanks.  I think we agree on this.  

So here is the test:  when an air force general orders planes to fly and is told they can't due to air worthiness issues, what is his/her response?

If an admiral orders a ship to sea and is told they can't because of seaworthiness (something like the red/purple button above), what is his/her response?   

A.  Procedural compliance is the mechanism by which we assure the safety of our sailors / airmen (air women?) and please expedite remediation of this situation as quickly as possible. 

B.  In order to meet operational commitments, get operational and deploy NOW.


----------



## Good2Golf

stoker dave said:


> Thanks.  I think we agree on this.
> 
> So here is the test:  when an air force general orders planes to fly and is told they can't due to air worthiness issues, what is his/her response?
> 
> If an admiral orders a ship to sea and is told they can't because of seaworthiness (something like the red/purple button above), what is his/her response?
> 
> A.  Procedural compliance is the mechanism by which we assure the safety of our sailors / airmen (air women?) and please expedite remediation of this situation as quickly as possible.
> 
> B.  In order to meet operational commitments, get operational and deploy NOW.


The RCAF has a specifically codified set of regulations that very strictly control when an aircraft can be flown in what would be considered an unserviceable state.  It has minimum levels to which flight authorization can be delegated, usually formation or division auth required.  So the answer isn’t ‘never’ but it is very well understood by all, what the regulations are and procedure to follow.


----------



## dapaterson

Much as it pains me to admit it and say anything nice about the Light Blue folks, the RCAF flight safety program is well designed and inculcates a genuine safety culture that the RCN and CA would be smart to emulate.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dapaterson said:


> Much as it pains me to admit it and say anything nice about the Light Blue folks, the RCAF flight safety program is well designed and inculcates a genuine safety culture that the RCN and CA would be smart to emulate.



So, like, throwing a grenade to (hopefully) detonate another (blind) grenade, or the equivalent, wouldn't make it into the RCAF safety manual?


----------



## dapaterson

RCAF would actually investigate to figure out why there was the blind - is there an issue with the batch of detonators? Were personnel properly trained? Were the conditions of the training area appropriate?

You know, all those factors which may contribute to the problem would be assessed, and the results would be widely promulgated so others will not make the same errors again.


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> So, like, throwing a grenade to (hopefully) detonate another (blind) grenade, or the equivalent, wouldn't make it into the RCAF safety manual?


Well that seems to work - why wouldn't we do that?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

OldSolduer said:


> Well that seems to work - why wouldn't we do that?


There is no reason that both the Army and Navy cannot adopt/adapt their versions of flight safety to each environment. It is not rocket surgery.


----------



## childs56

SeaKingTacco said:


> There is no reason that both the Army and Navy cannot adopt/adapt their versions of flight safety to each environment. It is not rocket surgery.


Except the army would never do anything if they had to investigate every mishap like the Airforce does.  No body moves, no body gets hurt.


----------



## MilEME09

childs56 said:


> Except the army would never do anything if they had to investigate every mishap like the Airforce does.  No body moves, no body gets hurt.


Isn't that why RCEME gets 6 coffee breaks a day plus lunch?


----------



## CBH99

That's a good question Stoker, and one that you are probably more qualified to answer than most on here.  (Although there are a few of you who are quite the experienced Navy folks.)  

I'd be curious to hear your answer about the admiral ordering a ship to sea -- and an answer from an Air Force type about the air force general


----------



## dapaterson

childs56 said:


> Except the army would never do anything if they had to investigate every mishap like the Airforce does.  No body moves, no body gets hurt.


The Army approach: A vehicle rolls.  Passengers in back are injured - some sent to hospital.  Investigation: The driver - staff on a course - fell asleep.  Stupid corporal, unavoidable accident.

But why did the driver fall asleep? Because he wasn't given adequate time to rest. Why wasn't he given the time to rest that CAF directives require? Because leadership (Sgt and Lt) of the course didn't think they had to follow the rules.

So it was in fact avoidable, there was in fact misconduct, and it wasn't a Stupid Corporal situation - it was a bad leadership situation.

But the Army would never admit to that, so the official MSE accident report blames it all on the Corporal.


----------



## Good2Golf

The difference between a blame-based vs cause-based investigatory mind-set.  One actually does seek to learn lessons often learned in blood, vice just talking about lessons learned (aka recorded)...


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:


> The Army approach: A vehicle rolls.  Passengers in back are injured - some sent to hospital.  Investigation: The driver - staff on a course - fell asleep.  Stupid corporal, unavoidable accident.
> 
> But why did the driver fall asleep? Because he wasn't given adequate time to rest. Why wasn't he given the time to rest that CAF directives require? Because leadership (Sgt and Lt) of the course didn't think they had to follow the rules.
> 
> So it was in fact avoidable, there was in fact misconduct, and it wasn't a Stupid Corporal situation - it was a bad leadership situation.
> 
> But the Army would never admit to that, so the official MSE accident report blames it all on the Corporal.


You're absolutely correct - the Army always had to find someone to blame vice fix the problem.

August 1993 Croatia: one of our corporals was crushed between two MLVWs. The parking brake failed, the marshalling area was on a hill, the front ML rolled back and pinned the corporal. He did not survive.

The tech - a corporal -  that inspected the vehicle determined that "someone's gonna hang over this one".


----------



## YZT580

This points out the main reason why TC went to a no fault system for reporting incidents in aviation.  It allowed those involved to report system errors and their own incidentally without fear of repercussion.  Probably, no definitely, prevented a lot of  fatal flaws from actually becoming lethal.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Also MTU engine rebuild facility in Richmond has a policy of not punishing mistakes that are admitted right away, so if a tech forgets a part of the very strict procedure and process, they are safe to report it. However lying, covering up the mistake or not reporting a known mistake is instant dismissal.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Also MTU engine rebuild facility in Richmond has a policy of not punishing mistakes that are admitted right away, so if a tech forgets a part of the very strict procedure and process, they are safe to report it. However lying, covering up the mistake or not reporting a known mistake is instant dismissal.


"Research shows that the climate of an organization influences an individual's contribution far more than the individual himself. 

"Wherever there is fear you will get wrong figures."

W. Edwards Deming


----------



## SeaKingTacco

OldSolduer said:


> You're absolutely correct - the Army always had to find someone to blame vice fix the problem.
> 
> August 1993 Croatia: one of our corporals was crushed between two MLVWs. The parking brake failed, the marshalling area was on a hill, the front ML rolled back and pinned the corporal. He did not survive.
> 
> The tech - a corporal -  that inspected the vehicle determined that "someone's gonna hang over this one".


That is exactly what we don’t do in the RCAF- hang people. You are personally accountable for your actions in aviation and are expected to own up to your own mistakes. As long as you have not deliberately and willfully broken regulations, no harm will come to you. Any conversation you have in a flight safety investigation is protected by law and that has been upheld at the Supreme Court level.


----------



## YZT580

SeaKingTacco said:


> That is exactly what we don’t do in the RCAF- hang people. You are personally accountable for your actions in aviation and are expected to own up to your own mistakes. As long as you have not deliberately and willfully broken regulations, no harm will come to you. Any conversation you have in a flight safety investigation is protected by law and that has been upheld at the Supreme Court level.


Very true.  Co-chaired a number of fact finding boards: only discipline ever handed out was a suspension for lying to the board.


----------



## JMCanada

Let me bring in an article about nuclear boats from the aussies.









						Nuclear submarines could lead to nuclear power for Australia | The Strategist
					

In Adelaide’s The Advertiser newspaper on 7 March, former defence minister Christopher Pyne said, ‘Then there is the nonsensical argument that the Attack Class submarines are no good because they aren’t nuclear. Almost all of ...




					www.aspistrategist.org.au
				




While it seems clear the purpose to "make a call" for the conference (at the very end of the article), it's also true that, as said in there "Diesel submarines have been around for about 120 years and nuclear submarines have been around for about 65 years, so neither form represents new technology."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile in Europe








						France cuts two nuclear-powered submarines in half to make one new one | CNN
					

A French nuclear-powered submarine severely damaged by fire last year has been saved from the scrapyard -- by cutting it in two and welding the salvageable half to part of another decommissioned sub.




					www.cnn.com


----------



## Dale Denton

I wonder how the damage to Corner Brook has moved up the high-level meeting to discuss the future of RCNs sub service. I'm sure it's an easy $20Bish bill to avoid while deciding about the $120B+ Fighter and CSC bills too. 

Should be reaching out to the US for reduced-VLS/strike capability and refurbished LA Class SNNs.  Could leverage the new $2T US New Deal economic plan to boost programs that would better Canadian Industry or transport infrastructure too. That would equate to IRBs from US contractors. Leverage existing global US LA/Virginia Class infrastructure, industrial capacity and 49 years of exp on the platform. "New page in post-trump US-Canada relations..."

Hard to imagine trying to guestimate the cost of a build-in-Canada capability for just 4-6 expensive ships. Can't be easy for other nations to promote an OTS SSK or SNN design that would return $$$ to Canadian companies, or compete with a US proposal.


----------



## Dale Denton

Another thought would be if we did get rid of a sub-surface capability and instead boosted another capability, what would even come close???

1) A large order for P8s for the RCAF?
2) An all-in approach on XLUUV development or Five-Eye collab on existing projects?
3) Expeditionary/Amphibious capability (1 or 2 LPD/LPH)?
4) Intact or slightly larger Fighter replacement (120+ aircraft)?
5) Intact or slightly larger CSC order? (18 CSCs or two new 2 destroyers)?
6) Half-mashed up mix of the above.


----------



## CBH99

LoboCanada said:


> Another thought would be if we did get rid of a sub-surface capability and instead boosted another capability, what would even come close???
> 
> 1) A large order for P8s for the RCAF?
> 2) An all-in approach on XLUUV development or Five-Eye collab on existing projects?
> 3) Expeditionary/Amphibious capability (1 or 2 LPD/LPH)?
> 4) Intact or slightly larger Fighter replacement (120+ aircraft)?
> 5) Intact or slightly larger CSC order? (18 CSCs or two new 2 destroyers)?
> 6) Half-mashed up mix of the above.


IF we cut our subsurface capability and replaced with an enhanced capability from the above list - personnel problems would still remain.  

IF the government was smart, they would realize the small crew & fairly affordable operating costs of a sub is probably the cheapest out of all of those options.  (I say operating costs for a submarine fleet conducting routine operations and maintenance -- our current class hasn't been a great example of this with repairs, overhauls, lengthy upgrades, then more repairs, etc etc.)

BUT... playing with the list above...


I would say a full replacement of P8's, to replace the Auroras.  Fix the input issues in regards to pilot training, perhaps look at modifications to recruiting standards (I'm not suggesting lowering standards) - and I imagine we can find enough folks to fly & operate a solid fleet of P8's, especially if they are replacing aircraft currently in service.

A larger CSC order could be good too, as it would give us some depth in regards to international committments.  (Let's forget manning them for now, for the sake of this topic.)


If the next government just purchases 4 to 6 conventionally powered subs from a proven submarine manufacturer, it really shouldn't be that big of a deal.  Not any more expensive than the CSC, less crew, and operating costs would be pretty nominal since we aren't essentially rebuilding the hulls.  

0.02


----------



## OldSolduer

“If the government was smart”

That sums it up quite nicely.


----------



## stoker dave

Per today's Globe and Mail:   "Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland is set to unveil a pandemic budget that includes an extension of wage and rent subsidies through to September, $100-billion of new stimulus money for housing, transit and green technology, and sets the stage for a national $10-a-day child-care program.......Ms. Freeland’s Fall Economic Statement revealed how the pandemic has altered those forecasts dramatically. That document estimated that the 2020-21 deficit could approach $400-billion, followed by deficits of $121-billion and $51-billion."

Do you see money for defence spending in that?


----------



## dapaterson

Based on just those few lines and the pandemic, I can immediately think of three areas of interest to Defence:


Stimulus for green infra - as DND is the biggest landowner with the biggest real property portfolio in the Government.

Child care - expansion of what MFRCs offer / new model ?

Pandemic preparedness - invest in stockpiles of medicines and equipment, both PHAC and DND.  Also possibility of investment in new facility / facilities to replace CMED in Petawawa, likely in conjunction with PHAC.


----------



## Good2Golf

You know it’s called ‘virtue signaling’ not ‘concrete signaling” right? 😉


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBH99 said:


> I would say a full replacement of P8's, to replace the Auroras. Fix the input issues in regards to pilot training, perhaps look at modifications to recruiting standards (I'm not suggesting lowering standards) - and I imagine we can find enough folks to fly & operate a solid fleet of P8's, especially if they are replacing aircraft currently in service.



Just to note...ASW aircraft are not a great replacement for replacing a capility that submarines bring.  The best piece of ASW kit is a serviceable sub, with a well-trained and motivated crew.  Small as it is, I am a full supporter of maintaining a submarine service inside the RCN.  The UK let their MPA fleet go...and it was a huge mistake.  I think we'd make a similar mistake to let our submarine fleet go.

Block 4 Aurora is just starting to flush out.  I think  you'll see those airframes burning thru YFR until at least 2035.  As the MH, Fighter, etc etc have shown us...that date is probably generous.  I am CRA in 2030...I wouldn't be surprised if I'm 70 when they fly the last 140 mission.

I'd say we'll be in a good position to start purchasing used P8s when we replace the Aurora.


----------



## CBH99

Eye In The Sky said:


> Just to note...ASW aircraft are not a great replacement for replacing a capility that submarines bring.  The best piece of ASW kit is a serviceable sub, with a well-trained and motivated crew.  Small as it is, I am a full supporter of maintaining a submarine service inside the RCN.  The UK let their MPA fleet go...and it was a huge mistake.  I think we'd make a similar mistake to let our submarine fleet go.
> 
> Block 4 Aurora is just starting to flush out.  I think  you'll see those airframes burning thru YFR until at least 2035.  As the MH, Fighter, etc etc have shown us...that date is probably generous.  I am CRA in 2030...I wouldn't be surprised if I'm 70 when they fly the last 140 mission.
> 
> I'd say we'll be in a good position to start purchasing used P8s when we replace the Aurora.


I am actually - not kidding - making an effort to avoid reality today.  <Closing my eyes and plugging my ears, singing to myself as I walk out of the room>  😅 

I hate the fact that you are probably right!


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:


> Just to note...ASW aircraft are not a great replacement for replacing a capility that submarines bring.  The best piece of ASW kit is a serviceable sub, with a well-trained and motivated crew.  Small as it is, I am a full supporter of maintaining a submarine service inside the RCN.  The UK let their MPA fleet go...and it was a huge mistake.  I think we'd make a similar mistake to let our submarine fleet go.
> 
> Block 4 Aurora is just starting to flush out.  I think  you'll see those airframes burning thru YFR until at least 2035.  As the MH, Fighter, etc etc have shown us...that date is probably generous.  I am CRA in 2030...I wouldn't be surprised if I'm 70 when they fly the last 140 mission.
> 
> I'd say we'll be in a good position to start purchasing used P8s when we replace the Aurora.


If only people understood the ranges, weapons and ISR capabilities of submarines vs surface ships, they might be more convinced.  All I can say is when the next shooting war begins, a modern submarine will be by far the safest place to be on the ocean.   Our Frigates will be sunk to the bottom before they even detected the bloody things.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

By people, do you mean political leadership?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Humphrey Bogart said:


> If only people understood the ranges, weapons and ISR capabilities of submarines vs surface ships, they might be more convinced.  All I can say is when the next shooting war begins, a modern submarine will be by far the safest place to be on the ocean.   Our Frigates will be sunk to the bottom before they even detected the bloody things.


Counterpoint, our frigates may sink to the bottom of the ocean on their own regardless of the geopolitical situation, so they may inadvertently take out a sub by being an unmarked hazard to navigation.

Don't worry though, they have wifi, satelite tv and modernized weapons suite, so they will look sexy AF in the process. Structural integrity and sound mechanical systems are for losers!


----------



## dimsum

Navy_Pete said:


> Don't worry though, they have wifi, satelite tv and modernized weapons suite, so they will look sexy AF in the process. Structural integrity and sound mechanical systems are for losers


Facebook, float, move, fight


----------



## stoker dave

Humphrey Bogart said:


> when the next shooting war begins,


I think the last shooting war was against a bunch of guys who didn't even own socks (to quote Dunesbury). 

Legitimate question:  do you see the next shooting war involving a major power or some impoverished developing country?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

stoker dave said:


> I think the last shooting war was against a bunch of guys who didn't even own socks (to quote Dunesbury).
> 
> Legitimate question:  do you see the next shooting war involving a major power or some impoverished developing country?


Impossible to say.  One thing I do think is that most/all of our tactics will probably be invalidated to a degree.  

The big revolutions I see in Naval Warfare are going to come via automation.  Right now Ships Combat Management Systems can basically fight themselves and the humans who press the buttons, more often then not, inject error in to the decision-making cycle and slow it down.

Any future Naval Action will be extremely quick and violent.  It will also not play out how we imagined.  This isn't new either and has been a factor in every Naval Engagement since the Age of Sail.  

In both WWI and WWII none of the different classes of Ships ended up being used in the capacities they were originally designed for.


----------



## MTShaw

stoker dave said:


> I think the last shooting war was against a bunch of guys who didn't even own socks (to quote Dunesbury).
> 
> Legitimate question:  do you see the next shooting war involving a major power or some impoverished developing country?


It will likely be about oil and minerals, as always.


----------



## Underway

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The big revolutions I see in Naval Warfare are going to come via automation.  Right now Ships Combat Management Systems can basically fight themselves and the humans who press the buttons, more often then not, inject error in to the decision-making cycle and slow it down.
> 
> Any future Naval Action will be extremely quick and violent.  It will also not play out how we imagined.  This isn't new either and has been a factor in every Naval Engagement since the Age of Sail.



Totally agree. Modern naval warfare moves fast.  In an environment where you are essentially tracking and shooting down each other's bullets speed is important.

Naval warfare is very much a come as you are situation.  This is why you see navies focus on flexible GP classes, the Arleigh Burke being the most common.  A loadout change for its VLS and a different helicopter/UAS embarked can completely change its role in a war.


----------



## CBH99

stoker dave said:


> I think the last shooting war was against a bunch of guys who didn't even own socks (to quote Dunesbury).
> 
> Legitimate question:  do you see the next shooting war involving a major power or some impoverished developing country?


I think the next shooting level war many western countries will find themselves dragged into, whether they want to be or not, will be some sort of showdown, game of chicken, or extremely violent but limited engagement in the SCS, against China.  Whether it is their large and well armed coast guard taking advantage of the new powers granted to it, resource conflicts such as oil or fishing, the PLA(N) arresting civilians during those disputes, illegally (for example, arresting Filipino or Japanese fishermen if there is a conflict over fishing rights) - or worst case scenario, they decide to invade Taiwan.

The smaller COIN operations & such happening now are much fewer in number now that Iraq and Afghanistan have both mostly wound down, and nobody from the west wants to get involved in any regional African problems.  These are very much operations of choice.


Next big shooting war, outside of the usual Middle East nonsense?  (SF against ISIS, SF against Taliban, etc) -- I'm thinking China.  I'm thinking it's a matter of when, not if.


----------



## Underway

CBH99 said:


> I think the next shooting level war many western countries will find themselves dragged into, whether they want to be or not, will be some sort of showdown, game of chicken, or extremely violent but limited engagement in the SCS, against China.  Whether it is their large and well armed coast guard taking advantage of the new powers granted to it, resource conflicts such as oil or fishing, the PLA(N) arresting civilians during those disputes, illegally (for example, arresting Filipino or Japanese fishermen if there is a conflict over fishing rights) - or worst case scenario, they decide to invade Taiwan.
> 
> The smaller COIN operations & such happening now are much fewer in number now that Iraq and Afghanistan have both mostly wound down, and nobody from the west wants to get involved in any regional African problems.  These are very much operations of choice.
> 
> 
> Next big shooting war, outside of the usual Middle East nonsense?  (SF against ISIS, SF against Taliban, etc) -- I'm thinking China.  I'm thinking it's a matter of when, not if.


China vs Japan is stewing.  I vote in favour of the Japanese.  Their navy smacks.  We always forget it but it could likely defeat the PLAN on its own.


----------



## CBH99

Underway said:


> China vs Japan is stewing.  I vote in favour of the Japanese.  Their navy smacks.  We always forget it but it could likely defeat the PLAN on its own.


I would actually totally agree with you.

I 'quite arrogantly' immediately thought of 'what is the next shooting war we, as in the west, will be involved in?'

The Japanese really are formidable and an ally we often don't think much about, but who's capabilites are very impressive indeed.  


With the sheer size of the Chinese navy, and their rapid modernization of ships, numerous submarines, etc etc -- it would be one hell of a fight.  I'm obviously rooting for the Japanese, but like Stalin said - quantity has a quality all it's own.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Underway said:


> China vs Japan is stewing.  I vote in favour of the Japanese.  Their navy smacks.  We always forget it but it could likely defeat the PLAN on its own.


They are also incredibly professional.  More pusser than us, that's for sure.


----------



## MilEME09

Humphrey Bogart said:


> They are also incredibly professional.  More pusser than us, that's for sure.


They also have the advantage of shore based anti ship missiles, anti air, and strike craft that can engage the Chinese navy in its own back yard.


----------



## blacktriangle

Underway said:


> Totally agree. Modern naval warfare moves fast.  In an environment where you are essentially tracking and shooting down each other's bullets speed is important.
> 
> Naval warfare is very much a come as you are situation.  This is why you see navies focus on flexible GP classes, the Arleigh Burke being the most common.  A loadout change for its VLS and a different helicopter/UAS embarked can completely change its role in a war.


I wonder, if naval warfare were to take place in 2021, what would the biggest lessons learned be? Would we keep designing ships and structuring fleets as we do now? Or perhaps smaller, but more numerous vessels? More nuclear powered vessels to support energy requirements of future capabilities? More emphasis on subs and other underwater systems?

Subs...it seems like their entire weapons loadout (or most of it) would be capable of offensive action. Not to mention utility in ASW, or as an ISR asset. In contrast, at least to me, it looks like a modern surface vessel dedicates much of its capabilities to defending itself and its surrounding vessels. So shouldn't a military want more subs, and fewer surface vessels?


----------



## Underway

reveng said:


> I wonder, if naval warfare were to take place in 2021, what would the biggest lessons learned be? Would we keep designing ships and structuring fleets as we do now? Or perhaps smaller, but more numerous vessels? More nuclear powered vessels to support energy requirements of future capabilities? More emphasis on subs and other underwater systems?
> 
> Subs...it seems like their entire weapons loadout (or most of it) would be capable of offensive action. Not to mention utility in ASW, or as an ISR asset. In contrast, at least to me, it looks like a modern surface vessel dedicates much of its capabilities to defending itself and its surrounding vessels. So shouldn't a military want more subs, and fewer surface vessels?


Probably needs to be put into a new thread.  If you start it, I will join in and speculate with you.


----------



## blacktriangle

Underway said:


> Probably needs to be put into a new thread.  If you start it, I will join in and speculate with you.


Sounds good, I'll try to put something up later if no one beats me to it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

reveng said:


> I wonder, if naval warfare were to take place in 2021, what would the biggest lessons learned be? Would we keep designing ships and structuring fleets as we do now? Or perhaps smaller, but more numerous vessels? More nuclear powered vessels to support energy requirements of future capabilities? More emphasis on subs and other underwater systems?
> 
> Subs...it seems like their entire weapons loadout (or most of it) would be capable of offensive action. Not to mention utility in ASW, or as an ISR asset. In contrast, at least to me, it looks like a modern surface vessel dedicates much of its capabilities to defending itself and its surrounding vessels. So shouldn't a military want more subs, and fewer surface vessels?


It will be a short war with a lot of ships sunk on both sides and the rest heading back to port as everyone is out of missiles and there will be no reloads waiting for them. Then the subs have a field day as they will have at least one set of reloads per sub.


----------



## CBH99

reveng said:


> I wonder, if naval warfare were to take place in 2021, what would the biggest lessons learned be? Would we keep designing ships and structuring fleets as we do now? Or perhaps smaller, but more numerous vessels? More nuclear powered vessels to support energy requirements of future capabilities? More emphasis on subs and other underwater systems?
> 
> Subs...it seems like their entire weapons loadout (or most of it) would be capable of offensive action. Not to mention utility in ASW, or as an ISR asset. In contrast, at least to me, it looks like a modern surface vessel dedicates much of its capabilities to defending itself and its surrounding vessels. So shouldn't a military want more subs, and fewer surface vessels?


I'll wait until the new thread is posted before getting too much into it -- fantastic question for discussion btw, Reveng.  

I've learned over the past year or so of following the various shipbuilding threads how little I knew about shipbuilding.  As an Alberta guy, I can honestly say I hadn't given it much thought beyond the extreme basics of 'buying domestic vs buying foreign', and the cost difference between those.  I can openly and humbly say, I didn't know anything about shipbuilding - and despite a year of eagerly reading and doing some interesting Youtube searches, probably don't know anything worth mentioning.

I imagine the same is going to apply to this question/thread


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think next Apr 1st I will dress up in a Naval Officers uniform and go to the Esquimalt Canadian tire and ask for 500 lead acid batteries for our sub. That should be good for a laugh...


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin Parkinson said:


> I think next Apr 1st I will dress up in a Naval Officers uniform and go to the Esquimalt Canadian tire and ask for 500 lead acid batteries for our sub. That should be good for a laugh...


Lt Commander Blimp reporting for duty?


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> I think next Apr 1st I will dress up in a Naval Officers uniform and go to the Esquimalt Canadian tire and ask for 500 lead acid batteries for our sub. That should be good for a laugh...


Go the


OldSolduer said:


> *Lt Commander Blimp reporting for duty?*


Nope. Go the full Jed Clampett..






Starts at 10:40


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting look at the new South Korean sub tech









						South Korea's KSS-III Batch 2 Submarine to Feature both AIP and Li-Ion Batteries - Naval News
					

Hyundai Heavy Industries (HHI) is currently building the third submarine of the KSS-III Batch 1 project in partnership with Daewoo Shipbuilding Maritime Engineering (DSME) Naval News learned at MADEX 2021 in Busan, South Korea.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## YZT580

Wonder if they have a friendly supplier for the batteries or if the raw material is sourced from China?  Could be very problematic.


----------



## daftandbarmy

One for showing, one for blowing, and one for a lady in distress 


Canadian navy aims to have 3 submarines at sea by end of 2021​ 
For the first time in seven years, the Canadian navy expects to have three of its four submarines operating simultaneously by the end of 2021.

The achievement would mark the realization of a plan that was scuttled last year by faulty maintenance work and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The commander of the Canadian submarine force says the success of the plan depends largely on HMCS Corner Brook. The sub left dry dock in Victoria on June 13, following years of repairs and upgrades since running aground off Vancouver Island in 2011.

The sub was supposed to return to service last summer but its re-entry was delayed by a year after a maintenance contractor caused significant damage to one of its main ballast tanks.

The Corner Brook is now set to undergo a series of in-water tests, ideally culminating in a camber dive this fall and sea trials before the year is out.

Upon its return to service, the Corner Brook will join two other submarines – HMCS Victoria and HMCS Windsor – that were supposed to return to operations early last year but were instead tied up when maintenance work was stalled amid the pandemic.

HMCS Victoria eventually returned to the waters of B.C. last September, followed six months later by HMCS Windsor in Halifax.

If all goes according to plan, the end of 2021 will be first time Canada has had three subs in service simultaneously since 2014, according to Maritime Forces Pacific spokesperson Capt. Chelsea Dubeau.

The overlap in operating schedules will be short-lived, however. HMCS Victoria is slated to begin several years of maintenance work next summer after spending less than two years in the water.

The rigorous maintenance schedule underscores one of the main criticisms of Canada’s 40-year-old submarines, which have spent more time in repairs than in the water since they were bought second-hand from Britain in 1998.

“What one must understand is that a submarine – by design with the maintenance model – is only available approximately 50 per cent of the time,” says submarine force commander Capt. Jean Stéphane Oullet. “We’re making great strides right now to having three submarines back to operations by the end of the year.”

The fourth submarine, HMCS Chicoutimi, is currently in dry dock, where it will remain into 2023.

TESTING UNDERWAY ON NEW TORPEDO​ 
As the submarines cycle through the maintenance and modernization work necessary to extend their life into the mid-2030s, they are each being equipped with new sonar, communications and torpedo capabilities.

A new heavyweight torpedo – the Mark 48 Mod 7 – was first sought by the sub force in 2011, according to the U.S. Defence Security Cooperation Agency, the office in Washington that clears large foreign military sales.

“We’re just starting to receive those weapons right now,” says Oullet. “The first time that we’re going to be firing from a submarine will be in 2022.”

HMCS Windsor has been selected to test-fire the new torpedo off the East Coast next summer before the sub-sea weapon is eventually rolled out across the fleet. The Mod 7 torpedo, a conversion of the navy’s current Mod 4 weapon, is now being test-fired from a barge in Nanoose Bay, B.C.

“The main thing is that we went from an analog weapon to a digital weapon,” Oullet says. “I can’t get into the details of what the new weapon provides us but it’s an increase in capability.”

The subs are also gaining the capability to better detect icebergs, according to the sub commander.

A new Lockheed Martin sonar system is being installed fleet-wide and could open the door to undersea missions in the Far North.

The high-frequency sonar “is an enabler to Arctic operations for the Victoria-class submarine,” Oullet says, given its improved accuracy in detecting sea ice over the current system. “Should the need to arise to essentially get involved in Arctic security, we will do so.”









						Canadian navy aims to have 3 submarines at sea by end of 2021
					

For the first time in seven years, the Canadian navy expects to have three of its four submarines operating simultaneously by the end of 2021.




					www.iheartradio.ca


----------



## Underway

daftandbarmy said:


> The subs are also gaining the capability to better detect icebergs, according to the sub commander.
> 
> A new Lockheed Martin sonar system is being installed fleet-wide and could open the door to undersea missions in the Far North.
> 
> The high-frequency sonar “is an enabler to Arctic operations for the Victoria-class submarine,” Oullet says, given its improved accuracy in detecting sea ice over the current system. “Should the need to arise to essentially get involved in Arctic security, we will do so.”


I just wanted to highlight the sheer awesomeness of this.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Underway said:


> I just wanted to highlight the sheer awesomeness of this.



That's a problem though. We shouldn't be bragging about the capabilities of our awesome subs.

Right now, everyone thinks they suck. Based on what I know about submariners, I'm guessing that they planned that in some way in order to beguile our potential foes


----------



## Journeyman

daftandbarmy said:


> “Should the need to arise to essentially get involved in Arctic security, we will do so.”


I can't imagine a need for Arctic security.  Kumbaya and sunny ways.


----------



## Underway

daftandbarmy said:


> That's a problem though. We shouldn't be bragging about the capabilities of our awesome subs.
> 
> Right now, everyone thinks they suck. Based on what I know about submariners, I'm guessing that they planned that in some way in order to beguile our potential foes


Well Canadians have a right to know the general capabilities of what they are paying for.  I think that the vagueness of the comment is probably good enough.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> Well Canadians have a right to know the general capabilities of what they are paying for.  I think that the vagueness of the comment is probably good enough.


I think you're both right.  The CAF saying we have world-class XYZ is probably less impactful than something like the Sea Dragon 21 exercise, when our CP-140M won over the P-8s, despite it being about 30 years older.


----------



## Underway

dimsum said:


> I think you're both right.  The CAF saying we have world-class XYZ is probably less impactful than something like the Sea Dragon 21 exercise, when our CP-140M won over the P-8s, despite it being about 30 years older.


Pffft.  It was because we Kobayashi Mariu'd that EX.  It had nothing to do with the crew competence or aircraft upgrades.


----------



## CBH99

Underway said:


> Pffft.  It was because we Kobayashi Mariu'd that EX.  It had nothing to do with the crew competence or aircraft upgrades.


The fact that most military folks know what they means makes me happy to be a part of this clan, even though I'm out now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Japan just announced the discovery of a


Underway said:


> Well Canadians have a right to know the general capabilities of what they are paying for.  I think that the vagueness of the comment is probably good enough.


The general view is "They suck and none of them work". When I point out the deployments to Asia and the Med they generally are unaware.


----------



## dimsum

Colin Parkinson said:


> The general view is "They suck and none of them work". When I point out the deployments to Asia and the Med they generally are unaware.


Part of it is because unlike the surface fleet, the subs don't tell people where they're going until months after they've been there.  

The Silent Service is supposed to be...er...silent.  Great for operations, less great for recruiting.


----------



## CBH99

Colin Parkinson said:


> Japan just announced the discovery of a
> 
> The general view is "They suck and none of them work". When I point out the deployments to Asia and the Med they generally are unaware.


What surprises me is even with a CBC special on the topic, showing a Canadian submarine off the coast of NK & assisting in enforcing sanctions…people still aren’t aware.  

I find the issue of PR for the subs to be a bit of an enigma.  On the one hand, good PR is good PR.  Helps with recruiting, national pride, credibility, etc.  Showcasing the upgrades to the submarines & countering negative press is important in those regards.

On the other hand, the fact that our submarine service can be quite active and not draw attention is also an advantage.  


Just thoughts…


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> On the other hand, the fact that our submarine service can be quite active and not draw attention is also an advantage.


Yep.


----------



## Underway

CBH99 said:


> On the other hand, the fact that our submarine service can be quite active and not draw attention is also an advantage.


Until we need to buy new submarines, and then it's an uphill battle.  That new sub money (if the gov't is smart) goes overseas at least partially.  And you'll have to sell that to the public who doesn't understand submarines.  Given that most people only believe what they read on their social media, well that's a hard sell.


----------



## blacktriangle

CBH99 said:


> On the other hand, the fact that our submarine service can be quite active and not draw attention is also an advantage.


Although let's not pretend that any credible, well-resourced adversary couldn't figure it out, should they wish.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Until we need to buy new submarines, and then it's an uphill battle.  That new sub money (if the gov't is smart) goes overseas at least partially.  And you'll have to sell that to the public who doesn't understand submarines.  Given that most people only believe what they read on their social media, well that's a hard sell.


Which is why the politicians avoid the subject, in their eyes there is no "political win" for them and it means diverting money from programs/grants/gifts/promises where they can gain a political advantage. If they were mature reasoning adults with a timeline beyond the next election they would see the utility and at the very least start the quest now for the right sub for us in 10 years.


----------



## CBH99

reveng said:


> Although let's not pretend that any credible, well-resourced adversary couldn't figure it out, should they wish.


Oh considering we post their port visits right on Instagram, even once out of port I’m sure they could narrow it down pretty quick


----------



## Maxman1

It seems to me like the _Dolphin II_ class subs would be a suitable replacement, since it's very close in size to the _Victoria_ class and roughly the same size crew, but can dive twice as deep, has four 26 inch torpedo tubes which can also fire cruise missiles in addition to six 21 inch tubes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Are we bound by agreement to have subs? I like subs, but I'd like some that spend more time at sea than in drydock.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Fishbone Jones said:


> Are we bound by agreement to have subs? I like subs, but I'd like some that spend more time at sea than in drydock.


Wouldn't we all, eh? There's more to consider with subs than just the boats themselves, though. IIRC, just by being a member of the sub community allows us access to intelligence that would otherwise be off the table for us. I don't think it's a capability that we want to lose, because I doubt if it would ever come back. In the interim, having 3 boats in the water, with all the modern upgrades that have happened for sonar, comms, periscope and torpedo, will give Canada a capability it has never had before (at least consistently). It's time to start working on a plan for new ones, but I'm optimistic about the near future for the VIC class.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I heard the Japanese weren't  happy with theirs. We could get those. It is the Canadian way, to hit up garage sales.🙄


----------



## Maxman1

It's like when the _Bonaventure_ was decommissioned, we lost the capability of an aircraft carrier and the knowledge of how to operate a carrier and carrier-borne aircraft (the Banshees were removed in 1962 after the Cuban Missile Crisis without replacement).


----------



## dimsum

Maxman1 said:


> It's like when the _Bonaventure_ was decommissioned, we lost the capability of an aircraft carrier and the knowledge of how to operate a carrier and carrier-borne aircraft (the Banshees were removed in 1962 after the Cuban Missile Crisis without replacement).


There was also the fight between the RCAF, CA, and RCN on who should operate aircraft in the Canadian military.  

But I digress.


----------



## JMCanada

Assuming next submarines will not be nuclear, they would at least be AIP. Two technologies are available for long underwater patrols: Stirling engines (mainly Sweden, China & Japan under Swedish license) and fuel cells (Germany and their derivatives: Norway, Italy, South Korea). Battery systems still offer tens of MWh (10-20), while the former two must be in the range of 80-140 MWh, depending, of course, on the volume of the oxygen (LOx) and fuel stored.

So, the expected dutch selection between the sweeds and the germans to replace their Walrus is of much interest.

Stirling engines are a mature technology with rather small increments on efficiency to be expected. The main one being the development of the so-called "double AIP", that is a 150kW engine in lieu of the actual 75kW Kockums' units.

Fuel cell technology is also mature: up to 200kW marine units can be found in Ballard's portfolio. And this is actually a point for the RCN to prefer FCs over St.Eng. The problem here is how to storage the required hydrogen. Solutions:

1. Metal hydrides (germans). It works for the size of their boats, but is said to be very inefficient (only 2-4% of the weight is usable hydrogen).

2. Boric hydrides (indians). This is the technology India is developing. Supposed to be installed in an indian submarine by mid 2020s. Percentage of usable hydrogen might reach 10-12%.

3. Reformation of other fuels to produce hydrogen, either marine fuel (french), methanol (german proposal for the Australian type 216) or ethanol (spanish boats S-80, to be installed for the first time in third-of-class S-83, by mid-2020s also).

Reformation process needs high temperatures (hence, cooling) and yield CO2 as well (like St.Eng.), which may be diluted into the sea water. It also lowers the global efficiency of the process and introduces complexity (lower reliability?).

All this to say that DND/RCN might start working with Ballard on the development of a direct ethanol fuel cell, which would use ethanol directly on the FC without the need of reformation to obtain hydrogen.






						Direct-ethanol fuel cell - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## OldSolduer

Maxman1 said:


> It's like when the _Bonaventure_ was decommissioned, we lost the capability of an aircraft carrier and the knowledge of how to operate a carrier and carrier-borne aircraft (the Banshees were removed in 1962 after the Cuban Missile Crisis without replacement).


There's a tale about the Bonnie I read 30 + years ago. Its kinda sinister.


----------



## Weinie

OldSolduer said:


> There's a tale about the Bonnie I read 30 + years ago. Its kinda sinister.


And...............


----------



## OldSolduer

Weinie said:


> And...............


IIRC the Bonnie was refitted at a tremendous cost then sold for about $750,000 to a Japanese Taiwan salvage firm. It then was switched with its sister ship and ended up in the service of the Indian Navy. I know there are others on here who can dispel that tale or perhaps shed some more light on it.

Lnk









						HMCS Bonaventure - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I heard that tale as well, I suspect a lot of the Bonnies equipment ended up in India and onboard their ship leading the causal observer to wonder....


----------



## Maxman1

The Bonnie's catapult and other parts went to Australia to refurbish their _Majestic_ class carrier, HMAS _Melbourne_.

The closest I can find to your story of the Bonnie being sold to India is the HMS _Hermes_, which was offered to Canada along with two _Essex_ class carriers on loan from the US when we were looking to replace the HMCS _Magnificent_, both of which were turned down in favour of the HMS _Powerful_, an unfinished _Majestic_ class, which would be finished as the _Bonaventure_.

The _Hermes_ was put into service by the Royal Navy and was due to be retired in 1982, but became the flagship of the task force to retake the Falklands, then decommissioned in 1984 and sold to India in 1986.

There's also the HMS _Hercules_, another _Majestic_ class, which was sold to India under the same circumstances and around the same time as the _Bonaventure_ and commissioned as INS _Virkant_. They had a number of issues with the boilers around 1970, which were still present during and after the Indo-Pakistan War of 1971, after _Bonaventure_ was scrapped, which, coupled with the fact _Bonaventure_ was fairly unique among the _Majestics_ with a very distinct silhouette due to using American radar systems and lattice mast and 3 inch guns instead of Bofors 40mm, while the _Virkant_ was a standard Majestic, tells me this is a nonsense conspiracy theory.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

blacktriangle said:


> Although let's not pretend that any credible, well-resourced adversary couldn't figure it out, should they wish.



Knowing PCS is a lot different than having an AOP, though...


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> Oh considering we post their port visits right on Instagram, even once out of port I’m sure they could narrow it down pretty quick


That assumes that the PAOs don't wait a few hours/days/weeks before putting on social media.


----------



## Weinie

dimsum said:


> That assumes that the PAOs don't wait a few hours/days/weeks before putting on social media.


The postings/timings are approved by the Command team.


----------



## CBH99

You are both right.  I wasn’t trying to sound like we are incompetent when it comes to OPSEC - submarine operations.  Not at all. (Albeit reading what I wrote now, comes across that way.  My apologies.)

My main point was that figuring out when our subs are in port and when they aren’t isn’t hard.  

And even if the Command Team & PAOs wait a week or two, the local media of wherever the port is, is usually excited to report a visit.


----------



## Uzlu

> Navy kicks off long-anticipated push to replace Canada’s beleaguered submarine fleet
> 
> OTTAWA — The Royal Canadian Navy is launching its long-anticipated push to replace Canada’s beleaguered submarine fleet, setting the stage for what will almost certainly be an extremely controversial debate around the need for such vessels.
> 
> Defence officials revealed to The Canadian Press this month that a dedicated team is being created to start figuring out what Canada needs in new submarines as the sunset on the military’s existing fleet draws steadily closer.
> 
> The move responds to a growing sense of urgency within defence and industry circles about the need to start work on such a project given the age of Canada’s existing submarines and the amount of time needed to design and build such vessels.
> 
> “The CAF is establishing a Canadian patrol submarine project to inform timely governmental decision-making about a potential replacement class of submarines, and avoid any gap in submarine capability,” navy spokesman Lt.-Cmdr. Jordan Holder said.
> 
> “In order to enable timely decision-making at some future point regarding a replacement class of submarines and the avoidance of a gap in submarine capability, the CAF required a replacement project to be initiated this year.”
> 
> Yet the decision to move ahead also kick-starts what is expected to be a tough conversation for the navy around the need for new submarines given the high cost of building and operating such vessels, and the many problems that have afflicted its current fleet.
> 
> Questions about the costs and benefits of submarines have circulated since Canada bought four second-hand vessels from Britain in 1998. The government at that time argued it was getting a bargain by paying only $750 million for the four Victoria-class vessels.
> 
> Yet the vessels have since spent more time in dock for repairs and maintenance than at sea, with Ottawa sinking billions of dollars into the fleet over the past 20-plus years to address a series of problems and incidents including fires and faulty welding.
> 
> The most recent incident saw HMCS Corner Brook suffer what may have been permanent damage last year after an errant test damaged the submarine’s main ballast tank. Corner Brook previously ran aground in 2011, while a fire broke out on board in 2019.
> 
> The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year.
> 
> A new fleet of submarines may address many of those problems, but Australia’s recent experience suggests building a new fleet won’t be smooth sailing — or cheap.
> 
> The Australian government, which has been working for more than a decade to buy 12 French-designed submarines, revealed last year that the diesel-electric vessels will cost more than $80 billion — or more than $6 billion each.
> 
> The new cost was nearly double Canberra’s original estimate, and more than the $60 billion Canada plans to pay for a whole new fleet of 15 state-of-the-art frigates to replace its fleet of Halifax-class warships over the next two decades.
> 
> Australian officials are now struggling with what to do with the project in the face of severe public and expert criticism.
> 
> The Liberal government’s defence policy committed in 2017 to extending the lives of Canada’s four Victoria-class submarines, with sources pegging the cost at more than $2 billion to keep them operating until the mid-2030s.
> 
> Yet the defence policy did not set any money aside for replacements.
> 
> The navy continues to argue that submarines are critical for defending Canada, particularly as rivals such as Russia and China become more aggressive and this country’s Arctic waters become more accessible due to climate change.
> 
> “Canada’s submarine force provides a key strategic asset with formidable surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities, as well as the ability to control or deny access to a substantial ocean or littoral area,” Holder said.
> 
> “Submarines are a key element of a balanced fleet that enables the Royal Canadian Navy to project power responsively and effectively far from Canada’s shores, with the inherent flexibility and staying power required to succeed across a broad mission set.”
> 
> Holder was nonetheless quick to add that the decision to start work on a possible replacement “does not commit the government to any specific course of action, but instead preserves the time to make an informed decision when required.”
> 
> Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute says there is a strong argument to be made on the need for Canada to have submarines given Russia and China have both ramped up their respective underwater capabilities in recent years.
> 
> But he suggests there is nervousness in the navy as new subs will cost a great deal at a time when the government will be looking to set aside billions to upgrade North America’s defensive network and other procurement projects are running over budget.
> 
> “I’d be nervous,” he said. “We’re talking about making a pretty significant financial investment. And across defence, there’s a whole bunch of budget pressures that have emerged on all kinds of projects.”











						Navy kicks off long-anticipated push to replace Canada’s beleaguered submarine fleet
					

OTTAWA - The Royal Canadian Navy is launching its long-anticipated push to replace Canada's beleaguered submar...




					rdnewsnow.com


----------



## Underway

I noticed that there were suddenly a number of RCN Submarine Videos on the YouTubes the last few weeks:
Victoria Class Video 
HMCS Corner Brook undocking

And suddenly the project office is now stood up to look at options and begin the long political fight for submarines.
It's like there was a plan or something.

*To help the RCN go and like the videos, subscribe to the channel.  Watch to the end, even on double speed.  It activates the youtube algorithm so that it will come up as one of the first things searched for when looking for submarine information by the public and press.  *

Anything to help dispel myths and help the public be informed.


----------



## MilEME09

As long as they don't suggest building domestically we should be okay on price and timeline. Let either the Americans or the French for example build them. They have the yards, and experience, we don't.


----------



## Uzlu

MilEME09 said:


> As long as they don't suggest building domestically we should be okay on price and timeline. Let either the Americans or the French for example build them. They have the yards, and experience, we don't.


I do not think the Americans will be building nuclear-powered attack submarines for Canada.  And the last diesel-electric submarines built in America—the _Barbel_ class—was built in the late 1950s.


----------



## Dale Denton

Glad the process has finally started. This is really gonna be an uphill battle since multiple parties have kicked all the 'defence' cans down to where we are now.

Norway and Germany recently ordered 6 Type-212CDs for $8B CAD. Accounting methods and requirements aside, that's reasonable.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> I noticed that there were suddenly a number of RCN Submarine Videos on the YouTubes the last few weeks:
> Victoria Class Video
> HMCS Corner Brook undocking
> 
> And suddenly the project office is now stood up to look at options and begin the long political fight for submarines.
> It's like there was a plan or something.
> 
> *To help the RCN go and like the videos, subscribe to the channel.  Watch to the end, even on double speed.  It activates the youtube algorithm so that it will come up as one of the first things searched for when looking for submarine information by the public and press.  *
> 
> Anything to help dispel myths and help the public be informed.


I thought it was because they had issues with submariner retention.  But this makes sense too.


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:


> As long as they don't suggest building domestically we should be okay on price and timeline. Let either the Americans or the French for example build them. They have the yards, and experience, we don't.


Wait for it...  if that's the cost of the government signing off the RCN will take it in a hot minute.


----------



## dimsum

As long as they take the lessons learned (learning?) from the Australian debacle to heart...



> A new fleet of submarines may address many of those problems, but Australia’s recent experience suggests building a new fleet won’t be smooth sailing — or cheap.
> 
> The Australian government, which has been working for more than a decade to buy 12 French-designed submarines, revealed last year that the diesel-electric vessels will cost more than $80 billion — or more than $6 billion each.
> 
> The new cost was nearly double Canberra’s original estimate, and more than the $60 billion Canada plans to pay for a whole new fleet of 15 state-of-the-art frigates to replace its fleet of Halifax-class warships over the next two decades.
> 
> Australian officials are now struggling with what to do with the project in the face of severe public and expert criticism.


----------



## CBH99

_The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year._


Just curious about this statement in the article.  Does that sound reasonable to any of you Navy folks?  It just seems high, at my initial glance.


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> _The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year._
> 
> 
> Just curious about this statement in the article.  Does that sound reasonable to any of you Navy folks?  It just seems high, at my initial glance.


I'm not a submariner but subs are not cheap to maintain.  Lots of things that could go wrong on a sub above and beyond the issues of a surface ship.  

e.g. salt water corrosion all over the vessel, anechoic tile and pressure hull maintenance/repair/replacement, etc.  
​


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CBH99 said:


> _The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year._
> 
> 
> Just curious about this statement in the article.  Does that sound reasonable to any of you Navy folks?  It just seems high, at my initial glance.


The cost of not keeping up on the maintenance is much higher as Argentina and Indonesia found out.


----------



## CBH99

Colin Parkinson said:


> The cost of not keeping up on the maintenance is much higher as Argentina and Indonesia found out.


Completely agreed.  I was more-so curious about the $300M cost, as that breaks down to $75M per boat annually.

Is that including salaries, fuel, etc?  Or is that daily/monthly maintenance, or taking the submarine out of the water entirely for more detailed maintenance?  (The weapons are bought, and ship's systems are already bought/installed.)  I have no doubt that the number posted in the article is wrong, it just 'seems' on the high side?


----------



## Underway

LoboCanada said:


> Glad the process has finally started. This is really gonna be an uphill battle since multiple parties have kicked all the 'defence' cans down to where we are now.
> 
> Norway and Germany recently ordered 6 Type-212CDs for $8B CAD. Accounting methods and requirements aside, that's reasonable.


For a very small coastal / Baltic submarine.  I think we should be looking at the Dutch sub-competition as a basis for what is reasonable in the Canadian operational context.  All the top diesel subs are in competition there.



CBH99 said:


> _The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year._
> 
> 
> Just curious about this statement in the article.  Does that sound reasonable to any of you Navy folks?  It just seems high, at my initial glance.


Yes, it's a reasonable estimate.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

2031, we could tag onto the end of their production and get 5 boats (I prefer 6, but 5 minimum) Also there is the new Japanese design that looks promising Japan Launches New Submarine Class


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> _The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year._
> 
> 
> Just curious about this statement in the article.  Does that sound reasonable to any of you Navy folks?  It just seems high, at my initial glance.


Having seen #’s for CF-188 O&M and ISS, it sounds entirely plausible…


----------



## Underway

I think subs are relatively cheap to operate for their effect vs the surface fleet.  A single sub and an MPA can do the same RMP that three frigates with embarked aircraft (give or take) can do.

A surface ship with all its sensors and effectors plus the embarked helo can really get up there in cost.


----------



## OldSolduer

Colin Parkinson said:


> The cost of not keeping up on the maintenance is much higher as Argentina and Indonesia found out.


The cost of doing business is far cheaper than NOT doing the cost of business and it is usually paid out in blood.


----------



## Maxman1

LoboCanada said:


> Glad the process has finally started. This is really gonna be an uphill battle since multiple parties have kicked all the 'defence' cans down to where we are now.
> 
> Norway and Germany recently ordered 6 Type-212CDs for $8B CAD. Accounting methods and requirements aside, that's reasonable.



Or there's the Dolphin 2, based on the 212 but enlarged and with an additional four 26 inch torpedo tubes, and the Type 216, designed for Australia before they chose a non-nuclear version of a French nuclear submarine (celebrated for their excellence).


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:


> Having seen #’s for CF-188 O&M and ISS, it sounds entirely plausible…


Besides, the CF-18 cost includes only one Ego, Pilot, inflated.  A submarine includes multiple Egos, NWO, inflated...


----------



## JMCanada

On one side, I would keep an eye also on Navantia's S-80.
With 40+ berths, apparently designed for three 12-men guard shifts, 50 days endurance, US-based combat system and up-to-date sensors, 3x1.2 MW DGs for a fast charge of batteries and first unit already in the water (still being fitted but passing first tests), the timeline may fit quite well to the RCN: fourth and last unit is expected to be delivered by 2028 (2023-24-26-28 IIRC).
Cost: around 1.5 bCAD each (1 billion EUR each).

This being said , with "keep an eye" i also mean to closely follow the project to check the results once delivered to the Spanish Navy.


On the other side, i recommend a read on a recent ASPI's article about their history on the Attack submarine procurement.








						ASPI’s decades: Building submarines and warships | The Strategist
					

ASPI celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. This series looks at ASPI’s work since its creation in August 2001. Australian naval shipbuilding has a long history. Calling it a chequered history only just captures the ...




					www.aspistrategist.org.au


----------



## Underway

Interesting opinion on the Australian Colins Class.

In particular this argument (emphasis mine):



> Most submarines in the Asian region were built in the country that operates them. In fact, very few countries buy their submarines from an overseas builder. T*his is because the industrial base needed to sustain submarines is close to that needed to build them and building provides better access to intellectual capital.*
> 
> Submarine fleets are small and subject to such intense security that there is no commercial market that can be drawn upon for their maintenance, in the way that, for instance, Qantas Air Services can provide military aircraft maintenance. Commercial submarine maintainers, such as the British company Babcock, are few and so heavily integrated with their customer navy that they are effectively part of the naval function.
> 
> Furthermore, sustaining submarines throughout their service lives requires more than simple maintenance. The RAN's future submarines will operate beyond 2050, encountering significant changes in technology and strategic circumstances. *To sustain them as effective weapons systems the RAN will need the capacity to upgrade, modify, test and trial changes to their design.*



I may be re-evaluating my opinion of an overseas build regarding this.  Question is who is going to build them I suppose.  Iriving is fully engaged with CSC, Davie seems like a good spot but an odd one.  VSY is the civilian yard.  And Heddle is in Ontario, not sure if a freshwater build to start is a good idea, particularly if maintenance expertise needs to be somewhere on a coast (I would argue West Coast but that's me).


----------



## JMCanada

There's a factor to consider: number of boats to build. 
The capability for locally building the subs may be worth for 12 boats, but... what may be the minimum number of boats to make it worth? Note that the capability is going to cost tens of billions to Australia.


----------



## Underway

Six boats.  Three each coast.  Everything needs to be in multiples of three to have availability, one at sea, one in training/transition, one in the yard for maintenance.

Any more than six you add the extras to the Pacific fleet.  Atlantic fleet is better with more surface ships.  The Pacific is a submariners paradise from what I'm told.

Dolphin 22


----------



## MilEME09

What's the operating cost of a sub vs a surface ship? Should we have a more submarine heavy pacific fleet with less surface ships? Say 4 CSC and 8 -10 subs on the west coast and the rest on the Atlantic?


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> What's the operating cost of a sub vs a surface ship? Should we have a more submarine heavy pacific fleet with less surface ships? Say 4 CSC and 8 -10 subs on the west coast and the rest on the Atlantic?


Why do we need to have boats on both coasts?

It seems like a dumb question to ask, but the Australians only have their subs in the west coast fleet base, when most of their major cities are in the eastern side of the country.  There must be a reason for that.

Similarly, they have all of their maritime helicopters at HMAS Nowra close to their east coast fleet base, and fly them out to the west coast fleet base to join a ship sailing from there.  Actually the only fleet they don't have in one base is part of the fighter fleet - the Super Hornets and Growlers are in the same (single) base, while the F-35s will be in 2 other bases.  The rest of their fleets are located in one spot (Adelaide for their P-8s, Sydney for their Hercs, Brisbane for their C-17s, etc).


----------



## Dale Denton

dimsum said:


> Why do we need to have boats on both coasts?



A very interesting point. 

I have a lot of questions, but the gov't of the day that makes a decision (and articulate to the public) on this will have to decide what these ships are specifically for. Are we responding to the bigger threat of the submarine weapons-race in the Pacific? Then why bother basing half the fleet away from the emerging threat? Is Russia not contained by the 20-odd NATO submarines already, and desperately needs another 3 subs from us on the Atlantic?

IF new subs are built and they aren't under-ice capable, then what is the immediate need for them on the East Coast? Does NATO not have enough subs (not even counting ASW aircraft and surface ships) between them to patrol the Atlantic for the Russian fleet?

Is the booming submarine-race maybe worth having 4-6 subs on the West Coast alone, so that 2 are always on patrol? Training with the Australians and US, and the few countries that we're friends with? What is the ratio of CAN-friendly subs to unfriendly in each ocean?


----------



## Underway

dimsum said:


> Why do we need to have boats on both coasts?
> 
> It seems like a dumb question to ask, but the Australians only have their subs in the west coast fleet base, when most of their major cities are in the eastern side of the country.  There must be a reason for that.
> 
> Similarly, they have all of their maritime helicopters at HMAS Nowra close to their east coast fleet base, and fly them out to the west coast fleet base to join a ship sailing from there.  Actually the only fleet they don't have in one base is part of the fighter fleet - the Super Hornets and Growlers are in the same (single) base, while the F-35s will be in 2 other bases.  The rest of their fleets are located in one spot (Adelaide for their P-8s, Sydney for their Hercs, Brisbane for their C-17s, etc).


It's not a dumb question. The answer is rooted in geography and geopolitics.

Australia one navy and one threat vector. Is there a threat to them from the East Coast?  The All Blacks are scary but I don't think they can swim that far.  Should a ship be needed on the either coast its a simple matter of sailing it around the island.

We have for all intents and purposes two smaller navies and no real threat vectors.  To reinforce we have to sail around a much further distance and rely upon a Canal not owned by us to move our ships.  Our subs are expeditionary.  The last time submarines were used in anything like a conflict was the Turbot War.  And that was just a threat of subs so the Spanish fleet didn't sail.  (though I think that this was just supposition to make the submariners feel good, diplomacy and that a war over fish is stupid was the real reason they didn't sail).  Hence we need subs on both coasts.  And helicopters and MPA's and ... and...

Should the NWP become ice free for much longer (though models show the Arctic Ocean will be ice free before the NWP will be) then perhaps we will be able to base on one side or the other.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I think it would make good sense to move all the sub capability to the west coast and maybe run with fewer frigates/CSC/AOPs to balance things out. It is worth modelling the effect, I think.


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:


> I think it would make good sense to move all the sub capability to the west coast and maybe run with fewer frigates/CSC/AOPs to balance things out. It is worth modelling the effect, I think.


We're basing all the AOPS in Halifax, no?


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> We're basing all the AOPS in Halifax, no?


No, I think two are going west. But with the Coasties getting a couple that may all change.


----------



## JMCanada

Underway said:


> Six boats.  Three each coast.  Everything needs to be in multiples of three to have availability, one at sea, one in training/transition, one in the yard for maintenance.


That may be fine as for the RCN sub capability. However i feel i didn't adressed my point. I referred to the "building subs  capability" itself, since IMO it's a different capability to building surface vessels.

Let's take (grossly) ten years to deliver the first boat. Then one more every two years... by year 20 the 6th boat is delivered. The boost-and-burst problem again. The "submarine building" capability may be in jeopardy. If the following submarine program started by year 30 to start delivery of 2nd generation  boats by year 40 (when the first unit would be 30-years old), the yard would be for ten years working on various types of maintenance only. Therefore IMO 8-10 boats (stretching deliveries) would be necessary to keep the capability.

Otherwise the boats may be built overseas with as much canadian content as possible, for instance regarding sensors and combat systems.

All this said only from a common sense point of view... already know about politicians short-term thinking.


----------



## Swampbuggy

dimsum said:


> We're basing all the AOPS in Halifax, no?


If/when the RCN gets a modern OPV (outside of the AOPS, I mean) to replace the MCDV'S, I think it would be best to do just that. IMHO, if there were 6-7 vessels (something like RIVER or OTAGO class for example) in a new OPV class, they should all be based with the Pacific fleet and the AOPS should be all ported in Halifax. From what I've read in these threads, its clear that transit time to arctic patrol areas is much easier to bear from the east coast, rather than sailing all the way around Alaska etc. As for the potential new OPV, is it any worse to send a ship from Esquimalt to the Caribbean than it is from Halifax? I'm genuinely not certain about that, I'm sure someone else here could clarify.

With subs, we have sent them to the Mediterranean fairly recently. If that's an area where there is a demand for a Canadian subsurface asset, it would almost certainly have to come from the east coast fleet. It does seem likely that there will be some sort of pivot to the Pacific in terms of activity/interest. I wonder though, that if it were 6 boats only, could there not be a plan through rotation of units (for example) to only have one down at any given time for drydock/refit? Then your bias could remain 3 boats west, 2 boats east and 1 out of the water. If I'm not mistaken, I think that's largely what we're doing with the Vic's?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You still need a couple of AOP's to do the Western Arctic, for the same reasons that CCG bases the Western Arctic ships on the West Coast as well. 

For subs if the Aussie/French deal unravels, there would be an opportunity for Canada to join in on the new deal. The Japanese have an impressive new sub program, the big challenge on that is to incorporate US weapons and sonars as they use their own domestic stuff. I agree with Underway that we need 6 and I don't think having them built here is a good idea. To sell it, you need to show the number of long term jobs that the maintenance of the subs will provide, which will be higher than for each surface ship and provide long term stable jobs.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> You still need a couple of AOP's to do the Western Arctic, for the same reasons that CCG bases the Western Arctic ships on the West Coast as well.
> 
> For subs if the Aussie/French deal unravels, there would be an opportunity for Canada to join in on the new deal. The Japanese have an impressive new sub program, the big challenge on that is to incorporate US weapons and sonars as they use their own domestic stuff. I agree with Underway that we need 6 and I don't think having them built here is a good idea. To sell it, you need to show the number of long term jobs that the maintenance of the subs will provide, which will be higher than for each surface ship and provide long term stable jobs.


Just looking at a map and getting reaquainted with the North. It would seem to me, and I'm certainly not an expert, that it looks about the same distance from Esquimalt to Nanisivik as it does from Halifax to there. So, if I understand what you're saying Colin, a CCG ship leaves BC, refuels in Dutch Harbor (I'm guessing) then patrols it's Western Arctic area of interest. I'm just wondering, if the AOPS were all based from Halifax, if it wouldn't be much the same to have 3 leave Halifax, head up to Nanisivik, top off and have one continue on through to the western Arctic, have one stay centralized and one trend eastwards? As someone who is more familiar with the area and operation of vessels therein, I'm interested to hear your thoughts.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don't recall the 1100's refuelling in Dutch harbour, not saying they don't though. I think they may refuel from one of the barges if needed.


----------



## YZT580

I would think that 6 subs is a minimum and probably at least 3 too few.  Having just a single unit operational on each coast is simply wasting money.  Each coast is more than 1200 nm which is 4 days sailing at economical cruise.  So having a single hull available simply means that 9/10 of your patrol area is for all intents and purposes, uncovered.  A minimum of two on each coast would be needed to effectively patrol and that doesn't even begin to touch the Arctic.  9 hulls would give you one in the Arctic, two operational on each coast, three on work-up to deploy and one each area for deep maintenance.  Go big or stay home


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We would really struggle to man more than 6 subs, even with two in deep maintenance.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> Just looking at a map and getting reaquainted with the North. It would seem to me, and I'm certainly not an expert, that it looks about the same distance from Esquimalt to Nanisivik as it does from Halifax to there. So, if I understand what you're saying Colin, a CCG ship leaves BC, refuels in Dutch Harbor (I'm guessing) then patrols it's Western Arctic area of interest. I'm just wondering, if the AOPS were all based from Halifax, if it wouldn't be much the same to have 3 leave Halifax, head up to Nanisivik, top off and have one continue on through to the western Arctic, have one stay centralized and one trend eastwards? As someone who is more familiar with the area and operation of vessels therein, I'm interested to hear your thoughts.


It's actually about a third again further to Nanisivik from Esquimalt than it is from Halifax.  That detour around Alaska adds quite a bit of distance.

AOPS are Artic *AND* Offshore Patrol Vessels.  The Arctic isn't their only job.  As such the West Coast still needs them to do the Patrol part of their job.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Swampbuggy said:


> Just looking at a map and getting reaquainted with the North. It would seem to me, and I'm certainly not an expert, that it looks about the same distance from Esquimalt to Nanisivik as it does from Halifax to there. So, if I understand what you're saying Colin, a CCG ship leaves BC, refuels in Dutch Harbor (I'm guessing) then patrols it's Western Arctic area of interest. I'm just wondering, if the AOPS were all based from Halifax, if it wouldn't be much the same to have 3 leave Halifax, head up to Nanisivik, top off and have one continue on through to the western Arctic, have one stay centralized and one trend eastwards? As someone who is more familiar with the area and operation of vessels therein, I'm interested to hear your thoughts.


Just spoke to a retired senior Captain I sailed with , this was his reply

_We fill the Laurier to the brim on departure , even fill The flume tanks as don’t need them In summer. Mid summer in Arctic we always get some fuel to top up. It is sometimes NTCL barge or recent years a charter little tanker for all the ice breakers . The new navy fuel depot in east Arctic will change all. We often top up outbound in Dutch . Mostly for seakeeping for winter crossing_


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> It's actually about a third again further to Nanisivik from Esquimalt than it is from Halifax.  That detour around Alaska adds quite a bit of distance.
> 
> AOPS are Artic *AND* Offshore Patrol Vessels.  The Arctic isn't their only job.  As such the West Coast still needs them to do the Patrol part of their job.


Oh no, I'm not suggesting that be done UNLESS we get a class of 6-7 OPV. I was suggesting to have the AOPS ported east coast for ease of access to arctic, if and when a replacement is built for the MCDV.  I completely understand their current CONOPS have them envisioned to do far more than Arctic only work.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> Oh no, I'm not suggesting that be done UNLESS we get a class of 6-7 OPV. I was suggesting to have the AOPS ported east coast for ease of access to arctic, if and when a replacement is built for the MCDV.  I completely understand their current CONOPS have them envisioned to do far more than Arctic only work.


Ah roger.  Hoisted in.


----------



## Stoker

From my own experience in the Arctic its a long slog to get ships to the Western Arctic, the couple of times the WC did it with MCDV's they fueled in Dutch Harbor, by barge and at least once by CCG.  

From the EC we sometimes topped in St.John's but more often enough we transited the West Coast of NL to cut down on transit distance and we stopped once in Cartwright and had a tanker truck come overland from Goose Bay to top us up. Once up there  it was either Nuuk (preferred), Thule (did that once), and by CCG. I know of at least once frigate that went to Churchill and they had issues getting fuel by rail.

The CCG often in the past refueled us and I know they get tanked up by a small shuttle tanker from St.John't from the Woodward group. The thing about about the CCG is that they often move around and they are there for commercial traffic and it probably is a hassle for them. A number of years ago we needed fuel badly and was promised 100 cums from Pierre Radisson. They couldn't support us when we needed fuel because of commercial commitments but all of a sudden we were told to RV with them at Arctic Bay. We dropped everything, steamed all night burning considerable amount of fuel and was told to be ready to fuel at 6am. Had everything ready , got along side was ready to fuel and was told we would fuel "After the Breakfast", so we waited and when we were about to pump stated we were only getting 50 cums. Needless to say people were pissed. So we headed back and I got into St.John's with 12% percent fuel, the lowest I ever been.

With the amount of fuel capacity Nanisivik has (7.5M liters) supporting CPF's AOPS and MCDV's you are looking at top ups via shuttle tanker from St.John's let alone supporting the CCG. Honestly I hope they still go to Nuuk occasionally as you can ashore there and get fresh food without difficulty.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think we should get a moderator to cleave off some of the fuel discussion and add it to a thread about the fuel station or a new thread "fuelling in the Arctic".


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> I think we should get a moderator to cleave off some of the fuel discussion and add it to a thread about the fuel station or a new thread "fuelling in the Arctic".


Seconded...


----------



## Uzlu

> Long wait for Canada’s new, useful subs, expert says
> 
> *“It would be a question of how long it takes a government to make a decision,” David Perry said. “You’re probably looking about 20 years before you’d have the first submarine that actually hit the water someplace.”*
> 
> Submarines help a navy’s offense and defense, but Canada must be careful how it renews its fleet, says one military expert.
> 
> The Canadian Armed Forces recently announced it’s actively considering how to replace its current submarine fleet.  David Perry, VP and senior analyst for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, told the _Western Standard_ the 1998 purchase of four repair-prone subs from the UK provided valuable lessons.
> 
> “Ultimately, you get what you paid for, because we bought those at a bargain-basement price, secondhand,” Perry said of the four subs bought for $750 million.
> 
> “We got submarines that had never been fully operated, were effectively mothballed, there were only four of a particular class in the world. And we didn’t have good access to all the documentation, etc. So, with submarines and military equipment, as in many other things, you got to pay attention to what you’re paying for. And things that can be cheap upfront may be a lot less over several years of actually owning the things.”
> 
> Perry said Canada should draw on outside expertise to make the right purchase, buy abroad to draw on their experience, and not tinker with the design after it’s been agreed upon. That done, Perry lists many attributes submarines provide a navy.
> 
> “There’s a totally defensive aspect to them. If you put one in your own coastline then you can help keep people away,” Perry said.
> 
> “It’s also a platform that can collect a lot of intelligence and surveillance. If you send it off the coast of somewhere else that has got sensors that it can pick up information on ships or other submarines, or other military activities, depending on what kind of capability you put on it.”
> 
> A sub is also useful on offense.
> 
> “It’s stealthy. it’s harder to find. And then if you deploy one in conjunction with a warship, that means that an opposing force has to be worried about not just things that are floating on the water, but things underneath it. So it’s can pack a lot of offensive punch depending on how you fit it out,” Perry said.
> 
> “If Canada operates submarines… in waters with them, [the U.S. and U.K.] will share a lot of information with related submarine activity that we wouldn’t necessarily have access to otherwise…and having your own submarine really kind of gives you another qualitative increase in your ability to conduct anti-submarine warfare.”
> 
> For months, the Canadian military has tried to move past a sexual misconduct scandal that included obstruction of justice charges against Chief of Defense General Jonathan Vance.  Perry is not sure the fleet renewal will help the military change the dominant story.
> 
> “I don’t know that this is necessarily it because there’s a long way between beginning to start looking at something and actually getting there (but) it would be a good thing to have more of a conversation about what actually we want the military to do, what kinds of things we’re going to ask it to do in the future, what kind of missions, what kind of operations, and less time talking just about the problems that it’s had,” he said.
> 
> Anyone expecting Canada to get new subs this decade will be disappointed, and the 2030’s don’t look good either. Perry said the wait will be long due to some necessary timelines.
> 
> “One would be how long it takes the navy to work on this to the point where it can brief the government and get basically a go-ahead about whether or not the government would provide funding to a project like this. And I would imagine that will take…two to four years,” Perry said.
> 
> “Then, of course, it would be a question of how long it takes a government to make a decision. You’re probably looking about 20 years before you’d have the first submarine that actually hit the water someplace.”











						Long wait for Canada’s new, useful subs, expert says
					

“It would be a question of how long it takes a government to make a decision,” David Perry said. “You’re probably looking about 20 years before you’d have the first




					westernstandardonline.com


----------



## FormerHorseGuard

20 years, I bet it will be sooner, some other country  will be replacing their subs and have some cast off equipment, one of a kind,  and we will jump all over them like a it is a new puppy coming home for the first time, then realize they were 20 year old rotting hound dogs with no teeth, just to rebuild and decide we need to start looking for new ones.  UK needed training area, we got subs, Aussies needed room for aircraft, we got used hornets.  Aussies getting new subs, waving the used SUB Signs at Canada, they would match your new hornets, come buy us


----------



## suffolkowner

We've often questioned how much our subs cost and I've never been able to find the article I read some years ago that detailed it. But this article from ASPI discusses how much the current Collins Class submarines are costing and the transition to the new Attack class.









						What’s the real cost of Australia’s submarine capability? | The Strategist
					

You can have a cheap submarine capability, or you can have a safe and effective one. There’s no third option. Australia has chosen the second option; consequently, its submarine capability costs a lot. But how ...




					www.aspistrategist.org.au
				




"With around $670 million for sustainment, $225 million for workforce and $300 million for upgrade projects, the Collins class’s direct costs are in the order of $1.2 billion per year."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Great find, i wonder how our numbers compare on fuel and personal?

_However, that number doesn’t include some key elements. One is fuel. A full tank of diesel will cost several hundred thousand dollars. Another cost that isn’t included is even bigger, namely the uniformed personnel operating and maintaining the submarines. While each submarine has a crew of around 55, a much larger number than six lots of 55 is needed to have a robust, sustainable workforce. The navy has done well in increasing the number of its submariners over recent years and Defence informed the Senate earlier this year that that total had reached 881, although there were still some shortfalls. ASPI analysis (page 70) concluded that the average cost of each permanent ADF member was $160,000 a year five years ago, but submariners receive special allowances and retention bonuses so we could be looking at $250,000. Overall, the cost of the uniformed submarine workforce is probably more than $225 million_.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Posted this long ago in the "Dutch ships and the possibillities for Canada"section;

Here's another one(complete)

Walrus-class subsrecurement (in 1994' money)2 billion for 4,makes 500 million a pop.Latest updates 100 million.(optics,sonar,masts,electronics)

Post Kosten per jaar (in miljoenen euro's)(costs per annum in million euros)
Personele kosten * 19,65        (personal,375 pplxwages of about 50K euros+alowances)
Jaarlijks onderhoud 10            (yearly maintenance)
Op zee en buitenland ** 0,6    (fuell,logistical)at sea and abroad 
Instandhoudingsprogramma *** 2,9  (maintenaceprogrammes) for life of 35 yrs(divided)
Afschrijvingen **** 25                  (depreciation) excl rest worth
Totaal 58,15 miljoen euro
* 375 pers. x middelloon van 50.000 euro plus vaartoelagen
** brandstof, logistiek, etc.
*** bij gemiddelde levensduur ozbt van 35 jaar
**** excl. restwaarde

this number is about 0.83% of total defencebudget(about 7 billion,now less because it's about 8 Billion by now)
every sub has about 50 ppl on board.

gr,walter


----------



## JMCanada

Latest news on Australian submarine program...

Australia confirms ‘historic’ nuclear deal with the US and UK









						Royal Navy nuclear submarine technology to be shared with Australia | Navy Lookout
					






					www.navylookout.com


----------



## MilEME09

JMCanada said:


> Latest news on Australian submarine program...
> 
> Australia confirms ‘historic’ nuclear deal with the US and UK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Royal Navy nuclear submarine technology to be shared with Australia | Navy Lookout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navylookout.com


Can say I was not expecting Australia to go nuclear, can we get on board too?


----------



## YZT580

MilEME09 said:


> Can say I was not expecting Australia to go nuclear, can we get on board too?


not if you voted liberal


----------



## MilEME09

YZT580 said:


> not if you voted liberal



Never have, never will


----------



## Maxman1

"Can we get nuclear subs, but can they be non-nuclear" is an idea so stupid I'm surprised it didn't come from Canada.

The Germans designed the Type 216, a 4,000 tonne double-hulled sub when Australia was looking for a diesel-electric sub, with air-independent propulsion, six 21 inch torpedo tubes, up to three vertical multi-purpose locks which can be equipped with up to seven missile modules with 24 cruise missiles each, and even a deck gun. Maybe we should jump on that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maxman1 said:


> "Can we get nuclear subs, but can they be non-nuclear" is an idea so stupid I'm surprised it didn't come from Canada.
> 
> The Germans designed the Type 216, a 4,000 tonne double-hulled sub when Australia was looking for a diesel-electric sub, with air-independent propulsion, six 21 inch torpedo tubes, up to three vertical multi-purpose locks which can be equipped with up to seven missile modules with 24 cruise missiles each, and even a deck gun. Maybe we should jump on that.


Just as the French design was a heavy modification of their existing design, so was the Type 216 a heavy modification of a existing design.


----------



## JMCanada

MilEME09 said:


> Can say I was not expecting Australia to go nuclear, can we get on board too?


If we take a read to ASPI...

" _The officials said such a technology transfer was unlikely to happen again. ‘This technology is extremely sensitive. This is, frankly, an exception to our policy in many respects. I do not anticipate that this will be undertaken in other circumstances going forward. We view this as a one-off.’ _"









						Australia’s nuclear submarine deal negotiated in great secrecy | The Strategist
					

American officials have stressed the importance of Australia having nuclear-powered submarines that are fast, discreet, with extremely long range and able to operate closely with their own undersea fleet. That’s a remarkable turnround in the ...




					www.aspistrategist.org.au
				




And while they speak in the news about building eight submarines in Australia, the RAN might be still considering twelve. Might  this imply direct sales of the other four either from US or UK? This may well be under consideration in the 18-month period set to arrive to conclusions. 

_“Instead we should buy 12 of a proven design which is already in the water. We want long-range hunter-killer vessels. We also want them to be able to stay submerged for long periods to avoid detection. Nuclear does this in spades.”









						Australia confirms ‘historic’ nuclear deal with the US and UK
					

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has announced a landmark deal with the US and UK for Australia’s submarine program to “go nuclear” under a defence pact that has been described as “China’s worst nightmare”.




					www.news.com.au
				



_


----------



## Uzlu

Maxman1 said:


> The Germans designed the Type 216, a 4,000 tonne double-hulled sub when Australia was looking for a diesel-electric sub, with air-independent propulsion, six 21 inch torpedo tubes, up to three vertical multi-purpose locks which can be equipped with up to seven missile modules with 24 cruise missiles each, and even a deck gun. Maybe we should jump on that.


The problem with the Type 216 is that no country has ordered it.  That means Canada would probably be the only country operating it.  So it might be less risky to operate submarines already used or building for other NATO countries like the Type 212CD.








						Radical New Stealth Submarine, Type-212CD, Will Be Much Larger - Naval News
					

Submarines rely on stealth to maintain the element of surprise and escape threats. For decades this has focused on reducing the noise emitted by the submarine. A resurgence of using active sonar to locate submarines now means that new stealth measures may be required. German submarine builder...




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## dimsum

Colin Parkinson said:


> Just as the French design was a heavy modification of their existing design, so was the Type 216 a heavy modification of a existing design.


Yes, but the T 216 is "just" making it bigger, etc.  The Shortfin was changing the entire power/propulsion system.


----------



## calculus

Uzlu said:


> The problem with the Type 216 is that no country has ordered it.  That means Canada would probably be the only country operating it.  So it might be less risky to operate submarines already used or building for other NATO countries like the Type 212CD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radical New Stealth Submarine, Type-212CD, Will Be Much Larger - Naval News
> 
> 
> Submarines rely on stealth to maintain the element of surprise and escape threats. For decades this has focused on reducing the noise emitted by the submarine. A resurgence of using active sonar to locate submarines now means that new stealth measures may be required. German submarine builder...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com


I wonder about endurance. I believe I have seen written that the RCN is looking for a design with better endurance than the Victorias, which are said to be able to patrol for about 45 days before resupply. The Type 212CD is only marginally larger, so I wonder if it would meet that criteria? I have not been able to find any information related to endurance for this design. I think I've seen written somewhere that the RCN would like a sub replacement to have somewhere around 70 days of endurance, which suggests a substantially larger boat.


----------



## suffolkowner

The wrong government in power to be included in the defence arrangement of AUKUS unfortunately. I think the political environment in Canada precludes the technology transfer more than anything else whereas in Australia there is broad support for a capable military. So at present the Australians going for a nuclear submarine leaves one option of the table leaving the Dutch replacement sub and the above mentioned 212/218/216 as the two best fits


----------



## Maxman1

calculus said:


> I wonder about endurance. I believe I have seen written that the RCN is looking for a design with better endurance than the Victorias, which are said to be able to patrol for about 45 days before resupply. The Type 212CD is only marginally larger, so I wonder if it would meet that criteria? I have not been able to find any information related to endurance for this design. I think I've seen written somewhere that the RCN would like a sub replacement to have somewhere around 70 days of endurance, which suggests a substantially larger boat.



And the 216 has a projected endurance of 120 days.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

calculus said:


> I wonder about endurance. I believe I have seen written that the RCN is looking for a design with better endurance than the Victorias, which are said to be able to patrol for about 45 days before resupply. The Type 212CD is only marginally larger, so I wonder if it would meet that criteria? I have not been able to find any information related to endurance for this design. I think I've seen written somewhere that the RCN would like a sub replacement to have somewhere around 70 days of endurance, which suggests a substantially larger boat.


 According to this  webpage the Type 212CD will have an endurance of 6 - 8 weeks  (42 - 56 days) - see para iii.


----------



## CBH99

Uzlu said:


> The problem with the Type 216 is that no country has ordered it.  That means Canada would probably be the only country operating it.  So it might be less risky to operate submarines already used or building for other NATO countries like the Type 212CD.


You aren’t wrong.  But that _may_ be the very reason we do end up getting it…we have a history of that kind of thing 😉


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> Great find, i wonder how our numbers compare on fuel and personal?
> 
> _However, that number doesn’t include some key elements. One is fuel. A full tank of diesel will cost several hundred thousand dollars. Another cost that isn’t included is even bigger, namely the uniformed personnel operating and maintaining the submarines. While each submarine has a crew of around 55, a much larger number than six lots of 55 is needed to have a robust, sustainable workforce. The navy has done well in increasing the number of its submariners over recent years and Defence informed the Senate earlier this year that that total had reached 881, although there were still some shortfalls. ASPI analysis (page 70) concluded that the average cost of each permanent ADF member was $160,000 a year five years ago, but submariners receive special allowances and retention bonuses so we could be looking at $250,000. Overall, the cost of the uniformed submarine workforce is probably more than $225 million_.



lol, I don't think we operate with what anyone would consider a 'sustainable and robust' workforce for crewing. Usually one boat or more is in an extended work period, and they are offset by design, so you don't normally need a full crew there. Suspect they are like us and would be in trouble if they wanted to actually sail all their operational boats at the same time.

Similarly, we don't have 12 CPF crews sitting around, so lots of pier head jumping to meet the basis for 'safe at sea' crew levels, let alone sustained operations, which needs a lot more people (and a higher level of functioning equipment) to actually be combat capable. Lot of people are quitting for various reasons (including burnout and disatisfaction with some trade amalgamations and pier head jumping) which just compounds things. Our current ops tempo in the RCN continues to be unsustainable and the institution is going to break itself. We didn't even slow down wit COVID, and keep sending ships to sea far below the threshold where they would be allowed out as commercial vessels, (without actually understanding the risk we're taking on) all for peacetime operations.

I think we'll have to start tying up old ships to actually send any of the incoming AOPs to sea (as well as to afford the maintenance), but the RCN still wants to operate the MCDVs (and the Oriole!) so things are all spread dangerously thin.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You had to drag the Oriole into this? When I was still in, the crew of the Oriole amounted to five persons (Skipper, navigator, coxn, engineer and cook). Everybody else was a combination of NCDT's either between course or going on "adventure" training onboard her or from PAT platoon. I don't think that's exactly the straw that broke the camel's back.

I do agree, however, that the Navy is burning up people and should tie some ships alongside to properly man what it can at a reasonable sea/shore ratio. ...  But does anybody remember what happened the last time the RCN tried to tie up half the MCDV fleet to the wall?


----------



## Navy_Pete

The Oriole doesn't take much crew, but still eats up resources on the support side. When safety related installs are going slowly because of funding shortfalls and we're limited on what parts we can buy, then yes, I seriously question why we are spending money on the Oriole. It's neat, but basically a vanity project.

Some of the ships should be tied up for strictly safety reasons until we get basic systems fixed, which would help the crewing shortage. The MCDVs provide a pretty big bang for the buck though, so I'd actually suggest keeping them going while we fix some of the basic mechanical issues on a number of CPFs with a few of those in deep alongside maintenance periods. They are beat to crap going into the DWPs, and with the basic safety related PM completion rates in the 30-50% range, have a lot of systems that need massive amounts of repairs, even after the million+ hour DWPs.

Won't go into details on a public forum, but if we weren't exempt from the Canadian Shipping Act and had to pass some kind of commercial inspections before sailing, most of the CPFs would be alongside until things are fixed. That standard falls well below what you need for a warship to recover from battle damage, and we're not meeting it in a lot of cases.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Navy_Pete said:


> Won't go into details on a public forum, but if we weren't exempt from the Canadian Shipping Act and had to pass some kind of commercial inspections before sailing, most of the CPFs would be alongside until things are fixed. That standard falls well below what you need for a warship to recover from battle damage, and we're not meeting it in a lot of cases.



Really?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I just hope that we are smart enough to buy 6 subs of a class that someone else has already bought and minimise the Candianizing of them.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin Parkinson said:


> I just hope that we are smart enough to buy 6 subs of a class that someone else has already bought and minimise the Candianizing of them.


Question, why only 6? Why not 9? Allowing us to have 2 operating on the West coast at all times and 1 on the East with the other 6 in various of maintenance and gearing up for operations.


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> I just hope that we are smart enough to buy 6 subs of a class that someone else has already bought and minimise the Candianizing of them.





Czech_pivo said:


> Question, why only 6? Why not 9? Allowing us to have 2 operating on the West coast at all times and 1 on the East with the other 6 in various of maintenance and gearing up for operations.


What is an acceptable ratio of deployment to pier side time?

I would think the RCN would be better suited with Nuke boats (and Nuke Ice Breaker etc) - and the recent AUSUKUS agreement would be a solid option for 6.
 New boats should allow for a 1:1 ratio at least - and surge more if needed in extremis.


----------



## Navy_Pete

KevinB said:


> What is an acceptable ratio of deployment to pier side time?
> 
> I would think the RCN would be better suited with Nuke boats (and Nuke Ice Breaker etc) - and the recent AUSUKUS agreement would be a solid option for 6.
> New boats should allow for a 1:1 ratio at least - and surge more if needed in extremis.


Nuke propulsion would require a massive infrastructure upgrade (possibly new naval bases) and a 10 year+ lead time to train people up. Not saying it's not feasible just would be really expensive to set up and maintain.

The US explicitly blocked us from getting nuke boats last time, so that train may have sailed during the Cold War(to mix metaphors).


----------



## KevinB

Navy_Pete said:


> Nuke propulsion would require a massive infrastructure upgrade (possibly new naval bases) and a 10 year+ lead time to train people up. Not saying it's not feasible just would be really expensive to set up and maintain.
> 
> The US explicitly blocked us from getting nuke boats last time, so that train may have sailed during the Cold War(to mix metaphors).


I suspect if the Cons win today - the US would be happy if the RCN wanted to join the party.

While it may take time, and money - no time like the present to start -- the RCN not having a nuke boat kind of abrogates the Arctic to the USN or less friendly folks...


----------



## Good2Golf

I suspect the US declination was solidly politics-based, not technology. 

A D2O-moderated CANDUMAR reactor wouldn’t be out of the realm of the possible either.  Well-regarded safety compared to graphite-moderated boiling-light water reactors.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> the RCN not having a nuke boat kind of abrogates the Arctic to the USN or less friendly folks...



Maybe the US likes it that way.

If AU gets the new boats, maybe we can buy some used in a couple decades.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I picked 6 non-nuke as its realistic given our budgets, manning and training. It means each coast has one in refit, one operational and one in training at any one time.

Couple of interesting bits



			H I Sutton - Covert Shores
		


212CD sis about the same size as the Victoria Class


----------



## Czech_pivo

Navy_Pete said:


> Nuke propulsion would require a massive infrastructure upgrade (possibly new naval bases) and a 10 year+ lead time to train people up. Not saying it's not feasible just would be really expensive to set up and maintain.
> 
> The US explicitly blocked us from getting nuke boats last time, so that train may have sailed during the Cold War(to mix metaphors).


I thought, from reading here somewhere previously, that the Cons back in the early '90s had been able to convince the US  to allow the transfer of IP over to us in regards to the Canada class.  The recession and the loss of the '93 Federal election were the 1-2 punch in stopping it from moving forward.  Add to the mix the 500$ million penalty we had to pay (thanks Chretien for that) for breaking the EH101-RCN helicopters to rub some more salt into the wound.


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin Parkinson said:


> I picked 6 non-nuke as its realistic given our budgets, manning and training. It means each coast has one in refit, one operational and one in training at any one time.
> 
> Couple of interesting bits
> 
> 
> 
> H I Sutton - Covert Shores
> 
> 
> 
> 212CD sis about the same size as the Victoria Class


I tend to agree lets keep our dreams as small as possible less chance of them being crushed. And like I pointed out in the aussie sub thread if we want a nuclear boat we can get one used from the UK like last time









						Project to dismantle ex-Royal Navy nuclear submarines inches forward | Navy Lookout
					






					www.navylookout.com
				




I'm all in favour of us having nuclear subs I just don't see it being realistic. Opportunity to join with Australia on this would be impressive and I don't see the US opposing it this time around unless they view us as that leaky from an intelligence standpoint. Why the French-Australian collaboration didn't work is hard to say from the outside. Maybe it's a cultural thing or the Australians were asking too much, but it looks like they managed to make it work on a lot of other deliveries including one nuclear project in Brazil









						Brazilian submarine Álvaro Alberto - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## daftandbarmy

suffolkowner said:


> I'm all in favour of us having nuclear subs I just don't see it being realistic. Opportunity to join with Australia on this would be impressive and I don't see the US opposing it this time around unless they view us as that leaky from an intelligence standpoint. Why the French-Australian collaboration didn't work is hard to say from the outside. Maybe it's a cultural thing or the Australians were asking too much, but it looks like they managed to make it work on a lot of other deliveries including one nuclear project in Brazil
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brazilian submarine Álvaro Alberto - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



Given that we have a complimentary platform, diesel hunter-killers, it should be fairly easy to suggest some kind of partnership.

If we had any international credibility in the political realm, and an effective track record of opposing China, of course.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Navy_Pete said:


> a 10 year+ lead time to train people up. Not saying it's not feasible just would be really expensive to set up and maintain.


Given our track record over the last 20+yrs in procurement, I think that the above timeline fits nicely with our way of doing business. 

As someone else pointed out, station the trainee crews out of Virginia and/or WA and have them start by being a part of the normal crew rotations. Build up the experience in that manner. I going to go out on a limb and say that the operation tempo in Virginia is a bit more frequent than ours.

We imbed troops with the US and UK forces all the time, across all branches of the services.  Perfect example being our having 'boots on the ground' in Iraq during the invasion of Iraq (both in the US and UK forces) and having Sr personnel at the C&C centres down in the US doing the planning and logistics, even when Chretien was loudly declaring that Canada wouldn't be going. I'm saying this to pre-emptively counter the argument that the CDN public would be against our positioning of service members on nuclear subs. A CDN hand in Colorado can just as easily 'turn the key' to launch an ICBM as an American one.


----------



## OldSolduer

daftandbarmy said:


> Given that we have a complimentary platform, diesel hunter-killers, it should be fairly easy to suggest some kind of partnership.
> 
> If we had any international credibility in the political realm, *and an effective track record of opposing China, of course.*


There's the issue. As long as we have a government led by -IMO - a Communist sympathizer we will be shut out from our true allies.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Dont we have a huge problem with retention and recruitment? I think I read here somewhere we have civies manning positions aboard ships. How are we expected to man nuclear boats?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Fishbone Jones said:


> Dont we have a huge problem with retention and recruitment? I think I read here somewhere we have civies manning positions aboard ships. How are we expected to man nuclear boats?


Just like the combined plan for the Libs and Cons for budget balancing, and our crew retentions, we'll employ the COA of;







I think they'd be a  great capability but think that we can't afford to buy them without a massive change in perception of defence procurement, and we don't have the funding, expertise or infrastructure to *safely* maintain them. We fail on the surface ships, and manage it with a massive effort for the diesel subs, but think a nuclear plant would completely break our entire support structure. Maybe if we scrapped everything else and just had a few nuke subs, but that would leave massive capability holes, in all the big political points things we bring to the table like disaster relief.

It's going to take a huge amount of work to get our surface fleet back up to snuff after decades of hard use/abuse, but don't see any real changes to the status quo in the near future. We'll probably have to have a few ships "self-retire" first and hopefully no one gets hurt in the process.

I mean, it'd be awesome if I had a 3 car garage and an outbuilding for a workshop along with a home office and some more property, but you have to live within your means  and be practical about it. If we're struggling with the basics, maybe we should figure that out first.


----------



## OldSolduer

Navy_Pete said:


> Just like the combined plan for the Libs and Cons for budget balancing, and our crew retentions, we'll employ the COA of;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they'd be a  great capability but think that we can't afford to buy them without a massive change in perception of defence procurement, and we don't have the funding, expertise or infrastructure to *safely* maintain them.


I`m not RCN but I have read a fair bit about nuclear powered subs. They ain`t your grandpa`s fleet boat and they should not be commanded by nincompoops and idiots. Safety is the watchword here.


----------



## Navy_Pete

OldSolduer said:


> I`m not RCN but I have read a fair bit about nuclear powered subs. They ain`t your grandpa`s fleet boat and they should not be commanded by nincompoops and idiots. Safety is the watchword here.


Our entire risk management process would need overhauled, trained and ingrained on the operations side to get there. Right now it's a basic stoplight setup (with four colours for the lower risk side) and the joke is that the RAs are an exercise in 'talking it until it's yellow' (which used to be blue, but people said we were too risk adverse...). Stricter on the sub side, but still a pretty basic process. The nuclear industry is far more advanced, and actually not even really sure how the regulation of that would work in Canada. We're exempt from a lot of things, but some environmental laws still apply, so who knows.


----------



## KevinB

Fishbone Jones said:


> Dont we have a huge problem with retention and recruitment? I think I read here somewhere we have civies manning positions aboard ships. How are we expected to man nuclear boats?


From my understanding (any RCN folks feel free to steer me onto the correct course if I am wrong) that the civilian positions are on the converted container ship that is doubling as a fleet supply ship because the government didn't replace the Protequetor (whatever the French of Protector is) and Provider in time.

Virginia Class has 134 Crew - the LA Class had (has as some are still in service) 128.
   Significantly more than the 53 on the Victoria class SSK's - but all told even for 6 the difference is 486 personnel.

If the CF has issue finding 486 people to be submariners - you have a lot more issues than just that...


----------



## Grimey

KevinB said:


> From my understanding (any RCN folks feel free to steer me onto the correct course if I am wrong) that the civilian positions are on the converted container ship that is doubling as a fleet supply ship because the government didn't replace the Protequetor (whatever the French of Protector is) and Provider in time.
> 
> Virginia Class has 134 Crew - the LA Class had (has as some are still in service) 128.
> Significantly more than the 53 on the Victoria class SSK's - but all told even for 6 the difference is 486 personnel.
> 
> If the CF has issue finding 486 people to be submariners - you have a lot more issues than just that...


The core crew is civvies, augmented by RCN pers for RAS activities, force protection, helo ops etc.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Czech_pivo said:


> station the trainee crews out of Virginia and/or WA and have them start by being a part of the normal crew rotations. Build up the experience in that manner. I going to go out on a limb and say that the operation tempo in Virginia is a bit more frequent than ours.
> 
> We imbed troops with the US and UK forces all the time, across all branches of the services. Perfect example being our having 'boots on the ground' in Iraq during the invasion of Iraq (both in the US and UK forces) and having Sr personnel at the C&C centres down in the US doing the planning and logistics, even when Chretien was loudly declaring that Canada wouldn't be going. I'm saying this to pre-emptively counter the argument that the CDN public would be against our positioning of service members on nuclear subs. A CDN hand in Colorado can just as easily 'turn the key' to launch an ICBM as an American one.



Has Canada ever had an exchange officer/NCM onboard USN nuc's before?  If not...why not?  There's a reason if the answer is "no". 

I think RCN Officers have been on RN SSNs, at the very least while attending PERISHER.  That was on T-boats, I can't comment on if a RCN Officer has witnessed the inside of an Astute.  

Navy_Pete, your "Magic" gif....perfect.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> Has Canada ever had an exchange officer/NCM onboard USN nuc's before?  If not...why not?  There's a reason if the answer is "no".
> 
> I know RCN Officers have been on RN SSNs, at the very least while attending PERISHER.  That was on T-boats, I can't comment on if a RCN Officer has witnessed the inside of an Astute.


I think - don't quote me here - there are agreements in place between the UK and USA regarding technology that is present in UK submarines and that not just anyone can climb aboard a Brit SSN.


----------



## Grimey

Navy_Pete said:


> lol, I don't think we operate with what anyone would consider a 'sustainable and robust' workforce for crewing. Usually one boat or more is in an extended work period, and they are offset by design, so you don't normally need a full crew there. Suspect they are like us and would be in trouble if they wanted to actually sail all their operational boats at the same time.
> 
> Similarly, we don't have 12 CPF crews sitting around, so lots of pier head jumping to meet the basis for 'safe at sea' crew levels, let alone sustained operations, which needs a lot more people (and a higher level of functioning equipment) to actually be combat capable. Lot of people are quitting for various reasons (including burnout and disatisfaction with some trade amalgamations and pier head jumping) which just compounds things. Our current ops tempo in the RCN continues to be unsustainable and the institution is going to break itself. We didn't even slow down wit COVID, and keep sending ships to sea far below the threshold where they would be allowed out as commercial vessels, (without actually understanding the risk we're taking on) all for peacetime operations.
> 
> I think we'll have to start tying up old ships to actually send any of the incoming AOPs to sea (as well as to afford the maintenance), but the RCN still wants to operate the MCDVs (and the Oriole!) so things are all spread dangerously thin.


With the amalgamation of the three Mar Eng sub-trades, has that alleviated pier head jumping somewhat, or is there still a shortage of Cert 2/3/4s or whatever they're called now?  I've been out for 9 years along with most of my peer group.  Hard to get a feel as to what the state of Mar Tech (god, what a awful name) manning is currently.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

OldSolduer said:


> I think - don't quote me here - there are agreements in place between the UK and USA regarding technology that is present in UK submarines and that not just anyone can climb aboard a Brit SSN.



Yep;  some of it is discussed in the book Submarine by Tom Clancy.  There's comparison and discussion points on the LA Class and Trafalgar class boats, including the different LA flights, as well as comparison of both navies' "Command Colleges".   You might be correct....I changed my post to "think RCN Officers have been on T-boats.  I don't remember where I read that, and the documentary I watched on PERISHER had only a USN Officer on the course along with the RN Officers.

The Clancy book....it's a bit old now, of course, but still a good read (IMO).  I think I paid $8.99 for my Kobo E-book.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In the book "Through a Canadian periscope" The author who is well connected mentioned that the UK stopped inviting non-nuclear Captains to their Perisher course when they dropped non-nuclear subs. Canadian crews work with other NATO members on a non-nuclear NATO Perisher course modelled off of the Brit one. Apparently our subs have been used on these courses a number of times.  






						Through a Canadian Periscope: The Story of the Canadian Submarine Service: Ferguson, Julie H., MacNeil, Rear Admiral Dan, Cairns, Vice-Admiral Peter W.: 9781459710559: Books - Amazon.ca
					

Through a Canadian Periscope: The Story of the Canadian Submarine Service: Ferguson, Julie H., MacNeil, Rear Admiral Dan, Cairns, Vice-Admiral Peter W.: 9781459710559: Books - Amazon.ca



					www.amazon.ca


----------



## Edward Campbell

Fishbone Jones said:


> Dont we have a huge problem with retention and recruitment? I think I read here somewhere we have civies manning positions aboard ships. How are we expected to man nuclear boats?



My sense, from being a regular here on Army.ca, is that the staffing situation applies across the board ... the RCN may be the worst but, it appears, that everyone has some real problems. 

Absent a big recession ~ which we might be due for in a few years (major recessions and subsequent expansion come every 25-50 years in modern (post industry revolution) times, our last major recession ended in 2009 ~ the best way to solve the recruiting and retention problem is to make military service and a military career more attractive than, say, being a civilian truck-driver or construction worker, or retail sales clerk, or electronic technician or a banker or businessperson or an airline pilot. It also seems, to me, based, largely, on what I read here, that the 21st century CF  is NOT s really attractive career choice for most young people. (Please, remember, folks, I joined BEFORE Paul Hellyer became MND and retired almost 25 years ago.)

There was an analogous situation in the late 1950s and early 1960s. There was no war to fight ... the "adventure" factor ~ which_ I think_ does make the military attractive to young men, especially ~ was lacking and pay was low. Mr Hellyer "solved" the pay issue by promoting most trained OS, Pte, LACs to Cpl and most Lts to Capt ... it worked, sortta, but it also mangled a proven , successful, leadership pyramid that had served Canada well in war, after war, after war.

But I'm sot sure pay is the top issue in 2021. Maybe "lifestyle" matters more: there are damned few perquisites any more, are there? And Cold Lake, Petawawa, Bagotville and Gagetown are not quite as "nice" for a soldier raising a family as were Calgary, Winnipeg, London, ON and Germany.

I agree with you, old chum, that recruiting retention MUST be solved in parallel with fixing the procurement system ... and both need to happen AFTER the fat morbid obesity is cut from the CF's command and control superstructure and AFTER the individual training and career management mess is sorted.

In my view, ALL those reforms need to happen BEFORE the defence budget can be increased in any meaningful way ... and _I suspect_, actually, _*I fear*_ that the top levels of the CF's leadership pyramid are, broadly and generally, unfit for purpose and cannot make the needed things happen.


----------



## OldSolduer

I seem to recall one of our sub skippers court martialled. It seems he was a grad of the Perisher program. I watched some tv about him and was he rail roaded?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Marshaw, back in the late 90s.   The timeline could be right;  95 was when the Royal Netherlands Navy took over the SSK Perisher course if this is correct.






						Submarine Command Course - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Also interesting...






						1824-The-Perisher-Club| FrontLine Defence
					






					defence.frontline.online


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Fishbone Jones said:


> Dont we have a huge problem with retention and recruitment? I think I read here somewhere we have civies manning positions aboard ships. How are we expected to man nuclear boats?


Federal Fleet Services, Canada's attempt at the Royal Fleet Auxiliary. It's actually a good idea and has side benefits of creating berths for merchant marine types that will go on to be the Ship pilots and Chief Engineers of the future. Apparently the current system needs some tweaks, but it's quite workable and the US/RN even uses contracted helicopters and crews for the vertical replenishment as well.


----------



## CBH99

OldSolduer said:


> I`m not RCN but I have read a fair bit about nuclear powered subs. They ain`t your grandpa`s fleet boat and they should not be commanded by nincompoops and idiots. Safety is the watchword here.


After watching that show on Discovery about the RN Perisher course, and reading two memories of ex-submarine skippers… I have realized I’m not remotely capable of commanding a submarine.  

Especially not one that has anything nuclear onboard, regardless of what it is.  


What has always _really_ impressed me was just how well educated a lot of the submarine CO’s, XO’s, and crews are.  A lot of them have PhD’s, Masters, etc in a variety of advanced sciences.  Younger members benefit immensely from that kind of culture, and many of them (in the USN anyway) had started impressive degrees of their own.  

I don’t think idiots can get even close.


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> After watching that show on Discovery about the RN Perisher course, and reading two memories of ex-submarine skippers… I have realized I’m not remotely capable of commanding a submarine.
> 
> Especially not one that has anything nuclear onboard, regardless of what it is.
> 
> 
> What has always _really_ impressed me was just how well educated a lot of the submarine CO’s, XO’s, and crews are.  A lot of them have PhD’s, Masters, etc in a variety of advanced sciences.  Younger members benefit immensely from that kind of culture, and many of them (in the USN anyway) had started impressive degrees of their own.
> 
> I don’t think idiots can get even close.


Yeah - dummies (or bad ship-drivers) don't really get far in the sub fleet, from what I've heard.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dimsum said:


> Yeah - dummies (or bad ship-drivers) don't really get far in the sub fleet, from what I've heard.


I have dealt with USN aviators, submariners and surface warfare officers on various exercises and operations.

The submariners, as a group, are by far the most professionally impressive.


----------



## Navy_Pete

SeaKingTacco said:


> I have dealt with USN aviators, submariners and surface warfare officers on various exercises and operations.
> 
> The submariners, as a group, are by far the most professionally impressive.


I believe the basic nuclear training is pretty close to Masters level course, and a lot of them specialize beyond that. Generally a collection of extremely smart and very motivated, switched on people.

There are a lot of really good individual people in the surface side, but the general standard on the nuclear fleet, and nuclear subs in particular, is a few steps higher, with a pretty sharp drop off where they can't tolerate less skilled/competent people.


----------



## Underway

By basic nuclear training what exactly are you referring to?  The Officers that become engineers (who generally already have a science/engineering background) the techs or others?

I'm not denying the professionalism or dedication required.  It's a no-fail situation at all times with those pressurized steam reactors.  I always wondered why they didn't go with one of the "impossible to melt down" options that are out there in the world.  Then again maybe they have.  Nuc reactor tech is very close hold.


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:


> I have dealt with USN aviators, submariners and surface warfare officers on various exercises and operations.
> 
> The submariners, as a group, are by far the most professionally impressive.


This is what I can glean from the books I have read - OK Tom Clancy had me mesmerized. I reckon he went into enough detail to inform the masses that read his books that the nuclear submarine community in the USN are the best of the best, The ORSE tests they undergo are very stringent from what understand. 

Not bad for a crayon eater eh?


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> that the nuclear submarine community in the USN are the best of the best


That's what _they_ want you to think


----------



## OldSolduer

dimsum said:


> That's what _they_ want you to think


Are they that good?


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:


> I always wondered why they didn't go with one of the "impossible to melt down" options that are out there in the world.


What are some examples of these “impossible to melt down” nuclear reactors that are superior to the pressurised-water reactors currently used in American attack submarines?  Are they at least as small, powerful, quiet, safe, shock resistant, and reliable as, say, the S9G reactor, and are they designed to operate at least 33 years without refueling?


----------



## Dale Denton

I wonder if there's a few high level people in gov't looking for the best way to join this club in a way that is the cheapest and most virtue-signalling...

Best case IMHO is to buy 2 more JSSs, 1 LPH, and 6-8 SNNs with all but a small number of SNNs in the Pacific. Perhaps taking the "Northern Pacific Flank" responsibility, with joint basing agreements in Canada (as a possible replacement for Scotland), USN and Australia. 

Sell it with a small commitment to Canadian nuclear industry involvement to 'squeeze' more life into existing plants, more money for post-secondary programs in the nuclear and sustainable tech industry (already mentioned in platforms), subsidize industry R&D, and new reactors even. Make the SSN industry marry into the existing nuclear industry.

Enables us to learn under-ice conditions by having transfer programs and courses with Navies with experience in it. Include a heck of a RCN recruiting campaign with extensive US/UK base education (and $), retention into the Sub Service with competitive pay and possibilities to live in Aus/UK/US.


----------



## JMCanada

Since JT showed no interest in joining this SSN procurement, there might be still an option to join (at some level) the program and strengthen Canadian nuclear industry, despite not purchasing any boat in the beginning. Somehow alike the F35 program.

It would be interesting to gain access to Technology and a share of the industrial work-load , as well as keeping options for a future purchase.

However, I foresee a huge manning issue even if the new boats are based on the Astute class (about 95-100 crew). For the same number of submarines the crews would double. Six to eight subs. would mean a four-fold increase.


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:


> What are some examples of these “impossible to melt down” nuclear reactors that are superior to the pressurised-water reactors currently used in American attack submarines?  Are they at least as small, powerful, quiet, safe, shock resistant, and reliable as, say, the S9G reactor, and are they designed to operate at least 33 years without refueling?


There are about a half dozen designs out there if you do some Google-fu.  Breaking down the pros and cons of a graphine moderated reactor vs Fast neutron vs pressurized water etc... is a bit much for the thread.  However, the most notable to me is a CANDU reactor which is the OG of no meltdown technology.

As for the rest of the comments, I have no idea.  US sub reactors are descended from over 70 years of research.  Given the US is an evolutionary not a revolutionary designer of military technology I expect their reactor tech is beholden to the past, and they are not willing to risk a break from their tried and tested line to do something new (to them). 

My question was just thinking out loud.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Message from ML Institute:



> If Canada wants to respond to the threat posed by a rising China’s naval power, contribute to the defence of itself and its allies, and acquire the patrol and surveillance capabilities needed to assert our sovereignty in the Arctic and along our coastlines, submarines are not a luxury but a necessity for the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN).
> 
> That is the message of a new MLI paper by Jeffrey F. Collins, which points to the changing geopolitical currents and the proliferation of new weapons among the reasons why a blue water navy needs to incorporate submarines as part of its fleet structure. Subs are vital for four main reasons:
> 
> 
> Canada’s vast maritime domain requires them;
> the relative decline of the US increases the demand for greater defence investment by Canada and other allies and that means more submarines;
> the rapid build-up and aggressive posture of China’s navy and large maritime militia fleet will foster a market for submarine acquisitions in the wider Indo-Pacific; and
> the proliferation of comparatively inexpensive anti-access/area denial weapons systems increases the importance of acquiring an undersea capability, as surface ships are highly vulnerable to such systems.
> The new paper, titled “_Deadline 2036 – Assessing the requirements and options for Canada’s future submarine force_,” notes that Canada’s existing four diesel-electric _Victoria-_class submarines represent a quarter of the RCN’s advanced warfighting capability, and with the vessels soon due for replacement, it’s time to assess our options.
> 
> The Canadian military has initiated a “Canadian submarine patrol project” to explore replacing the _Victoria_-class subs, and Collins’ paper is well positioned to inform this effort. As pointed out in the foreword written by RCN Vice-Admiral (Ret’d) Mark Norman, “Dr. Collins’ work should be mandatory reading for anyone interested in, or potentially commenting on, a future submarine capability for Canada.”
> 
> According to Collins, while they were controversial due to accidents and costly repairs, “the _Victoria_-class submarine plays a key role in ensuring the RCN remains a ‘blue water navy’ capable of defending the rules-based international order at sea, domestically and internationally.”
> 
> This paper is particularly timely as Australia made waves recently by announcing its plans to acquire new nuclear submarines as part of a security and technology sharing deal with the United Kingdom and the United States (AUKUS). While the Australians have opted for nuclear vessels, this paper focuses on Canada’s options for non-nuclear submarines due to their significantly lower costs, ability to undertake quiet operations (when relying on battery power), and superior fit with the forces already fielded by our allies.
> 
> Canada has lost its traditional sources of submarines as the US and UK have ceased diesel-electric submarine production. According to Collins, this leaves three procurement options for Ottawa and the RCN to meet its submarine fleet replacement needs:
> 
> *Option 1 – Domestic Build* – The National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) is committed to the continuous, multi-decade domestic construction of federal vessels. For the submarine replacement, one or more NSS yards could build a “made in Canada" design or a Canadianized foreign design.
> 
> *Option 2 – Canadian Military-off-the-shelf (MOTS): *Sweden, Spain, France, Germany, and Japan are established non-nuclear submarine producers with whom Ottawa could work in buying a Canadianized MOTS submarine. This is the most common and cost-conscious approach used by smaller allies.
> 
> *Option 3 – Collaborative Build*: Canada can work with an established  submarine builder to spilt production between the two countries or enter a joint financing arrangement. This would entail a complex arrangement involving intellectual property negotiations and higher costs than a Canadianized design.
> “With both growing maritime threats and changing geopolitical realities emanating from the return of rivalries among the world’s great powers,” writes Collins, "a timely submarine acquisition that meets Canadian requirements is more necessary today than when the Victoria-class were acquired 23 years ago.”



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## KevinB

Rather alarming paper.

I did like Adm Norman's quote - 
_As the unattributed maxim goes, “you’ll always have a submarine in your waters... yours, or someone else’s.”_

From Dr. Colins paper.
_Of the world’s estimated 43 states with submarines, 13 are Indo-Pacific coastal states. Not counting the small and coastal ranging midget submarines that Pakistan, Vietnam, Iran, or North Korea use, the region is home to 153 of the world’s 407 known active submarines. That number is expected to grow to up to 300 by 2030 (Donnellan 2021)._

T_he best ASW tool, it is said, is another submarine. And in a region like the Indo-Pacific – where nationalist tensions are rife, a regional NATO-like security architecture absent, and where Canada sees increasing economic and political ties – having a submarine capability for both deployments and training Canada’s surface fleet will be less a luxury and more of a requirement._

As he goes on, my biggest take away was that Canada cannot afford to not have a SSN capability - the year round under ice issue being the #1, but also the AOR for the Pacific fleet means that the Nuke boat is a significantly more capable option.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Just


KevinB said:


> Rather alarming paper.
> 
> I did like Adm Norman's quote -
> _As the unattributed maxim goes, “you’ll always have a submarine in your waters... yours, or someone else’s.”_
> 
> From Dr. Colins paper.
> _Of the world’s estimated 43 states with submarines, 13 are Indo-Pacific coastal states. Not counting the small and coastal ranging midget submarines that Pakistan, Vietnam, Iran, or North Korea use, the region is home to 153 of the world’s 407 known active submarines. That number is expected to grow to up to 300 by 2030 (Donnellan 2021)._
> 
> T_he best ASW tool, it is said, is another submarine. And in a region like the Indo-Pacific – where nationalist tensions are rife, a regional NATO-like security architecture absent, and where Canada sees increasing economic and political ties – having a submarine capability for both deployments and training Canada’s surface fleet will be less a luxury and more of a requirement._
> 
> As he goes on, my biggest take away was that Canada cannot afford to not have a SSN capability - the year round under ice issue being the #1, but also the AOR for the Pacific fleet means that the Nuke boat is a significantly more capable option.


 Just the distances alone in the Pacific mean that an SSK is of limited use to us. Even AIP does not do much to improve transit speed.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

OldSolduer said:


> Are they that good?



Sometimes.  I recall one CASEX with an LA, the Mad Marks on the TacPlot looked a like a 3 year olds connect-the-dots drawing.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

SeaKingTacco said:


> Just
> 
> Just the distances alone in the Pacific mean that an SSK is of limited use to us. Even AIP does not do much to improve transit speed.


Pretty much.  Not having an AOR basically limits our Navy's ability to get anywhere.  We can limp across the Pacific if our Allies feel like giving us gas which is what happens presently.  

SSKs, from an actual operational standpoint, are useless to us in the Pacific.


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:


> SSKs, from an actual operational standpoint, are useless to us in the Pacific.


If we're talking about expeditionary or power projection, yes.

If we're talking about defensive capabilities, maybe.  

Again, it totally depends on what the RCN wants the subs to do.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dimsum said:


> If we're talking about expeditionary or power projection, yes.
> 
> If we're talking about defensive capabilities, maybe.
> 
> Again, it totally depends on what the RCN wants the subs to do.


I would say they are pretty useless defensively as well given how quickly the water depth drops off in the Pacific.  The Upholders were designed for the GIUK Gap which is shallow water.  The West Coast of North America is Nuke Country.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:


> I would say they are pretty useless defensively as well given how quickly the water depth drops off in the Pacific.  The Upholders were designed for the GIUK Gap which is shallow water.  The West Coast of North America is Nuke Country.



Only if you have no bases outside of North America, I would guess.

The US submarine campaign in the Pacific during WW2 was one of the most effective in history, apparently.

Of course, being diesel boats, they relied on land bases in Guam etc.

*The Silent Service: Submarines in the Pacific*

Postwar records compiled by the Joint Army-Navy Assessment Committee indicate Japan lost 686 warships of 500 gross tons (GRT) or larger, 2,346 merchantmen, and a total of 10.5 million GRT to submarines during 1,600 war patrols. Only 1.6 percent of the total U.S. naval manpower was responsible for America's success on its Pacific high seas; more than half of the tonnage sunk was credited to U.S. submarines. The tremendous accomplishments of American submarines were achieved at the expense of 52 subs with 374 officers and 3,131 enlisted volunteers lost during combat against Japan; Japan lost 128 submarines during the Second World War in Pacific waters. American casualty counts represent 16 percent of the U.S. operational submarine officer corps and 13 percent of its enlisted force.





__





						A Guide to the War in the Pacific: The Pacific Offensive
					





					www.nps.gov


----------



## GR66

What if we were to take over the Shortfin Barracuda contract from Australia.  It's a program that is already underway with a portion of the engineering and design costs already invested.  My understanding is that the Aussie version was using American weapons & systems like we would likely want.  Sell it to the Americans as a way to patch things up with the French and would take some of the pressure off us from the US for "not pulling our weight" in defense spending.


----------



## dimsum

GR66 said:


> What if we were to take over the Shortfin Barracuda contract from Australia.  It's a program that is already underway with a portion of the engineering and design costs already invested.  My understanding is that the Aussie version was using American weapons & systems like we would likely want.  Sell it to the Americans as a way to patch things up with the French and would take some of the pressure off us from the US for "not pulling our weight" in defense spending.


F no.  

The whole reason why they cancelled it was because of the ballooning costs, and it would have been the launch customer for a massive re-design of something that wasn't designed that way (SSN to SSK).

Basically, the Cyclone all over again.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:


> Only if you have no bases outside of North America, I would guess.
> 
> The US submarine campaign in the Pacific during WW2 was one of the most effective in history, apparently.
> 
> Of course, being diesel boats, they relied on land bases in Guam etc.
> 
> *The Silent Service: Submarines in the Pacific*
> 
> Postwar records compiled by the Joint Army-Navy Assessment Committee indicate Japan lost 686 warships of 500 gross tons (GRT) or larger, 2,346 merchantmen, and a total of 10.5 million GRT to submarines during 1,600 war patrols. Only 1.6 percent of the total U.S. naval manpower was responsible for America's success on its Pacific high seas; more than half of the tonnage sunk was credited to U.S. submarines. The tremendous accomplishments of American submarines were achieved at the expense of 52 subs with 374 officers and 3,131 enlisted volunteers lost during combat against Japan; Japan lost 128 submarines during the Second World War in Pacific waters. American casualty counts represent 16 percent of the U.S. operational submarine officer corps and 13 percent of its enlisted force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Guide to the War in the Pacific: The Pacific Offensive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nps.gov


The problem with this comparison is it fails to take in to account the significant advances in technology that have taken place since that time. 

A Diesel Sub's only advantage is it is somewhat quieter in specific situations.  It is considerably weaker in every other category and it's not even close.  Once it's detected, it can be prosecuted as it lacks the speed of a Nuke boat. 

A Nuke boat can shoot you, then drive away before you even know what hit you.  Its top speed underwater is more than a Surface Ship.  It has no need to snort and has way more capability in every facet due to its powerplant.

I don't actually think the ASW exercises we presently do would reflect in anyway how a campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare using Nuke boats would be conducted.  It would be bloody and violent and the lack of investment in MPA in the West would be readily apparent for all to see.


----------



## GR66

dimsum said:


> F no.
> 
> The whole reason why they cancelled it was because of the ballooning costs, and it would have been the launch customer for a massive re-design of something that wasn't designed that way (SSN to SSK).
> 
> Basically, the Cyclone all over again.


You are of course assuming that if we decided instead to purchase a German/Swedish/Japanese/Other SSK we wouldn't do exactly the same thing with their design...Canadianizing it and changing out everything from the electrical systems to fire control, weapons, etc. 

I have no idea how far along they are on the re-design of the Barracuda, but if it's far enough along we might be ahead of the game.  They may also give a discount to the contract price for a) saving them from a complete financial loss on the project and b) shifting the actual building of the subs back to France.  

Option B would be to take over the contract keeping the already planned re-design of the fire control and weapon systems but maintaining the original nuclear propulsion.


----------



## KevinB

GR66 said:


> You are of course assuming that if we decided instead to purchase a German/Swedish/Japanese/Other SSK we wouldn't do exactly the same thing with their design...Canadianizing it and changing out everything from the electrical systems to fire control, weapons, etc.
> 
> I have no idea how far along they are on the re-design of the Barracuda, but if it's far enough along we might be ahead of the game.  They may also give a discount to the contract price for a) saving them from a complete financial loss on the project and b) shifting the actual building of the subs back to France.
> 
> Option B would be to take over the contract keeping the already planned re-design of the fire control and weapon systems but maintaining the original nuclear propulsion.


If you go to a Nuke boat - doesn't it make an Ass-ton more sense to do it with partners?
   Which would be AUKUS...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Humphrey Bogart said:


> The problem with this comparison is it fails to take in to account the significant advances in technology that have taken place since that time.
> 
> A Diesel Sub's only advantage is it is somewhat quieter in specific situations.  It is considerably weaker in every other category and it's not even close.  Once it's detected, it can be prosecuted as it lacks the speed of a Nuke boat.
> 
> A Nuke boat can shoot you, then drive away before you even know what hit you.  Its top speed underwater is more than a Surface Ship.  It has no need to snort and has way more capability in every facet due to its powerplant.
> 
> I don't actually think the ASW exercises we presently do would reflect in anyway how a campaign of unrestricted submarine warfare using Nuke boats would be conducted.  It would be bloody and violent and the lack of investment in MPA in the West would be readily apparent for all to see.


I would add that I have prosecuted both SSN and SSK targets in a Sea King. It was about even odds that I could find, hold and kill an SSN. SSKs were much more difficult.

In a Cyclone, the SSK is dead, almost every single time. It is not even a close contest anymore. The SSN might be able to eventually break contact and run away, but they are aren’t much of a menace while they are doing that.


----------



## Weinie

SeaKingTacco said:


> I would add that I have prosecuted both SSN and SSK targets in a Sea King. It was about even odds that I could find, hold and kill an SSN. SSKs were much more difficult.
> 
> In a Cyclone, the SSK is dead, almost every single time. It is not even a close contest anymore. The SSN might be able to eventually break contact and run away, but they are aren’t much of a menace while they are doing that.


Sure, but correct me if I am wrong here. Many adversary sub-launched torpedoes have ranges far in excess of the Mk 46/54. If your ship is sunk, the Cyclone doesn't factor.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Weinie said:


> Sure, but correct me if I am wrong here. Many adversary sub-launched torpedoes have ranges far in excess of the Mk 46/54. If your ship is sunk, the Cyclone doesn't factor.


Humphrey made a point some days ago about Naval Warfare being a game of massing your strength. If you sail as part of a properly constituted Task Group with all the enablers, there is always something/someone looking.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:


> The SSN might be able to eventually break contact and run away, but they are aren’t much of a menace while they are doing that.



To add quickly for those not as famil with ASW stuff, that is also (semi) effective ASW. 

I might not 100% support the "dead" part, but just because I believe the '46 lacks punch, but damaged/out of combat is a kill of sorts.  A few ships with tails, a Cyclone dip pair and a 140 w/4 fish?  46s upgraded to 54s?  Oh ya.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Weinie said:


> Sure, but correct me if I am wrong here. Many adversary sub-launched torpedoes have ranges far in excess of the Mk 46/54. If your ship is sunk, the Cyclone doesn't factor.



I'm not sure I 100% understand your thought on this one;  it would be rare thing IMO for a single hull to be out there on it's own.  There's a fairly significant amount of sensory capability airborne, surface and sub-surface...putting a torp in the water is like turning on a spotlight at night and some assets can react to that fairly quickly.   Personally, I'd be a little more concerned with better standoff SSMs from newer class nucs if I was on a skimmer (capsulated torps in SSM are part of the equation, but they're either/ors to me so I am referring to traditional torps; lauch-and-swims).  Think about what the Oscar class was designed for...take a look at Yasen, Borei.  Those airborne exploding telephone poles have better range AND speed over fish.

Adding things like MSA (Multi Static Active) systems to the toolbox are changing the game somewhat...for now.


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> If you go to a Nuke boat - doesn't it make an Ass-ton more sense to do it with partners?
> Which would be AUKUS...


Hmmmm there is some sort of trilateral pact recently signed......


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:


> A Diesel Sub's only advantage is it is somewhat quieter in specific situations.


Including magnetically "quieter" (generally speaking...there's factors that affect that of course).  MAD can be an attack sensor...



Humphrey Bogart said:


> Its top speed underwater is more than a Surface Ship.



Speed = loud, too, though and severe sensor degradation for the boat...double-edge sword for them.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> There are about a half dozen designs out there if you do some Google-fu.  Breaking down the pros and cons of a graphine moderated reactor vs Fast neutron vs pressurized water etc... is a bit much for the thread.  However, the most notable to me is a CANDU reactor which is the OG of no meltdown technology.


Agreed, Underway.  Not sure how the form factor of the CANDU reactor would scale to a sub, but D2O-moderated reactors are about as safe as nuclear fission power can get. By virtue of the fuel-bundle geometry, dumping the heavy-water moderator out of the core immediately shuts the reactor down.  Even better, is that once core-related issues would be resolved, the moderator can be returned to the core and reactor restarted.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> Agreed, Underway. Not sure how the form factor of the CANDU reactor would scale to a sub, but D2O-moderated reactors are about as safe as nuclear fission power can get. By virtue of the fuel-bundle geometry, dumping the heavy-water moderator out of the core immediately shuts the reactor down. Even better, is that once core-related issues would be resolved, the moderator can be returned to the core and reactor restarted.








😁


----------



## Weinie

Eye In The Sky said:


> I'm not sure I 100% understand your thought on this one;  it would be rare thing IMO for a single hull to be out there on it's own.  There's a fairly significant amount of sensory capability airborne, surface and sub-surface...putting a torp in the water is like turning on a spotlight at night and some assets can react to that fairly quickly.   Personally, I'd be a little more concerned with better standoff SSMs from newer class nucs if I was on a skimmer (capsulated torps in SSM are part of the equation, but they're either/ors to me so I am referring to traditional torps; lauch-and-swims).  Think about what the Oscar class was designed for...take a look at Yasen, Borei.  Those airborne exploding telephone poles have better range AND speed over fish.
> 
> Adding things like MSA (Multi Static Active) systems to the toolbox are changing the game somewhat...for now.


I know SFA in this niche and have learned more in the last two hours than in the last 30 years. It always seemed to me that subs had an advantage based on the greater range of their torpedoes vs an ASW component. I appreciate the insight.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There's so many variables, there's no real "DS solution" when it comes to ASW.  I've been fortunate enough to hold sensor/visual contact on friendly and adversary sub-surface contacts (Ex's and Op's) , work co-op with MH/surface/subsurface joint forces etc.  I'm not an expert, by any means, though and my opinions are debatable I'm sure.  I likely fit the "_questionable mentality_" part...

It's not impossible for a sub to "get inside" and take someone out with a torp, of course...but I'd consider that their "most dangerous COA" and one that is going to be fairly hard to pull off in a shooting war.



One thing I'll always believe;  the best ASW platform is....a capable submarine with a well-trained, disciplined crew.  If I'd of been born south of our border, I'd likely have made significant efforts to earn dolphins vice Wings.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Of course the subs might be going after the AOR's steaming to join the task force, who has been busy burning up fuel. I guess how long can a task force operate independently before it needs more fuel? Assuming a CV(or similar), couple of AD Destroyers, 4-5 Frigates and a AOR.


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> Sure, but correct me if I am wrong here. Many adversary sub-launched torpedoes have ranges far in excess of the Mk 46/54. If your ship is sunk, the Cyclone doesn't factor.


You can open source this but a Mk48 heavyweight torpedo has a much further range than a Mk 46/54 lightweight torpedo.  Because lightweight torps are designed mainly to be air launched against a target.  Hence the helicopter is the most valuable ASW asset that is organic to the ship.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Mk 48 = 1,000lb warhead

Mk 46 = 100lb warhead

Mk48 can also be "steered" by the sub after firing...open source and fiction, but SSN by Clancy is a decent read (if a little biased...).


----------



## Czech_pivo

dimsum said:


> F no.
> 
> The whole reason why they cancelled it was because of the ballooning costs, and it would have been the launch customer for a massive re-design of something that wasn't designed that way (SSN to SSK).
> 
> Basically, the Cyclone all over again.


And we’ve yet to receive all of the Cyclones….


----------



## MilEME09

Czech_pivo said:


> And we’ve yet to receive all of the Cyclones….


Which goes to show how much of a colossal screw up in procurement that project still is, how many billions have been wasted because that project hasn't fully delivered after almost 2 decades? How have we not penaltied the company into the ground


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> Mk 48 = 1,000lb warhead
> 
> Mk 46 = 100lb warhead
> 
> Mk48 can also be "steered" by the sub after firing...open source and fiction, but SSN by Clancy is a decent read (if a little biased...).


I have that book as well as The Hunt for Red October. Fascinating is the world of submarine warfare.


----------



## Good2Golf

MilEME09 said:


> Which goes to show how much of a colossal screw up in procurement that project still is, how many billions have been wasted because that project hasn't fully delivered after almost 2 decades? How have we not penaltied the company into the ground


Canada did…took Lockheed-Sikorsky right to the full-extent of contractual liquidated damages.     

Things is, in business, once maximum LDs have been paid and written-off by a company, there is little business incentive to bend over backwards rushing to make an orphan product do everything the customer thinks they want (including the full system integration that the client contractually obliged NEITHER the airframe manufacturer, NOR the mission system OEM…yup, nobody actually tasked to make it work together).


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> (including the full system integration that the client contractually obliged NEITHER the airframe manufacturer, NOR the mission system OEM…yup, nobody actually tasked to make it work together).


Where is the face palm emoji? You gotta be kidding....but some how I don't think you are.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

> Fascinating is the world of submarine warfare.



It's been pretty satisfying to have taken part in "that stuff".  I honestly consider myself very lucky.

Red Storm Rising is another good one.  Battle of the Atlantic stuff...including the power of naval air forces.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MilEME09 said:


> Which goes to show how much of a colossal screw up in procurement that project still is, how many billions have been wasted because that project hasn't fully delivered after almost 2 decades? How have we not penaltied the company into the ground


And the truly, truly sad thing of it is this - there’s most likely no one left from the original team who started the project back in 1993 when the EH-101 contract was signed to even know all the details or to be able to point out where all the bodies/mistakes are.  As a result no one can be held accountable. I mean how many MoD’s have there been since the EH-101 to present day? 
A person could have started their very first day of their career on this project and 28yrs later be just about ready to retire and the RCN has yet to receive the last Cyclone. It’s mind boggling and frankly, disgusting. Such a sad state that we’re in.


----------



## Good2Golf

“I’ll take dis pen, an’ write in da number….zero…zero ‘elicopters.  Zip, zero, nada!”


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:


> A person could have started their very first day of their career on this project and 28yrs later be just about ready to retire and the RCN has yet to receive the last Cyclone. It’s mind boggling and frankly, disgusting. Such a sad state that we’re in.


...and to bring it back to subs, the Australians (before they cancelled the deal) started the Attack-class submarine project in 2007, and would have had the last sub in 2050.  

That is not a typo.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Czech_pivo said:


> A person could have started their very first day of their career on this project and 28yrs later be just about ready to retire and the RCN RCAF has yet to receive the last Cyclone.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Cue a timely written article -

"Unless Canada substantially stepped up in another defence area, “_getting out of the sub business_ _would mean that our friends and allies_ (and, of course, those who oppose our friends and allies) _would take Canada even less seriously in defence matters than they do now_,”

_"It would also “effectively cede operational control over our coastal and Arctic waters to others,” both allies and enemies, Nossal added."_
- Not sure I agree with this (but I will let others with vastly more experience weigh in on this) because even with the 4 subs we have now we don't have operational control over the Arctic waters, they are not able to patrol throughout the entire region at all and the new AOPS's cannot as well, so do we have operational control over our entire Arctic?

"_We need to move forward with a viable program to replace the current capability,” said Norman.
- _Replacing our 'current capability' will not address the short-fall in operating throughout our entire Arctic under the ice.

“T_he idea that Canada could return to its 1950s past of relying on US or UK submarines to undertake these missions on our behalf is myopic_.”
- Refer to the recent comments on the Arctic by the British top military commander.









						Canada needs to start looking for new subs now, says report
					

Given the build-up in submarine fleets by countries like China and Russia, 'Canada’s ability to exert influence in its vast maritime domain will be tested'




					nationalpost.com
				





*EDIT- *

I'd like to point out the phase _*'Canada’s ability to exert influence in its vast maritime domain will be tested' *_in the title of the article.  It says _'exert influence',_ it doesn't say _'control'_ or _'ability to have a strategic presence'_ or _'defend'_ or 'maintain sovereignty' - its a statement implying that we don't have any of the above.


----------



## KevinB

MilEME09 said:


> Which goes to show how much of a colossal screw up in procurement that project still is, how many billions have been wasted because that project hasn't fully delivered after almost 2 decades? How have we not penaltied the company into the ground


Well when one opts out of a program as a key stakeholder -- then tried to get in with a barebones model with CF required add ons later (which is eventually for more money than the fully up EH-101) you need to sit in the queue for the line like everyone else who isn't a stakeholder...

The project is a screw up - but the blame goes 110% to Politicians


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> “I’ll take dis pen, an’ write in da number….zero…zero ‘elicopters.  Zip, zero, nada!”


Cadillac elicopters.


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:


> Cue a timely written article -


Cynical me would think that they had something ready to go, and waiting for a moment when an ally replaced their subs to push it out.  

Brush it off, change a few names, and send.


----------



## Dale Denton

dimsum said:


> Cynical me would think that they had something ready to go, and waiting for a moment when an ally replaced their subs to push it out.
> 
> Brush it off, change a few names, and send.



My thoughts too. It shows what the public thinks of our pacifism lack of a national security strategy. It shows British forethought into potential customers and their ability to take Canada's 'pulse' with the multiple national news articles regarding Canada and AUKUS. From the attention AUKUS related articles are getting and their position in the newscast/news sites, you could say that the public does care alot about national security and China's rise to a superpower and that Canadians want something to be done and said about it.

I'm of the opinion that Canadians actually care about the CF and how we view ourselves in the world as the good guys. I think Canadians want the CF to have good equipment, but there is so little insight into what the CF can and can't do that the public doesn't know how vulnerable we've made ourselves.

I'd argue half of the project to replace our SSKs would be the selling of the project to Canadians. Work with CDN media to produce documentaries into what it's like on a HMCS; to be a sailor. There has been so much quality programming coming from the UK, whether its a documentary on being a sailor on a Type 45, Perisher course, or Royal Marine youtube content, there is much to be desired here.


----------



## JMCanada

JMCanada said:


> And while they speak in the news about building eight submarines in Australia, the RAN might be still considering twelve. Might  this imply direct sales of the other four either from US or UK? This may well be under consideration in the 18-month period set to arrive to conclusions.
> 
> _“Instead we should buy 12 of a proven design which is already in the water. We want long-range hunter-killer vessels. (...)_



I was not so bad guessing...









						Australia in talks to lease, buy existing subs
					

Australian government will be in discussions to lease or buy the existing submarines from the US and UK in the next 12 to 18 months, Australia's Minister for Defence Peter Dutton revealed.




					www.navaltoday.com


----------



## Brad Sallows

> Canadians want something to be done and said about it.



Once the right words have been said - words and intentions are what matter, not deeds - it's back to worrying about domestic issues.  Arctic sovereignty is simply a matter of a few more Canadian Rangers and more aboriginal self-governance to look after the North.

The dreaming we do on any of the capability/equipment threads would be aspirational under a conservative government, which might try to scrape up a few coppers for defence.  Under prolonged liberal/left governance, it's just delusional.


----------



## OldSolduer

Brad Sallows said:


> Once the right words have been said - words and intentions are what matter, not deeds - it's back to worrying about domestic issues.  Arctic sovereignty is simply a matter of a few more Canadian Rangers and more aboriginal self-governance to look after the North.
> 
> The dreaming we do on any of the capability/equipment threads would be aspirational under a conservative government, which might try to scrape up a few coppers for defence.  Under prolonged liberal/left governance, it's just delusional.


I recall about 11 years ago I wrote an essay for the OPMEs. It was about peacekeeping and was it - is it - a "fatal distraction" for the CAF?
I concluded that it was not at the time due to our presence in Afghanistan and that all three components of the CAF were engaged in some way during that time.
Now during the past five years I am starting to wonder if I was wrong. It seems the average Canadian knows less about their own military than they know about (insert famous emptyheaded celebrity that you really detest-mine are the Kardashians). Sad but true.

I fear once this class of subs are no longer sustainable the GoC will opt for "no subs".


----------



## MilEME09

Canada needs to start looking for new subs now, says report
					

Given the build-up in submarine fleets by countries like China and Russia, 'Canada’s ability to exert influence in its vast maritime domain will be tested'




					nationalpost.com
				




Well well well


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Canada needs to start looking for new subs now, says report
> 
> 
> Given the build-up in submarine fleets by countries like China and Russia, 'Canada’s ability to exert influence in its vast maritime domain will be tested'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well well well



Or to be more accurate:  'Canada needs to start looking for a few good used subs now'


----------



## GR66

Not as an alternative to replacing the Victorias, but perhaps investing in a fleet of XLUUVs could help offset the fact that we can't afford as large a fleet of subs as we would like.

Combine a small-ish fleet of 4-6 SSKs with a sensor net of XLUUVs and USV's and maybe some additional MPA's and we could have a useful capability at a lesser cost than 8-10 nuclear boats.


----------



## daftandbarmy

GR66 said:


> Not as an alternative to replacing the Victorias, but perhaps investing in a fleet of XLUUVs could help offset the fact that we can't afford as large a fleet of subs as we would like.
> 
> Combine a small-ish fleet of 4-6 SSKs with a sensor net of XLUUVs and USV's and maybe some additional MPA's and we could have a useful capability at a lesser cost *international credibility *than 8-10 nuclear boats.



There, FTFY


----------



## CBH99

daftandbarmy said:


> Or to be more accurate:  'Canada needs to start looking for a few good used subs now'


25 used Australian Hornets to supplement our current fleet of aging Hornets - ones that needed upgrades to ejection seats, computers, radios, etc. 

When that money could have gone towards actually just buying the next fleet of jets, the same fleet everybody acknowledges we still need to buy.  


And now you’re telling me they have used submarines too!?  No way.  What are the odds.  

And only requiring changes to the computer systems, weapon systems, torpedo tubes, safety systems, etc?

No big deal at all.  A year or so should be enough to have them operating like new.  I’ll bet you they’ll cut us a pretty sweet deal to dispose of them, for them 😈


----------



## GR66

daftandbarmy said:


> Combine a small-ish fleet of 4-6 SSKs with a sensor net of XLUUVs and USV's and maybe some additional MPA's and we could have a useful capability at a lesser cost *international credibility *than 8-10 nuclear boats.


a)  What international credibility?
b)  Let's face it.  8-10 nuclear subs are clearly NOT on the table.  We need to look at other options.



Brad Sallows said:


> The dreaming we do on any of the capability/equipment threads would be aspirational under a conservative government, which might try to scrape up a few coppers for defence.  Under prolonged liberal/left governance, it's just delusional.


----------



## suffolkowner

GR66 said:


> Not as an alternative to replacing the Victorias, but perhaps investing in a fleet of XLUUVs could help offset the fact that we can't afford as large a fleet of subs as we would like.
> 
> Combine a small-ish fleet of 4-6 SSKs with a sensor net of XLUUVs and USV's and maybe some additional MPA's and we could have a useful capability at a lesser cost than 8-10 nuclear boats.


I agree with this, I just don't see nuclear boats happening. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the Dutch project as having the same sub as an ally would be a benefit. The list again

Swedish A-26
French Scorpene/Attack Class
German 212/214/216/218
Spanish S-80
South Korean KSS-III
Japanese Taigei Class
new Taiwan class

did I miss any?


----------



## dimsum

GR66 said:


> a)  What international credibility?


At some point, Canada (the govt, not CAF) will have to make a choice whether it should be a "jack of all trades" military, or a specialized one.  We don't seem to be able to do both.  

Pick a couple of things we're really good at, and focus on them.  We're not going to any conflicts by ourselves anyway, so we might as well find niche roles and integrate as best we can to allied coalitions.


----------



## daftandbarmy

dimsum said:


> At some point, Canada (the govt, not CAF) will have to make a choice whether it should be a "jack of all trades" military, or a specialized one.  We don't seem to be able to do both.
> 
> Pick a couple of things we're really good at, and focus on them.  We're not going to any conflicts by ourselves anyway, so we might as well find niche roles and integrate as best we can to allied coalitions.



Well that's an easy one for this (three time elected) Liberal government: Peacekeeping. Peacekeeping. Peacekeeping.


----------



## Swampbuggy

dimsum said:


> At some point, Canada (the govt, not CAF) will have to make a choice whether it should be a "jack of all trades" military, or a specialized one.  We don't seem to be able to do both.
> 
> Pick a couple of things we're really good at, and focus on them.  We're not going to any conflicts by ourselves anyway, so we might as well find niche roles and integrate as best we can to allied coalitions.


I've often wondered if it wasn't best to scale funding towards the services that are most relevant at home and abroad. I'm certainly no expert, but I've thought that scaling back the Army to one focused on special forces and training vs having it trying to do everything with limited resources, may be worth looking into. The cost of sourcing and maintaining MBT's, LAV's, TAPV's etc when they have limited practical applications at home and are largely expeditionary equipment makes me less certain of their overall value than something like an enhanced fighter fleet or MPA's or perhaps most importantly, naval platforms that are force multipliers like subs.


----------



## Kirkhill

June 3, 2010 National Shipbuilding Strategy Announced

Screwed up MOD procurement system starts launching the following vessels

SSNs HMS Astute (2010), Ambush (2013), Artful (2016), Audacious (2021)

CVs HMS Queen Elizabeth (2017), Prince of Wales (2019)

DGs HMS Dauntless (2010), Diamond (2011), Dragon (2012), Defender (2013), Duncan (2013)

OPVs HMS Forth (2018), Medway (2019), Trent (2020), Tamar (2020), Spey (2021) and Severn refreshed in (2021)

AORs RFA Tidespring (2017), Tiderace (2018), Tidesurge (2019), Tideforce (2019).

In addition the following vessels have been ordered for delivery 

4x Dreadnough SSBNs for delivery by early 2030s (2 builiding)
8x Type 26 with 3 delivered prior to 2030
5x Type 31 with 5 delivererd prior to 2027 

Competition contracts have been awarded for 3x Fleet Solid Support Ships for delivery by 2032

Planning has commenced for 

6-8x Multi Role Support Ships
5x Type 32 Frigates
6?  Type 83 Destroyers

By the early 2030s the 2010 NSS will have delivered

8x AOPV
2x JSS

The first CSC Type 26 


And a handful of science vessels.


We should be as screwed up as the MOD.


----------



## Kirkhill

dimsum said:


> At some point, Canada (the govt, not CAF) will have to make a choice whether it should be a "jack of all trades" military, or a specialized one.  We don't seem to be able to do both.
> 
> Pick a couple of things we're really good at, and focus on them.  We're not going to any conflicts by ourselves anyway, so we might as well find niche roles and integrate as best we can to allied coalitions.



Goebel's "Big Lie" hyperbole is popular these days.  In keeping with these hyperbolic times I am going to suggest that DND's "Big Lie" is that it is a General Purpose military.  It isn't.  It is already a specialized force.

The Navy specializes in Escorts. Now it escorts convoys of American carriers around the world rather than Norwegian freighters across the Atlantic.
The Air Force specializes in the Air Defence of North America
The Army specializes in providing a single Armoured Brigade Group that can fit into an American Corps in Europe.

All services stretch the envelope to do other stuff with what they have but they are already niche forces,  American auxiliaries.  Just like the auxiliaries of Rome or the Bengal Lancers, or the Gurkhas.

The argument, like the one about the hooker at the bar and the price, has already been decided.  We already provide niche services.  The only discussion that remains is if they ones we provide are useful and effective.  Or should we be doing something different that is more useful to our government and its allies.

Change demands we move out of our 20th century comfort zone.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> Goebel's "Big Lie" hyperbole is popular these days.  In keeping with these hyperbolic times I am going to suggest that DND's "Big Lie" is that it is a General Purpose military.  It isn't.  It is already a specialized force.
> 
> The Navy specializes in Escorts. Now it escorts convoys of American carriers around the world rather than Norwegian freighters across the Atlantic.
> The Air Force specializes in the Air Defence of North America
> *The Army specializes in providing a single Armoured Brigade Group *that can fit into an American Corps in Europe.



Really? We can do that?


----------



## Kirkhill

daftandbarmy said:


> Really? We can do that?



No.  But we don't seem to be capable of aspiring to anything else.

You know.  That thing that us consultants keep harping on about?  That "Vision" thingy?


----------



## Maxman1

CBH99 said:


> 25 used Australian Hornets to supplement our current fleet of aging Hornets - ones that needed upgrades to ejection seats, computers, radios, etc.
> 
> When that money could have gone towards actually just buying the next fleet of jets, the same fleet everybody acknowledges we still need to buy.



But that would mean buying from Boeing, who filed a complaint against Bombarier over dumping, which Dear Leader deemed such an offense worth canceling a purchase of 12 Super Hornets and six Growlers (and possibly another 70 to replace the entire fleet).


----------



## CBH99

Maxman1 said:


> But that would mean buying from Boeing, who filed a complaint against Bombarier over dumping, which Dear Leader deemed such an offense worth canceling a purchase of 12 Super Hornets and six Growlers (and possibly another 70 to replace the entire fleet).


Not necessarily.  The competition was ongoing at the time & somehow still is.  

The money used to purchase the 25 used Hornets could have been put towards the purchase of the new fleet, whatever plane that ends up being.  

Instead we pay roughly $1B to Australia for jets that they were retiring from service soon anyway 🤦🏼‍♂️

And we STILL need to replace our current fleet…


Gosh, we were already a special kind of special BEFORE dumb dumb was in charge 😅  Ahem, I mean Dear Leader.


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> Gosh, we were already a special kind of special BEFORE


Uh yeah.  Canadian procurement stupidity is not limited to the last 6 years.


----------



## CBH99

dimsum said:


> Uh yeah.  Canadian procurement stupidity is not limited to the last 6 years.


You’re absolutely right.  

My post was mostly meant as casual banter - and was completely off topic.  My apologies, I genuinely forgot which thread this was.  (Night shift again)


Whoever mentioned purchasing the used Aussie subs for our own use, I know it was meant as a joke.  

Buuuuutttttt…. Someone in Ottawa will probably go 🤨 at some point.  Don’t feed the good idea fairies!


----------



## Underway

daftandbarmy said:


> Well that's an easy one for this (three time elected) Liberal government: Peacekeeping. Peacekeeping. Peacekeeping.


Really?  What peacekeeping missions have the Libs announced in the last 6 years in power?  The missions are training in Ukraine, Latvia and the normal NATO and Asian naval missions.  

Peacekeeping is over, even with the voting public.  A happy historical note and nothing else.


----------



## KevinB

GR66 said:


> a)  What international credibility?
> b)  Let's face it.  8-10 nuclear subs are clearly NOT on the table.  We need to look at other options.


The problem is then Canada has ceded the Arctic waters to another nation.

SSK's cannot patrol the arctic credibly - sure they can dip in for a bit - but they need to surface - and generally no SSK is designed for ice penetration, at least multi year pack ice.
  Add that in to no credible ice breaker - I mean year round arctic patrol capable.

Possession is 9/10th the law, Armed Possession is the other 10th.

I would suggest if Canada wants to keep the arctic waters, then it needs to not just ignore the concept of SSN's.

Frankly, I don't think my tax dollars should go to defend Canadian territory - and I am Canadian by birth - I'm American by naturalization (and tax burden  )    It's done right now simply because it is in our (America) best interests -- 

At a certain point in time, someone is going to start encroaching the arctic in a possessive way - it may be us, or worse folks that aren't nearly as social neighbors.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

JMCanada said:


> I was not so bad guessing...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Australia in talks to lease, buy existing subs
> 
> 
> Australian government will be in discussions to lease or buy the existing submarines from the US and UK in the next 12 to 18 months, Australia's Minister for Defence Peter Dutton revealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navaltoday.com



Glass half full....

We won't need to worry about Australia stealing the few qualified submariners we do have anymore 🤣


----------



## GR66

KevinB said:


> The problem is then Canada has ceded the Arctic waters to another nation.
> 
> SSK's cannot patrol the arctic credibly - sure they can dip in for a bit - but they need to surface - and generally no SSK is designed for ice penetration, at least multi year pack ice.
> Add that in to no credible ice breaker - I mean year round arctic patrol capable.
> 
> Possession is 9/10th the law, Armed Possession is the other 10th.
> 
> I would suggest if Canada wants to keep the arctic waters, then it needs to not just ignore the concept of SSN's.
> 
> Frankly, I don't think my tax dollars should go to defend Canadian territory - and I am Canadian by birth - I'm American by naturalization (and tax burden  )    It's done right now simply because it is in our (America) best interests --
> 
> At a certain point in time, someone is going to start encroaching the arctic in a possessive way - it may be us, or worse folks that aren't nearly as social neighbors.


Let's be honest...we ceded control of the Arctic waters back in 1954 when USS Nautilus was launched.  

I'll be clear.  If it were up to me we would get SSNs as one of our top priorities.  They are one of the best assets (if not the best asset) that can truly stop China from executing an expeditionary invasion of our allies.  They can bomb all they want but unless they can put a large number of heavy troops on the ground and keep them supplied by sea then they cannot project power.  

We are by geography, history and politics a nation that has (and will) fight its wars with expeditionary forces.  As much as I enjoy the fantasizing over what our Army could potentially look like it's clear to me that Air and Sea power (including logistics) are the areas where our focus as a military should be.  Our land forces are as much as a political asset as they are a real military asset in the grand scheme of great power politics.


----------



## KevinB

GR66 said:


> Let's be honest...we ceded control of the Arctic waters back in 1954 when USS Nautilus was launched.


I don't think it was as significant then as it is today, when only 1 country (an ally) had that ability.
   Now many countries do have that capability, many of them less than friendly.


GR66 said:


> I'll be clear.  If it were up to me we would get SSNs as one of our top priorities.  They are one of the best assets (if not the best asset) that can truly stop China from executing an expeditionary invasion of our allies.  They can bomb all they want but unless they can put a large number of heavy troops on the ground and keep them supplied by sea then they cannot project power.


 Agreed 


GR66 said:


> We are by geography, history and politics a nation that has (and will) fight its wars with expeditionary forces.  As much as I enjoy the fantasizing over what our Army could potentially look like it's clear to me that Air and Sea power (including logistics) are the areas where our focus as a military should be.  Our land forces are as much as a political asset as they are a real military asset in the grand scheme of great power politics.


I am in 110% agreement -- I put sea power at #1, simply because the RCN can project power at range - that the RCAF cannot.
  Given the CF no longer has a CV - the ability to deploy AirPower is very limited


----------



## Czech_pivo

KevinB said:


> The problem is then Canada has ceded the Arctic waters to another nation.
> 
> SSK's cannot patrol the arctic credibly - sure they can dip in for a bit - but they need to surface - and generally no SSK is designed for ice penetration, at least multi year pack ice.
> Add that in to no credible ice breaker - I mean year round arctic patrol capable.
> 
> Possession is 9/10th the law, Armed Possession is the other 10th.
> 
> I would suggest if Canada wants to keep the arctic waters, then it needs to not just ignore the concept of SSN's.
> 
> Frankly, I don't think my tax dollars should go to defend Canadian territory - and I am Canadian by birth - I'm American by naturalization (and tax burden  )    It's done right now simply because it is in our (America) best interests --
> 
> At a certain point in time, someone is going to start encroaching the arctic in a possessive way - it may be us, or worse folks that aren't nearly as social neighbors.



No amount of satellite coverage or underwater sensors is going to prevent others from entering ‘our’ arctic waters. I have zero doubt that it’s done now by the Americans, the Brits and most likely by the French and Russians from time to time. The Chinese are the wild card if they’ve gone in yet or not. Better to error on the side of caution and assume that they have and will begin to do so more and more.

We either spend the money and buy the right equipment to look after our own backyard or we openly admit that we are incapable of doing so and pay the Americans and Brits to do it for us. If we go that route, out goes the argument that the Northwest passage is a Canadian internal waterway - and, as a result, we will still have to spend significant money and allocate significant resources to adequately monitor/support all shipping that will navigate that passage as it becomes more and more accessible.

Question, how many trips to the high Arctic has this PM taken during the last 6yrs? How does this compare to the number of trips our last PM took? Which of these PM’s at least took the baby steps towards establishing some semblance of Canada taking its Arctic responsibilities serious through the APOS programme and Nanisivik refueling station? 

Our Senate recommended back in 2017 that we purchase 12 subs, ‘equipped with air independent propulsion systems, with six vessels to be based on each coast.’ But it’s like we’ve buried our head in the sand and don’t remember this. 

This same committee made the following statement regarding the AOPS, ‘fact that that these ships can only operate in the arctic from June to October and will require a coast guard escort when in the northern waters.’ Now what’s interesting to note is that HDW just went from east to west through the Arctic and it was accompanied  by CCGS Pierre Radisson. Having an AOPS or two or even three located throughout the high Arctic from July-October doesn’t in any manner prohibit a SSN from being directly under them the entire trip and said AOPS from even being aware that the SSN is present, let alone being able to do anything about it. Yes it is possible that from time to time a Cyclone might be onboard during these trips but how likely is it that we don’t ‘release’ this information prior to said operations in order to prevent any embarrassing incidents on both sides?


----------



## Good2Golf

Can we be picky?  SSGNs… 👍🏼


----------



## QV

Czech_pivo said:


> No amount of satellite coverage or underwater sensors is going to prevent others from entering ‘our’ arctic waters. I have zero doubt that it’s done now by the Americans, the Brits and most likely by the French and Russians from time to time. The Chinese are the wild card if they’ve gone in yet or not. Better to error on the side of caution and assume that they have and will begin to do so more and more.
> 
> We either spend the money and buy the right equipment to look after our own backyard or we openly admit that we are incapable of doing so and pay the Americans and Brits to do it for us. If we go that route, out goes the argument that the Northwest passage is a Canadian internal waterway - and, as a result, we will still have to spend significant money and allocate significant resources to adequately monitor/support all shipping that will navigate that passage as it becomes more and more accessible....   I guess it comes down to whether Canada wants to be a sovereign nation or not. Because right now it doesn't feel like we are.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Can we be picky?  SSGNs… 👍🏼


You're not asking for much......


----------



## Czech_pivo

A few years old, but it talks about Trudeau’s lack of vision for the Arctic just a short time period after his first election and nothing has really changed since then.









						Trudeau and Canada’s Arctic Priorities: More of the same
					

Despite distancing his government from Harper's Arctic legacy, Trudeau brings more of the same when defining Canada's Arctic priorities.




					www.thearcticinstitute.org


----------



## KevinB

Czech_pivo said:


> No amount of satellite coverage or underwater sensors is going to prevent others from entering ‘our’ arctic waters. I have zero doubt that it’s done now by the Americans, the Brits and most likely by the French and Russians from time to time. The Chinese are the wild card if they’ve gone in yet or not. Better to error on the side of caution and assume that they have and will begin to do so more and more.


Agreed



Czech_pivo said:


> We either spend the money and buy the right equipment to look after our own backyard or we openly admit that we are incapable of doing so and pay the Americans and Brits to do it for us. If we go that route, out goes the argument that the Northwest passage is a Canadian internal waterway - and, as a result, we will still have to spend significant money and allocate significant resources to adequately monitor/support all shipping that will navigate that passage as it becomes more and more accessible.


110% 



Czech_pivo said:


> Question, how many trips to the high Arctic has this PM taken during the last 6yrs? How does this compare to the number of trips our last PM took? Which of these PM’s at least took the baby steps towards establishing some semblance of Canada taking its Arctic responsibilities serious through the APOS programme and Nanisivik refueling station?


AOPS to me is at best a CG type vessel - a 25mm cannon and 2 M2 .50's doesn't make it a warship - to me it is honestly a sad joke that some feel it is a credible effort at all.  A four month window for operations is a 75% fail rate.
   Now allegedly that class can operate longer, based on the Ice Class of the hull, so it seems to me that this is a downrating to ensure the ships last longer - as opposed to a legitimate construction limitation.




Czech_pivo said:


> Our Senate recommended back in 2017 that we purchase 12 subs, ‘equipped with air independent propulsion systems, with six vessels to be based on each coast.’ But it’s like we’ve buried our head in the sand and don’t remember this.


 Roll back 40 years and I think you see the same thing outlined...


Czech_pivo said:


> This same committee made the following statement regarding the AOPS, ‘fact that that these ships can only operate in the arctic from June to October and will require a coast guard escort when in the northern waters.’ Now what’s interesting to note is that HDW just went from east to west through the Arctic and it was accompanied  by CCGS Pierre Radisson. Having an AOPS or two or even three located throughout the high Arctic from July-October doesn’t in any manner prohibit a SSN from being directly under them the entire trip and said AOPS from even being aware that the SSN is present, let alone being able to do anything about it. Yes it is possible that from time to time a Cyclone might be onboard during these trips but how likely is it that we don’t ‘release’ this information prior to said operations in order to prevent any embarrassing incidents on both sides?


Unless the SSN is blind and deaf - if it doesn't want to be found - the Cyclone on one of those won't matter, unless it's open water.

 The larger issue to me is what SSN's can be leaving behind - if no one knows you are there -- no one can point a finger at you if you leave a nasty surprise for someone.


----------



## KevinB

Czech_pivo said:


> A few years old, but it talks about Trudeau’s lack of vision for the Arctic just a short time period after his first election and nothing has really changed since then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trudeau and Canada’s Arctic Priorities: More of the same
> 
> 
> Despite distancing his government from Harper's Arctic legacy, Trudeau brings more of the same when defining Canada's Arctic priorities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thearcticinstitute.org











						What does it mean to be 'true north strong and free?' Canada’s Elusive Northern Identity
					

What does it mean that Canada is a “northern country”? Far from immutable, Canada’s northern identity shifts with contemporary politics.




					www.thearcticinstitute.org
				



Last week - probably the clearest point that Canadians don't even have an understanding of what they are and the relationship to the North.


----------



## Maxman1

CBH99 said:


> Not necessarily.  The competition was ongoing at the time & somehow still is.



No, we were going to buy 18 Super Hornets, but that deal is dead. And it is retaliation for Boeing's complaint about Bombardier dumping the CSeries in the US.



> A parade of Liberal cabinet ministers — from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on down — have repeatedly said Boeing is no longer "a trusted partner" in the defence sector, and the government wouldn't be doing business with them.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

/realism check/

New / more MPAs;  not going to happen any time soon.  I'm CRA in 2030...I'll be in my 70s, I suspect, when Canada sees new MPAs _IF_ Canada sees new MPAs.  We have a small fleet now.  14 is small.  Tiny.  I suspect we'll see less of them in the 2040s than 14.

Arctic surveillance;  I hope to christ we're not pinning the AOPS/Cyclone "team" as our spear up there.

Canada isn't, hasn't and likely won't take the Arctic stuff serious until it is too late; which was a date in the past IMO.  That's not a random belief, but based on info that'll never be disclosed here.  Not bragging, or being a dick.  Just stating a fact without the ability to back it up for obvious reasons.

Someone said a few pages back "Canadians care about defence matters" or words to that effect.  Sorry...but no, they don't including the Arctic.  They will show up and "Ohhhh Ahhhhhh!" for the Snowbirds and (some of them, less and less yearly) show up for Nov 11th...but, on average I don't believe for 1 second the average Canadian cares seriously about defense.

And as long as they don't, the average politician won't because, first and foremost, they care about keeping their jobs.

We're behind when it comes to 'all things arctic' and we will not catch up.

//realism check//


----------



## dimsum

It's an Australian article, but this fits better here than in the Aussie sub thread.









						The sub story no one wants to hear
					

It’s the sub story no one wants to hear – the coming end of the submarine era.  But we must expect it,  writes Roger Bradbury,  emeritus professor of the Australian National University.  There is




					www.defenceconnect.com.au


----------



## Czech_pivo

Eye In The Sky said:


> /realism check/
> 
> New / more MPAs;  not going to happen any time soon.  I'm CRA in 2030...I'll be in my 70s, I suspect, when Canada sees new MPAs _IF_ Canada sees new MPAs.  We have a small fleet now.  14 is small.  Tiny.  I suspect we'll see less of them in the 2040s than 14.
> 
> Arctic surveillance;  I hope to christ we're not pinning the AOPS/Cyclone "team" as our spear up there.
> 
> Canada isn't, hasn't and likely won't take the Arctic stuff serious until it is too late; which was a date in the past IMO.  That's not a random belief, but based on info that'll never be disclosed here.  Not bragging, or being a dick.  Just stating a fact without the ability to back it up for obvious reasons.
> 
> Someone said a few pages back "Canadians care about defence matters" or words to that effect.  Sorry...but no, they don't including the Arctic.  They will show up and "Ohhhh Ahhhhhh!" for the Snowbirds and (some of them, less and less yearly) show up for Nov 11th...but, on average I don't believe for 1 second the average Canadian cares seriously about defense.
> 
> And as long as they don't, the average politician won't because, first and foremost, they care about keeping their jobs.
> 
> We're behind when it comes to 'all things arctic' and we will not catch up.
> 
> //realism check//


I know someone who goes up to the Arctic every second summer for the entire navigation season for the purposes of mapping the seabed and such. He’s told me that he has personally seen old Soviet navigation maps pre-1990 that were much more accurate and detailed than the maps they were using 25yrs later - all within Canadian waters.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> It's an Australian article, but this fits better here than in the Aussie sub thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The sub story no one wants to hear
> 
> 
> It’s the sub story no one wants to hear – the coming end of the submarine era.  But we must expect it,  writes Roger Bradbury,  emeritus professor of the Australian National University.  There is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defenceconnect.com.au


I think it is a terrible article.
  His early demise of the Battleship occurs not in 1916, but in 1941 in Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December.
During WW2 - the Aircraft Carrier and AirPower where the predominant force - it was only at the very end of the war did the Submarine truly take over.

In as much as he gave a near 40 year "advance" to beginning  the age of the Submarine - I believe he is sadly mistaken on the end of the age as well.

For years Subs have had countermeasures and decoys - now there are RPV  that can be controlled from elsewhere -- but "launched" from a Sub -- all they need is an activation signal - and they can do what they do -- either start active counter sub hunting, raise to the surface and launch ASM's or SAM's - or drop hundred of mines, or countermeasures.

The future of warfare is fairly scary - as the size and capabilities of robotic systems is changing dramatically - from house fly sized spy drones - to large warships that are entirely automated and use their AI to do battle management.


I wouldn't count the sub out yet -- mainly as it offers a lot of potential - if only as a host vehicle for a slew of "CyberSubs"


----------



## GR66

Eye In The Sky said:


> /realism check/
> 
> New / more MPAs;  not going to happen any time soon.  I'm CRA in 2030...I'll be in my 70s, I suspect, when Canada sees new MPAs _IF_ Canada sees new MPAs.  We have a small fleet now.  14 is small.  Tiny.  I suspect we'll see less of them in the 2040s than 14.
> 
> Arctic surveillance;  I hope to christ we're not pinning the AOPS/Cyclone "team" as our spear up there.
> 
> Canada isn't, hasn't and likely won't take the Arctic stuff serious until it is too late; which was a date in the past IMO.  That's not a random belief, but based on info that'll never be disclosed here.  Not bragging, or being a dick.  Just stating a fact without the ability to back it up for obvious reasons.
> 
> Someone said a few pages back "Canadians care about defence matters" or words to that effect.  Sorry...but no, they don't including the Arctic.  They will show up and "Ohhhh Ahhhhhh!" for the Snowbirds and (some of them, less and less yearly) show up for Nov 11th...but, on average I don't believe for 1 second the average Canadian cares seriously about defense.
> 
> And as long as they don't, the average politician won't because, first and foremost, they care about keeping their jobs.
> 
> We're behind when it comes to 'all things arctic' and we will not catch up.
> 
> //realism check//


Is the highlighted bit based on your opinion of where you see current Defence priorities? The ability of the RCAF to man, maintain (and potentially expand) the fleet due to recruiting shortfalls/training bottlenecks/retention issues?  Both?  Something else?

I agree with you that it doesn't currently seem to be a priority for either the RCAF or the Government, but in my opinion from both a defence of Canada point of view and a useful contribution to our allies point of view it should be a very high priority.

I also think it's likely a capability that would be a fairly easy sell to the public.  After all, MPA's aren't painted green and look much more like that nice metal thing that flies you somewhere sunny than a nasty, killey thing packed with explodey stuff...


----------



## daftandbarmy

KevinB said:


> I wouldn't count the sub out yet -- mainly as it offers a lot of potential - if only as a host vehicle for a slew of "CyberSubs" Navy fashion statements.



There, FTFY


----------



## Brad Sallows

Again, I predict that Canada will lose the entire "triangle" north of the mainland coast of YT, NT, NU to some sort of "international" status.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> I think it is a terrible article.
> His early demise of the Battleship occurs not in 1916, but in 1941 in Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December.
> During WW2 - the Aircraft Carrier and AirPower where the predominant force - it was only at the very end of the war did the Submarine truly take over.
> 
> In as much as he gave a near 40 year "advance" to beginning  the age of the Submarine - I believe he is sadly mistaken on the end of the age as well.
> 
> For years Subs have had countermeasures and decoys - now there are RPV  that can be controlled from elsewhere -- but "launched" from a Sub -- all they need is an activation signal - and they can do what they do -- either start active counter sub hunting, raise to the surface and launch ASM's or SAM's - or drop hundred of mines, or countermeasures.
> 
> The future of warfare is fairly scary - as the size and capabilities of robotic systems is changing dramatically - from house fly sized spy drones - to large warships that are entirely automated and use their AI to do battle management.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't count the sub out yet -- mainly as it offers a lot of potential - if only as a host vehicle for a slew of "CyberSubs"


Even then the ability of naval air power to sink a BB outside of a harbour is overrated. Most BB's underway were sunk by larger more powerful land based aircraft, rather than carrier aircraft of the day. BB served two purposes in later stages of WWII, shore bombardment and Task Force protection from both surface threats and aircraft and they did very well at such. Had the atomic bomb not worked, BB's would have played a critical role in protecting the landings and forces operating in the coastal areas.


----------



## CBH99

KevinB said:


> I think it is a terrible article.
> His early demise of the Battleship occurs not in 1916, but in 1941 in Pearl Harbor on the 7th of December.
> During WW2 - the Aircraft Carrier and AirPower where the predominant force - it was only at the very end of the war did the Submarine truly take over.
> 
> In as much as he gave a near 40 year "advance" to beginning  the age of the Submarine - I believe he is sadly mistaken on the end of the age as well.
> 
> For years Subs have had countermeasures and decoys - now there are RPV  that can be controlled from elsewhere -- but "launched" from a Sub -- all they need is an activation signal - and they can do what they do -- either start active counter sub hunting, raise to the surface and launch ASM's or SAM's - or drop hundred of mines, or countermeasures.
> 
> The future of warfare is fairly scary - as the size and capabilities of robotic systems is changing dramatically - from house fly sized spy drones - to large warships that are entirely automated and use their AI to do battle management.
> 
> 
> I wouldn't count the sub out yet -- mainly as it offers a lot of potential - if only as a host vehicle for a slew of "CyberSubs"


Agree yet again on everything said here.  

December 7, 1941 was Pearl Harbour.  No point in me expanding on that, everybody here is already well versed on what it was, what it represented, and the roots of change that were planted.  

December 10, 1941 was the sinking of HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse, by torpedo bombers & land based aircraft in the South Pacific.  

(I believe near Malaysia?  I can’t Google it until I’m back from work.)


These 2 engagements, basically back to back, both saw carrier based aircraft attack and sink large, heavily armed, and heavily armoured warships.  They demonstrated a vulnerability that hadn’t been exploited until then.  

Throughout WW2, there were several engagements of naval heavy hitters slugging it out.  They weren’t obsolete when it came to force protection, and could unleash absolute hell at the enemy.  


Same goes for the submarine.  Everybody is rushing to build as many submarines as possible - the Americans and the Russians both building extremely advanced and quiet boats that could unilaterally destroy half the cities on the globe if they so chose to.  

In addition to the clear advantages submarines have over surface ships, KevinB is right.  They can deploy mini-subs which can sever fibre optic cables, serve as sensing platforms, roam around hunting for signatures of other submarines, and even engage them.  (If not currently at that point, very soon to be.)

They have clear advantages when it comes to hiding from satellite images.  Any remotely interested state will find your surface ships fairly easily just with open-source satellite info, not to mention dedicated military satellites.  Heck they could do some digging on Instagram and get a good idea of where most of them are. 


The author seems to be the only one who thinks submarines are going to become relics.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It was all land based twin engine aircraft from units who specialised in ship attack. The two british ships had pretty much pre-war AA protection at the time.  Sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse - Wikipedia


----------



## Eye In The Sky

GR66 said:


> Is the highlighted bit based on your opinion of where you see current Defence priorities? The ability of the RCAF to man, maintain (and potentially expand) the fleet due to recruiting shortfalls/training bottlenecks/retention issues? Both? Something else?



It's not related to trg abilities/capability, though that is negatively affected or impacts the small fleet as well.  That's a separate topic though.

- Canada announced the intent publicly to keep the fleet flying operationally until 2030 years ago.  CP-140 Aurora fleet modernization and life extension - Canada.ca 

- some major money was spent to "modernize" the Aurora....because the powers that "were" at the time rightly believed it was "upgrade, or say good-bye to"....

- why do I think it will be beyond 2030?  Cyclone...fighter replacement....massive debt from the Liberals....the list could go on.

- why less than 14 aircraft?  We make "doing more with less" a specialty.  33 Argus...18 Aurora's....the "a more capable aircraft can do the same as 2 lesser aircraft" is misleading and inaccurate with no context.  We had way more capability back in the Argus days than we do today....

- we missed the boat to replace our fleet when "everyone else was".  Norway, New Zealand, UK...all the folks who take this a little more seriously are saying "thanks, enjoy retirement" to their P-3s.  

Recruiting people to crew aircraft is pretty easy compared to some other trades.  I think we'd overcome the trg limitations if we had the aircraft to crew...but we don't.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Some of this stuff could be moved over to the "Defending Arctic Sov" thread maybe?


----------



## Kirkhill

With respect to us being a northern nation.

RCAF Forward Operating Locations

Kuujjuaq 58N
Yellowknife  62N
Rankin Inlet 63N
Iqaluit 64N
Inuvik 68N

For Reference 

Arctic Circle 67N

Nanisivik Refuelling Centre  73N
Arctic Training Centre Resolute 75N
Alert 82N

Anchorage 61N
Fairbanks 65N
Thule 77N

Reykjavik 64N
Tromsoe 69N
Longyearbyen (Svalbard) 78N

Alexandra Island (New Russian Base) - 81N

Edmonton 53N

Even our natives barely make it into the Arctic Circle.  Disneyland and Disneyworld get much more attention.


----------



## Dale Denton

Eye In The Sky said:


> Some of this stuff could be moved over to the "Defending Arctic Sov" thread maybe?


A lot of threads are overlapping lately with AUKUS. 

I wonder if our stance was in response to the 2 Michaels coming home? Hoping for a change there but not holding my breath.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> I know someone who goes up to the Arctic every second summer for the entire navigation season for the purposes of mapping the seabed and such. He’s told me that he has personally seen old Soviet navigation maps pre-1990 that were much more accurate and detailed than the maps they were using 25yrs later - all within Canadian waters.


We use charts from  various sources some are modern, some foreign and some are from the 50'sfrom HMCS Labrador. The government should as part of the NSP build several dedicated hydrographic ships and send them to the Arctic to chart more of it.

You seem to have a lot of complaints about the Arctic, what would you do to secure it?


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> We use charts from  various sources some are modern, some foreign and some are from the 50'sfrom HMCS Labrador. The government should as part of the NSP build several dedicated hydrographic ships and send them to the Arctic to chart more of it.
> 
> You seem to have a lot of complaints about the Arctic, what would you do to secure it?


Would that be 4 months out of the year?


----------



## Stoker

KevinB said:


> Would that be 4 months out of the year?


If your going to spout off about 4 months of the year at least be accurate on when an AOPS can actually operate in Arctic waters. I know it seems you have a lot of criticism of the RCN and government in regards to the Arctic and I'm sure its deserved but do your research on what exactly the ships are capable of and not just in the Arctic.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Stoker said:


> We use charts from  various sources some are modern, some foreign and some are from the 50'sfrom HMCS Labrador. The government should as part of the NSP build several dedicated hydrographic ships and send them to the Arctic to chart more of it.
> 
> You seem to have a lot of complaints about the Arctic, what would you do to secure it?


One thing that I wouldn’t be is complacent or accepting of the fact that we have access to Soviet charts from 30+yrs ago that they could have only gathered is by mowing our grass for us. Do you not find that just a little troubling?

Depending on how you look at it, we are either blessed or cursed with having the 2nd largest land mass in the world to govern with a population less than California that just happens to be condensed in a tight narrow corridor about 100 miles wide. When described in that manner it sounds a lot like a curse.

What can be done with the Arctic? The vastness of it makes it just about ungovernable with such a tiny population that has become soft and mellowed by all the creature comforts of urban living and the hyper-marketing that goes with it. The harshness of it solidifies the answer. Dropping penny packets of men and materiel throughout the Arctic achieves nothing for they will have nothing to do but count polar bears and fight boredom and depression.  Stationing more SAR capabilities further forward will reduce the long hours flying to the high Arctic from Trenton, adding some more modern versions of the Aurora (and adding a few more to our fleet as well), to our tool box will help with semblance of anti-submarine surveillance throughout the entire area, but finding an SSN under the ice is close to zero.  Greater number of flights does lead to greater presence and awareness throughout the area. Increasing the size and capabilities of our heavy ice breaking fleet and using this fleet consistently throughout the Arctic 12 months of the year is in effect 1 of 2 ways to have ‘boots on the ground’ in the Arctic. Due to the fact that sailing time from the East coast is long and arduous to reach the middle islands of the Arctic and coming from the West coast is even longer, with more danger and political risk due to the fact that we must sail through so much American water to reach our own, ignoring the fact that we are spit ball away from the Russians a lot of the time. Stationing these heavy ice breakers in say, Churchill as their main port should be considered going forward. This would necessitate upgrading the existing rail line and ultimately building an all weather road as well. Yes of course the challenges are many, but what’s the alternative? Having a rail line and all weather road would allow for more supplies being brought forward to the settlements scattered throughout the Arctic. These ice breakers could be used to ferry in supplies throughout the year instead of only the summer months.  Lastly, the second way to achieve’boots on the ground’, is obtaining full under ice capable subs, wether nuclear or whatever feasible, reliable alternative there may be. The only way to own an area is to live in the area, there is no other way. 

The Russians achieved population centres throughout their Arctic by 3 ways in the past. The first was penal colonies under the Czars. The second was Gulags under Stalin and the third was very high salary and incentives under Stalin’s successors. We can’t do numbers one or two and we’ve tried number three with very very little success so populating the Arctic just doesn’t look feasible in the short to medium term. 

If global warming is occurring (and I fall into the camp that the earth is going through one of its many warm/hot cycles), then the North West Passage will become more of a common sailing option when going from Europe to Asia. Look at it this way, does Canada (and it’s Allies) routinely sail in the waters between mainland China and Taiwan? Yes, of course it does as we believe that it’s International waters, not internal waters of China. So, following this logic, do you not think China is going to one day call our bluff on this and sail their new polar icebreaker through the North West Passage? The ship come from the Russian side of the Arctic, hell there might even be Russian ice breaker with it, and they will push through and other than us getting some nice pics of them during some fly overs there won’t be much we can do about it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Continuous commitment to increasing the infrastructure to the existing communities is the only way. That means better airports, better navigation systems for vessels and aircraft. Better communications. Improve existing roads and extend them. Beef up the rail line to Churchill, plan on extending a railine into the Yukon or NWT. Work on improving access to electricity, natural gas and and locally grown food in greenhouses. If ever there was a place for small nuclear powerplants it is the North.

On the military side, build some good hanger and facilities (including ammunition bunkers) at certain airports to support fighters, SAR and transports. Build up the training establishments so we can run more people through them, purchase equipment like the BvS 210 to support troops in the region and give them support as required. Set up Reserve units in some communities to act as support for the Rangers, training the regs and patrolling. Set up two-three naval reserve units with patrol boats that can be hauled out over winter and stored indoors. Rotate RSS staff through on short term deployments to assist, but with a focus of training locals.

All of the above will make the North more habitable and easier to attract and keep people up there. this is the long term solution and needs buy in from both major parties.


----------



## Kirkhill

Pivo, you ask what the alternative is to building new infrastructure.  Effectively incurring additional capital expenses.  The alternative is always to swap capital expenses for operating expenses.

We already have infrastructure in place in the sense that there are communities.  What they need is better connectivity.  People can live there but they can't afford to live well there.  Visiting the neighbours costs too much.  Seeing a doctor.  Going to hospital. Buying lettuce.  Going to the Caribbean.  Heating the house.  That's all because the price of moving people and goods is too high.

We can spend trillions building road and rail links over ground that melts, and heaves and freezes and sinks and grows mountains and floods.  Or we can use what we know already works.  Float planes.  Ski planes.  Hercs.  Jets.  Helicopters.    And rough terrain vehicles.

For the amount of money we would spend building the infrastructure we could subsidize northern living for the small number of people up there for a very long time.  Reduce the cost of fuel.  Government subsidies on air travel and air craft and ATVs.  Flying Doctors of the type pioneered by the Aussies where the Doctors actually flew their own government aircraft on their rounds.

But that will take money that could be reasonably spent buying more votes on the American border.   

If we few want to keep ahold of this vast treasure hoard then we are going to have to pay for it.  And that is going to mean exploiting that treasure.

And if we won't sell thermal coal from Alberta and BC to Dalian so they can run their factories, heat their homes and purify their water somebody may take it into their head to help themselves.  

Some people want to live up north.  The more that want to live in the "boonies" then the fewer "security guards" we have to hire to watch the treasure while we drink our beers at the cottage.  

Buying the locals a few tickets down south, cheap milk and a doctor would be well worth it.

But only if we mean to use our treasure and not just sit on it.

Slainte.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I have to disagree, roads and rail are important. a lot more thought goes into road building now to minimize damage.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Kirkhill said:


> We can spend trillions building road and rail links over ground that melts, and heaves and freezes and sinks and grows mountains and floods.  Or we can use what we know already works.  Float planes.  Ski planes.  Hercs.  Jets.  Helicopters.    And rough terrain vehicles.


 And may I add hovercraft.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> One thing that I wouldn’t be is complacent or accepting of the fact that we have access to Soviet charts from 30+yrs ago that they could have only gathered is by mowing our grass for us. Do you not find that just a little troubling?
> 
> Depending on how you look at it, we are either blessed or cursed with having the 2nd largest land mass in the world to govern with a population less than California that just happens to be condensed in a tight narrow corridor about 100 miles wide. When described in that manner it sounds a lot like a curse.
> 
> What can be done with the Arctic? The vastness of it makes it just about ungovernable with such a tiny population that has become soft and mellowed by all the creature comforts of urban living and the hyper-marketing that goes with it. The harshness of it solidifies the answer. Dropping penny packets of men and materiel throughout the Arctic achieves nothing for they will have nothing to do but count polar bears and fight boredom and depression.  Stationing more SAR capabilities further forward will reduce the long hours flying to the high Arctic from Trenton, adding some more modern versions of the Aurora (and adding a few more to our fleet as well), to our tool box will help with semblance of anti-submarine surveillance throughout the entire area, but finding an SSN under the ice is close to zero.  Greater number of flights does lead to greater presence and awareness throughout the area. Increasing the size and capabilities of our heavy ice breaking fleet and using this fleet consistently throughout the Arctic 12 months of the year is in effect 1 of 2 ways to have ‘boots on the ground’ in the Arctic. Due to the fact that sailing time from the East coast is long and arduous to reach the middle islands of the Arctic and coming from the West coast is even longer, with more danger and political risk due to the fact that we must sail through so much American water to reach our own, ignoring the fact that we are spit ball away from the Russians a lot of the time. Stationing these heavy ice breakers in say, Churchill as their main port should be considered going forward. This would necessitate upgrading the existing rail line and ultimately building an all weather road as well. Yes of course the challenges are many, but what’s the alternative? Having a rail line and all weather road would allow for more supplies being brought forward to the settlements scattered throughout the Arctic. These ice breakers could be used to ferry in supplies throughout the year instead of only the summer months.  Lastly, the second way to achieve’boots on the ground’, is obtaining full under ice capable subs, wether nuclear or whatever feasible, reliable alternative there may be. The only way to own an area is to live in the area, there is no other way.
> 
> The Russians achieved population centres throughout their Arctic by 3 ways in the past. The first was penal colonies under the Czars. The second was Gulags under Stalin and the third was very high salary and incentives under Stalin’s successors. We can’t do numbers one or two and we’ve tried number three with very very little success so populating the Arctic just doesn’t look feasible in the short to medium term.
> 
> If global warming is occurring (and I fall into the camp that the earth is going through one of its many warm/hot cycles), then the North West Passage will become more of a common sailing option when going from Europe to Asia. Look at it this way, does Canada (and it’s Allies) routinely sail in the waters between mainland China and Taiwan? Yes, of course it does as we believe that it’s International waters, not internal waters of China. So, following this logic, do you not think China is going to one day call our bluff on this and sail their new polar icebreaker through the North West Passage? The ship come from the Russian side of the Arctic, hell there might even be Russian ice breaker with it, and they will push through and other than us getting some nice pics of them during some fly overs there won’t be much we can do about it.


Thank you for responding. Just for context I did ten deployments with the RCN in the Arctic conducting over the years various missions including hydrographic work,  mass SAR, working on a sensor net as proof of concept in the NWP and operating with the French, Danish, USCG and US Navy. The Arctic is not unknown to me.

Yes known about the soviet charts, they consist of soundings taken more than likely by soviet submarines at the entrance of both sides of he NWP during the height of the cold war. Understandable why the soviet union would attempt this given we were in a cold war with them. Going through the NWP is a dangerous proposition for submarines, any submarines. I would like to point of that the Russian cruise ship that went aground in the NWP several years ago were probably using these charts. At the current rate of charting it will take 300 years to chart the Canadian Arctic. I would propose that under the NSP we prioritize several ice capable hydrographic ships built by Davie to carry out charting missions exclusively in the Arctic. Can't use the Arctic if we go aground in it.

Immediately replace the aurora with a capable replacement with larger numbers to allow more overflights of the Arctic. Ensure that these aircraft or if retaining the Auroras are armed with the Harpoon or NSM.

Expand the airfields capable of operating the CF 18 or possible replacement and add more airfields at existing population centers. Purchase a fighter capable of mounting a ASM. 

Put more money towards satellite coverage of the Arctic and increase communications bandwidth.

Create a regional SAR center at Iqaluit with satellite centers in strategic places in the Arctic seasonally manned or manned if needed.

Expand the deep water port at Iqaluit with storage, fuel and jetty space to accommodate allied ships during the ice free navigation season. Make an agreement with Denmark, the US, UK and Norway to create an Arctic squadron to patrol the Arctic during the ice free season.

Establish another refueling station at the west end of the NWP. Take the current one and expand the capacity.

Nuclear submarines will never happen, AIP is not tested under the ice all pipedreams currently.  By all means replace the current subs with 6 to 8 with lithium ion batteries and efficient motors.

Continue research and implementation of a sensor net in the chokeholds of the NWP.

Start researching ASW drones that can operate under the NWP.

Build 2 more heavy icebreakers in addition to the other 2 that is planned.

Churchill is too far away but certainly upgrade the air facilities there to operate fighters, upgrade the rail line and declare it a strategic asset and have port facilities to support naval ships.

I'll make some comments about what you said about population centers. Our Arctic is very different from the Russian Arctic. They have large economic and population centers that need to have ample icebreaking capability for commercial traffic ours not to the extent to what they do. Back in the 50s the government forcibly relocated some of the native population to far flung areas to increase the population and establish communities to claim sovereignty. This is a dark stain on Canada.

China is definitely in interested in the NWP, in fact they published a guidebook in 2016 for transiting the passage.  This issue is that currently the unpredictably of ice in the passage makes it not economically feasible to send container ships through there because of possible delays. Eventually that may change and honestly economically they are more than welcome to use the passage just like any country shipping cargo. It will be a matter of time before we seen their icebreaker coming through. Their main focus right now is the polar silk road linking Russia to Europe via the Northern sea route much less dangerous. 

As for scenarios of joint Russian and Chinese naval icebreakers coming through the passage without permission, we'll see. I'm willing to bet that will not happen.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> We already have infrastructure in place in the sense that there are communities.  What they need is better connectivity.  People can live there but they can't afford to live well there.  Visiting the neighbours costs too much.  Seeing a doctor.  Going to hospital. Buying lettuce.  Going to the Caribbean.  Heating the house.  That's all because the price of moving people and goods is too high.



IMHO this is the key to any northern defence posture. Not wasting money building remote ports that are iced in for 9 months of the year.

However, communities up there are simply a mess: technically, structurally, and in all dimensions of the normal human services that 99.9% of Canadians take for granted.

A massive investment in infrastructure and services is called for if, for no other reason, following the humanitarian principles we love to preach to the world in our usual superficial and virtue signalling fashion.

If we do that other benefits, such as greater security, will likely follow.


----------



## Kirkhill

Retired AF Guy said:


> And may I add hovercraft.


And boats

And perhaps Multi Purpose ships based on the AOPS hull?  If I am right and the AOPS hull is to be replicated for SeaSpan MPV contract then that will result in a fleet of 24 hulls (6 built by Irving for the RCN and 2 for the Coast Guard as well as 16 built by SeaSpan for the Coast Guard).  There is also the possibility of additional sales to the US Coast Guard.

If that hull form is successful, in the same way that the Flower Class Corvette whaler was successful, then it could become the basis of a northern freighter fleet.  Rugged and, hopefully cheap.

Just recently I learned about the Peterhead boats.







The Peterhead boats were fishing boats built originally in Peterhead in Scotland and brought to the Canadian Arctic where they became popular.  They were then built in Canada and became mainstays of northern life for decades.  I believe some are still operating.  Perhaps the AOPS hull can achieve some of the same utility.  HDW has had a great maiden voyage it seems.   How far north can she go?  How long can she stay there?  How far up the MacKenzie can she navigate? 

And even if it turns out she is an expensive hull, even with an economy of scale of mass production, it might be worth subsidizing the build of commercial variants if she improves daily life.   Make them available to the northern freight companies as coastal freighters and oilers.



Another way to tie the North to the government would be to put the Rangers on to the payroll. Currently they are only obligated for 12 days a year. Pay them a solid full time wage. Upgrade their kit to something akin to the Volunteer Coast Guard or a Volunteer Fire Department while still remaining under DND authority.   Leave them armed and independent but improve their gear and  supply them with full environmental clothing built to their designs.  Improve their comms and navigation gear to their satisfaction.  Issue them with Domestic Arctic Mobility Equipment like the Bv206 or the stuff that Foremost makes, or subsidize trials until they find something they like.  Issue them with jet boats that work in shallow waters, and coastal seas.   Issue drones.   Train some as pilots, both aerial and maritimes.  Support more paramedics/nurse-practitioners.  Emergency generators and back up water plants.  Fire fighting.  HazMat response.

Make the Ranger Patrol the centre of each community.  Make it useful and desirable and make it a means of pumping government dollars into every village.   Tie those villages securely to Ottawa.

With a network of loyal, interconnected hubs dotted around the north, from the southern edge of the treeline to Eureka, if not Alert, then


security will be enhanced,
native prosperity improved (which can only have a beneficial effect on land claims - the worst sovereignty challenge that we face, and the most easily exploited by our potential enemies )
northern access improved
commercial opportunities enhanced
sovereignty enhanced.

And the CAF will have a firm base on which to fall in when the need arises, and models for the kit and systems it really needs for working in Canada. 

The Rangers, and the Militia, would then supply the comms, log and security infrastructure for Domestic Ops.

The CAF could focus on Armed Response and Expeditionary Ops.

But that would also mean "subsidizing" the Militia with terms of service and full time billets.


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to my notion,  it would also supply a more northern focus for the Yellow Fleet.  And perhaps it would be worth subsidizing Viking to produce more Yellow Twin Otters, and possibly even Buffalos for local communications.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> Further to my notion,  it would also supply a more northern focus for the Yellow Fleet.  And perhaps it would be worth subsidizing Viking to produce more Yellow Twin Otters, and possibly even Buffalos for* local communications.*



Or even better: contract out to Space X









						SpaceX
					

SpaceX designs, manufactures and launches advanced rockets and spacecraft.




					www.spacex.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:


> Further to my notion,  it would also supply a more northern focus for the Yellow Fleet.  And perhaps it would be worth subsidizing Viking to produce more Yellow Twin Otters, and possibly even Buffalos for local communications.


The fact that we are flying ancient Twotters when Viking is making new ones boogle the mind. for a Northern based patrol boat I am thinking something the size of the CB 90. Hovercraft were heavily used in the Arctic for oil exploration, however they are maintenance hogs and require shore support. but if your going Hovercraft go big or go home......


----------



## Dale Denton

Kirkhill said:


> The Peterhead boats were fishing boats built originally in Peterhead in Scotland and brought to the Canadian Arctic where they became popular.  They were then built in Canada and became mainstays of northern life for decades.  I believe some are still operating.  Perhaps the AOPS hull can achieve some of the same utility.  HDW has had a great maiden voyage it seems.   How far north can she go?  How long can she stay there?  How far up the MacKenzie can she navigate?
> 
> And even if it turns out she is an expensive hull, even with an economy of scale of mass production, it might be worth subsidizing the build of commercial variants if she improves daily life.   Make them available to the northern freight companies as coastal freighters and oilers.



Couldn't agree more, i'd like to expand on the above by having two having a design competitions for a Canadian or ice-capable design and a Canadian yard to build something like you stated. It funds the engineering of icebreaker ship design and research either at home or brings foreign knowledge (N.European?) of ship designs to us. Have framework for the ships to be arctic-capable, rugged, easily built and operated and cheap to run. Make a line of ships over time that would build on this framework and eventually allow for larger or more varied designs and jobs. 

Make the design licencing available for cheap to larger Canadian yards and free for small-boat builders throughout Canada. It would allow industry to build replacement parts and aftermarket accessories to advance the utility of these boats, adding to their longevity. 



> With a network of loyal, interconnected hubs dotted around the north, from the southern edge of the treeline to Eureka, if not Alert, then
> 
> security will be enhanced,
> native prosperity improved (which can only have a beneficial effect on land claims - the worst sovereignty challenge that we face, and the most easily exploited by our potential enemies )
> northern access improved
> commercial opportunities enhanced
> sovereignty enhanced.



I'd like to add Internet connectivity to that as well. Make mobile learning easier for remote communities, and acts as a way to link them together. Keep bushpilots on payroll and operate something from Viking to run (RCMP, Doctors, RNs and RPNs, Rangers) through these expanded airfields.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Czech_pivo said:


> I know someone who goes up to the Arctic every second summer for the entire navigation season for the purposes of mapping the seabed and such. He’s told me that he has personally seen old Soviet navigation maps pre-1990 that were much more accurate and detailed than the maps they were using 25yrs later - all within Canadian waters.



From a 06 Dec 2011 article in the Globe and Mail: *Russian maps suggest Soviet subs cruised Canadian Arctic*

A 15 July 2015 article in Wired that talks about how these Russian maps ended up in the west: *Inside the Secret World of Russia’s Cold War Mapmakers.* 

One of the people mentioned in the above aticle even wrote a book about the Soviet effort and can be bought here. And if you don't want to buy the book, you can buy the maps instead at the same website.

And finally, as an example here is a link to a 1:500,000 scale map that shows the area around Alert.


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> If your going to spout off about 4 months of the year at least be accurate on when an AOPS can actually operate in Arctic waters. I know it seems you have a lot of criticism of the RCN and government in regards to the Arctic and I'm sure its deserved but do your research on what exactly the ships are capable of and not just in the Arctic.


It seems that is is a CF limitation - the hull based on the open source specs is good for year round Arctic work - and is a pretty decent Polar Icebreaker -- my criticism is solely based on the Political issues that the CF has in actually patrolling the Arctic - don't take it as a personal jab.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> The fact that we are flying ancient Twotters when Viking is making new ones boogle the mind. for a Northern based patrol boat I am thinking something the size of the CB 90. Hovercraft were heavily used in the Arctic for oil exploration, however they are maintenance hogs and require shore support. but if your going Hovercraft go big or go home......


CB90ish Yes.  

Monster hovercraft no.  Although LCACs might have a place as ship to shore lighters.














						Ship-to-Shore Connector - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Which would be cheaper - a long pier in Iqaluit or half a dozen "lighters" based there?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Kirkhill said:


> CB90ish Yes.
> 
> Monster hovercraft no.  Although LCACs might have a place as ship to shore lighters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ship-to-Shore Connector - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which would be cheaper - *a long pier in Iqaluit* or half a dozen "lighters" based there?



Looks like they're on that:

Iqaluit deepsea port project remains on schedule for 2021 completion​
Despite pandemic restrictions, the construction of Iqaluit’s deepsea port and small-craft harbour remains on schedule.

The project, awarded to Tower Arctic in 2018, is still expected to be completed in 2021 and operational by the 2022 shipping season.

“I think that things are looking good to make that date,” said Justin McDonell, a project manager with the Government of Nunavut’s capital projects division.

According to McDonell the project is also still on budget.

“It took a little while to get all the details totally smoothed out for this project to move forward, but overall, we did not see as bad of a delay as other projects,” he said, referring to the impact of the pandemic.









						Iqaluit deepsea port project remains on schedule for 2021 completion | Nunatsiaq News
					

(Updated on Oct. 14, 12:30 p.m.) Despite pandemic restrictions, the construction of Iqaluit’s deepsea port and small-craft harbour remains on schedule.




					nunatsiaq.com


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for that D&B.  In that case the pier is cheaper.  Forget the maintenance hogs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Lighters and moving cargo by hand is great if you have an island of cheap labour who speak no english and like to form cargo cults. I rather have a proper dock that makes loading and unloading faster and safer. Meaning more round trips can be made in a season.


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> Lighters and moving cargo by hand is great if you have an island of cheap labour who speak no english and like to form cargo cults. I rather have a proper dock that makes loading and unloading faster and safer. Meaning more round trips can be made in a season.


Piers are however fantastic targets.

I am a big fan of redundancy.

I notice the article is almost a year old with no updates -- I am curious how the summer build schedule went this year.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Piers up there are mostly corrugated sheet pile with compacted fill or the same built around concrete caissons. They actually be fairly easy to repair and hard to actually destroy.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> Piers up there are mostly corrugated sheet pile with compacted fill or the same built around concrete caissons. They actually be fairly easy to repair and hard to actually destroy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was involved in helping the proponent find options for these, I think an opportunity lost









						ConocoPhillips Canada: Operating responsibly in the Arctic
					

The Tarsiut caissons 2017 removal program




					www.conocophillips.com


----------



## Maxman1

Kirkhill said:


> And perhaps Multi Purpose ships based on the AOPS hull?



Why not multi-purpose destroyers?


----------



## JMCanada

Back to submarines... Israeli Dolphin caught gathering intelligence near Algerian coast.









						What we know about the incident with an Israeli submarine - MENADEFENSE
					

A rather unprecedented story was shared yesterday on social media: an Israeli submarine was allegedly chased by the Algerian navy during the Radaa 2021 exercise which took place on 29 and 30 September. The drill, which saw the participation of many Algerian naval units, was intended to...




					www.menadefense.net


----------



## Kirkhill

Kirkhill said:


> Further to my notion,  it would also supply a more northern focus for the Yellow Fleet.  And perhaps it would be worth subsidizing Viking to produce more Yellow Twin Otters, and possibly even Buffalos for local communications.



Putting together all of these mixed thoughts about Rangers, northern settlements and the need for infrastructure.

When I took a look at all the Ranger Patrols I got to seeing them as  platoon sized (20 to 30 people) representatives of company sized  (200 to 400 people) communities.

Which reminded of the Defence Capabilities Blueprint and the Defence Capabilities Investment Areas.  These are the projects that DND is looking to prioritise for the CAF.   Defence Capabilities Blueprint

WRT the Rangers some projects stuck out.

SupportCamp Sustain500​2030​Tactical Power System250​2028​Headquarters Shelter System250​2021​Advanced Water Supply System100​2028​Advanced Sub-Unit Water Purification System250​2023​

Tactical Power, Sub-Unit Water Purification and HQ/Emergency Shelter for 200 to 400 people would be high on the list of things useful in northern communities.



LandDomestic Arctic Mobility Enhancement250​2030​Light Utility Vehicle500​2029​Common Heavy Equipment Replacement500​2029​High Risk Search Capability50​2021​Light Force Enhancement100​2028​

Access to BvS10s, LUVs as Rovers, ATVs, Backhoes and Dozers would likewise be useful.


SeaAOPS/MPV CG15700​AOPS5000​2025​Multi-Role Boat100​2026​

The AOPS/MPV end of the situation is under control (PS why are the tanks at Nanisivik being drained every season?  I would  hope in the future the MPVs and AOPS would drain their tanks in the coastal communities and replenish their fuel stocks for winter.

As for the multi-role boat, I know the RCN's requirement is for open RHIBs but it could be filled/expanded by adding the Danish LCP / Swedish CB-90 styles of boats that would also work in Canada's inland waters.


AirCC-138 Twin Otter Life Extension20​2022​Utility Transport Aircraft500​2030​Griffon Ltd LEX1000​2028​Air Force Expeditionary Capability500​2027​Air Force Expeditionary Capability - Air Expeditionary Wing Set Up20​2020​Air Space Coordination Centre Modernization100​2021​ILS Replacement40​2030​Snow and Ice control recapitalization100​2024​

Building a Bush Fleet around the Twin Otter and the Griffon  kind of seems to make sense to me.  Scatter them on rough fields in accordance with their range (200 to 500 km?).

Why add the Air Expeditionary Wing?  Because emergencies happen everywhere and a forward air coordination element could come in handy.

And Snow and Ice Clearance?  Because Canada.



CommsLCSS TacCIS Mod1000​2029​LCSS TacCom Mod5000​2033​IMIC3 Comms50​2020​MarSat Comms Upgrade100​2022​Enhanced Satellite Comms - Polar5000​2031​Tactical Narrowband SATCOM - GeoSync1000​2026​MEO SAR500​2036​SAR Mission Management System Replacement50​2022​Secure Command and Control Mobile Device50​2027​Secure Radio Modernization Project500​2026​

Finally comms - because.


So, these are all parts of the DND/CAF budget that first and foremost have utility at home, in our north, with the native communities.  And could be shared with an enhance Public Safety budget administered through the DND organized Canadian Rangers.

CAF would then not be pleading for money to serve expeditionary and alliance needs.  It would be pleading for money to enhance Public Safety, native relations and domestic development that could also be used from expeditionary and alliance needs.


----------



## Kirkhill

WRT piers vs lighters.

How many ships visiting a year and how many tonnes off loaded?  And how much variation in the nature of the shipping?  

I can see justifying docks at Iqaluit, and Churchill, but how about all the other coastal communities?  Do they each get a wharf?  Or do they get Air Cushion barges to manage ship to shore transfers in ice-infested waters and muddy rivers with shifting courses and sand-bars surrounded by muskeg and Pingos?


----------



## Stoker

Kirkhill said:


> Putting together all of these mixed thoughts about Rangers, northern settlements and the need for infrastructure.
> 
> When I took a look at all the Ranger Patrols I got to seeing them as  platoon sized (20 to 30 people) representatives of company sized  (200 to 400 people) communities.
> 
> Which reminded of the Defence Capabilities Blueprint and the Defence Capabilities Investment Areas.  These are the projects that DND is looking to prioritise for the CAF.   Defence Capabilities Blueprint
> 
> WRT the Rangers some projects stuck out.
> 
> SupportCamp Sustain500​2030​Tactical Power System250​2028​Headquarters Shelter System250​2021​Advanced Water Supply System100​2028​Advanced Sub-Unit Water Purification System250​2023​
> 
> Tactical Power, Sub-Unit Water Purification and HQ/Emergency Shelter for 200 to 400 people would be high on the list of things useful in northern communities.
> 
> 
> 
> LandDomestic Arctic Mobility Enhancement250​2030​Light Utility Vehicle500​2029​Common Heavy Equipment Replacement500​2029​High Risk Search Capability50​2021​Light Force Enhancement100​2028​
> 
> Access to BvS10s, LUVs as Rovers, ATVs, Backhoes and Dozers would likewise be useful.
> 
> 
> SeaAOPS/MPV CG15700​AOPS5000​2025​Multi-Role Boat100​2026​
> 
> The AOPS/MPV end of the situation is under control (PS why are the tanks at Nanisivik being drained every season?  I would  hope in the future the MPVs and AOPS would drain their tanks in the coastal communities and replenish their fuel stocks for winter.
> 
> As for the multi-role boat, I know the RCN's requirement is for open RHIBs but it could be filled/expanded by adding the Danish LCP / Swedish CB-90 styles of boats that would also work in Canada's inland waters.
> 
> 
> AirCC-138 Twin Otter Life Extension20​2022​Utility Transport Aircraft500​2030​Griffon Ltd LEX1000​2028​Air Force Expeditionary Capability500​2027​Air Force Expeditionary Capability - Air Expeditionary Wing Set Up20​2020​Air Space Coordination Centre Modernization100​2021​ILS Replacement40​2030​Snow and Ice control recapitalization100​2024​
> 
> Building a Bush Fleet around the Twin Otter and the Griffon  kind of seems to make sense to me.  Scatter them on rough fields in accordance with their range (200 to 500 km?).
> 
> Why add the Air Expeditionary Wing?  Because emergencies happen everywhere and a forward air coordination element could come in handy.
> 
> And Snow and Ice Clearance?  Because Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> CommsLCSS TacCIS Mod1000​2029​LCSS TacCom Mod5000​2033​IMIC3 Comms50​2020​MarSat Comms Upgrade100​2022​Enhanced Satellite Comms - Polar5000​2031​Tactical Narrowband SATCOM - GeoSync1000​2026​MEO SAR500​2036​SAR Mission Management System Replacement50​2022​Secure Command and Control Mobile Device50​2027​Secure Radio Modernization Project500​2026​
> 
> Finally comms - because.
> 
> 
> So, these are all parts of the DND/CAF budget that first and foremost have utility at home, in our north, with the native communities.  And could be shared with an enhance Public Safety budget administered through the DND organized Canadian Rangers.
> 
> CAF would then not be pleading for money to serve expeditionary and alliance needs.  It would be pleading for money to enhance Public Safety, native relations and domestic development that could also be used from expeditionary and alliance needs.


The current plan has the Nanisivik tanks filled by shuttle tanker out of St. John's at the beginning of the year and a private company running it until the close of the season. To prevent water and resulting microbiological growth the facility would need a system to heat the fuel. The facility is connected to the community of Arctic through a 40km road, way too much work and cost to keep open in the winter.


----------



## Stoker

Kirkhill said:


> WRT piers vs lighters.
> 
> How many ships visiting a year and how many tonnes off loaded?  And how much variation in the nature of the shipping?
> 
> I can see justifying docks at Iqaluit, and Churchill, but how about all the other coastal communities?  Do they each get a wharf?  Or do they get Air Cushion barges to manage ship to shore transfers in ice-infested waters and muddy rivers with shifting courses and sand-bars surrounded by muskeg and Pingos?


All these small communities are served by ship with barges, tugs and front end loaders that ferry the containerized cargo to the communities beach through the annual sealift.


----------



## Kirkhill

Stoker said:


> The current plan has the Nanisivik tanks filled by shuttle tanker out of St. John's at the beginning of the year and a private company running it until the close of the season. To prevent water and resulting microbiological growth the facility would need a system to heat the fuel. The facility is connected to the community of Arctic through a 40km road, way too much work and cost to keep open in the winter.



Seen Stoker.  Understood.

Just suggesting that there are always likely to be customers for fuel up north and the AOPS could make friends dropping off "surplus" fuel.


----------



## Dana381

Three eyes now, being left out because we would rather call useless elections than spend on defense!









						O No Canada: Is A Three-Eyed AUKUS An Augury For Change? - Breaking Defense
					

When Australia, the US and UK announced a new pacific-focused defense agreement last month, it was hard not to notice that the deal excluded the other two members of the Five Eyes intelligence agreement. Local media in Canada certainly seized on it to raise questions about Ottawa’s standing in...




					breakingdefense.com


----------



## Weinie

Stoker said:


> All these small communities are served by ship with barges, tugs and front end loaders that ferry the containerized cargo to the communities beach through the annual sealift.


But for how much longer will the status quo be the answer? I have little knowledge of the Canadian Arctic support system, but based on what I have read, suspect that past or current limitations/ideologies will have to be rapidly re-thunk. Are we in that space, or are we fighting/projecting current thought?


----------



## lenaitch

Weinie said:


> But for how much longer will the status quo be the answer? I have little knowledge of the Canadian Arctic support system, but based on what I have read, suspect that past or current limitations/ideologies will have to be rapidly re-thunk. Are we in that space, or are we fighting/projecting current thought?



Neither do I, but I get the sense that a lot of the Arctic communities have shallow water shorelines, necessitating a dock or jetty which could end up being quite long.  Mix that in with a structure that would have to withstand significant ice pressure.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

lenaitch said:


> Neither do I, but I get the sense that a lot of the Arctic communities have shallow water shorelines, necessitating a dock or jetty which could end up being quite long.  Mix that in with a structure that would have to withstand significant ice pressure.


Building in a bay helps reduce ice pressure as the surrounding lands keep the worst of of the dock. Mulberry like docks could be floated into place, sunk and then a structure built around them (corrugated sheet pile) and fill pushed inside. the beauty of that system is you can do 1-2 sections a season and make the cassions deeper as you go out and put jack up legs on them to level them.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Russia announcing something rather interesting occurring in the Barents Sea and the White Sea

Russia test-fires new hypersonic missile from a nuclear submarine​








						Russia test-fires new hypersonic missile from a nuclear submarine
					

The Russian Defense Ministry said the hypersonic missile was launched from the Severodvinsk submarine and hit a designated mock target in the Barents Sea




					www.theglobeandmail.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As i recall their last test did not go so well?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin Parkinson said:


> As i recall their last test did not go so well?


Practice Practice Practice


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBH99 said:


> the Americans and the Russians both building extremely advanced and quiet boats that could unilaterally destroy half the cities on the globe if they so chose to



I would include China...the UK has "bombers", too, as well as France.  I think China, personally, is the country to focus on in that group.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Stoker said:


> Immediately replace the aurora with a capable replacement with larger numbers to allow more overflights of the Arctic. Ensure that these aircraft or if retaining the Auroras are armed with the Harpoon or NSM.



Add 'air to air refueling' to the _must have_ list...as much as I dislike the idea of an 18+hour patrol, 24hr endurance made the Argus very effective at NORPATs.

But, back to reality - we can always watch and read about our Allies who are _doing the business properly_!  😁😁









						U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon Employs Harpoon during Formidable Shield 2021 Exercise - Naval News
					

U.S. Navy Patrol Squadron FOUR (VP-4) successfully conducted a coordinated missile launch with VP-40 using two Air to Surface Missile (AGM-84D) Harpoons against a target barge off the coast of Norway during exercise At-Sea Demo/Formidable Shield (ASD/FS), May 31, 2021.




					www.navalnews.com
				












						RAAF’s P-8A Poseidon fires first ATM-84J Harpoon missile
					

The Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) P-8A Poseidon military aircraft has successfully launched its first Harpoon missile.




					www.airforce-technology.com
				












						French Navy Upgraded ATL2 MPA Test Fires Exocet AM39 Anti-Ship Missile - Naval News
					

A French Navy (Marine Nationale) Atlantique 2 (ATL2) "Standard 6" maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) test fired a "live" AM39 Exocet air-launched anti-ship missile as part of its qualification trials.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## CBH99

Eye In The Sky said:


> I would include China...the UK has "bombers", too, as well as France.  I think China, personally, is the country to focus on in that group.


Seen. 

I’ll do some research later today, as my knowledge of Chinese-built submarine capabilities is actually sorely lacking.  

I was under the impression that while they had SSGNs, and that number is growing (like everything else modern in their arsenal) - the vast majority of their current submarine fleet were older diesel boats.  

Also agreed on which subs to watch for.  While the US, UK, France, and Russia all build ‘bombers’ - the ones in use by China are the only ones that really cause me to focus.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Czech_pivo said:


> Russia test-fires new hypersonic missile from a nuclear submarine



Pretty impressive weapon.  They've done reasonably well with sub-launched missiles...especially compared to Canada.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> Pretty impressive weapon.  They've done reasonably well with sub-launched missiles...especially compared to Canada.


West Edmonton Mall has done more with sub-launched missiles than the RCN.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

> West Edmonton Mall....sub-launched missles...



Beadwindow!  Beadwindow!!   That is a "black" project!


----------



## CBH99

dimsum said:


> West Edmonton Mall has done more with sub-launched missiles than the RCN.


Those subs are sadly gone now, which sucks.  Even as an adult it was a fun little ride 😅🤷🏼‍♂️


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBH99 said:


> While the US, UK, France, and Russia all build ‘bombers’



I think it was the Clancy book I read that the US calls them boomers, whilst the UK calls them "bombers".  No idea what the other countries call them...personally, I like when they're called "tracks".


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> I think it was the Clancy book I read that the US calls them boomers, whilst the UK calls them "bombers". No idea what the other countries call them...personally, I like when they're called "tracks".


Now that's funny


----------



## Weinie

Eye In The Sky said:


> Add 'air to air refueling' to the _must have_ list...as much as I dislike the idea of an 18+hour patrol, *24hr endurance made the Argus very effective at NORPATs.*
> 
> But, back to reality - we can always watch and read about our Allies who are _doing the business properly_!  😁😁
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Navy P-8 Poseidon Employs Harpoon during Formidable Shield 2021 Exercise - Naval News
> 
> 
> U.S. Navy Patrol Squadron FOUR (VP-4) successfully conducted a coordinated missile launch with VP-40 using two Air to Surface Missile (AGM-84D) Harpoons against a target barge off the coast of Norway during exercise At-Sea Demo/Formidable Shield (ASD/FS), May 31, 2021.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RAAF’s P-8A Poseidon fires first ATM-84J Harpoon missile
> 
> 
> The Royal Australian Air Force’s (RAAF) P-8A Poseidon military aircraft has successfully launched its first Harpoon missile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.airforce-technology.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> French Navy Upgraded ATL2 MPA Test Fires Exocet AM39 Anti-Ship Missile - Naval News
> 
> 
> A French Navy (Marine Nationale) Atlantique 2 (ATL2) "Standard 6" maritime patrol aircraft (MPA) test fired a "live" AM39 Exocet air-launched anti-ship missile as part of its qualification trials.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com


Yup. This


----------



## Underway

For a submarine thread, this is pretty wide-ranging.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:


> For a submarine thread, this is pretty wide-ranging.



...so the thread is still in the search phase?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Interesting read. Quite possibly tied to the large US/UK/JPN Carrier TaskForce operating south-east of Okinawa recently,









						US submarine hits ‘object’ while underwater in South China Sea
					

A US nuclear-powered submarine hit an “object” while submerged in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region, injuring some of the crew, the United States Navy has said. None of the sailors on board the USS Connecticut suffered life-threatening injuries, the Navy said in a brief statement...




					news.google.com


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There's lots of scenarios that make people cringe;  after being on board one of our subs, 2 of mine would be a collision or fire while in a deep dive config.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Eye In The Sky said:


> There's lots of scenarios that make people cringe;  after being on board one of our subs, 2 of mine would be a collision or fire while in a deep dive config.



I’m not sure I’d be able to handle more than a few days at best in one of them.
I think of what the poor fellows in the Kursk went through….


----------



## Good2Golf

Czech_pivo said:


> I’m not sure I’d be able to handle more than a few days at best in one of them.
> I think of what the poor fellows in the Kursk went through….


…all in water less deep than half the length of the sub. 😳


----------



## CBH99

Good2Golf said:


> …all in water less deep than half the length of the sub. 😳


Wait, what??  

I need to do some googling… the water was THAT shallow?  😕











						Kursk submarine disaster - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




I had obviously heard about the Kursk, but didn’t research a lot of the details until it’s now.  

I had followed the news about a submarine in trouble, the Russians refusing outside help (I would think if the same situation happened today, the acceptance of help would be much much speedier) - and all of the crew had been lost.  

Talk about a cursed cruise.  Every single thing about that tragedy seems like Murphy’s Law in full effect.  😔


----------



## CBH99

Czech_pivo said:


> Interesting read. Quite possibly tied to the large US/UK/JPN Carrier TaskForce operating south-east of Okinawa recently,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US submarine hits ‘object’ while underwater in South China Sea
> 
> 
> A US nuclear-powered submarine hit an “object” while submerged in international waters in the Indo-Pacific region, injuring some of the crew, the United States Navy has said. None of the sailors on board the USS Connecticut suffered life-threatening injuries, the Navy said in a brief statement...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.google.com


I realize my question is going to most likely be rhetorical due to a variety of OPSEC reasons… 

But how does a Seawolf class submarine collide with an ‘object’ (Alien USO and US Navy traffic accident?) - and have the USN submarine NOT see the object first?  

And what could the object even be?  Speculation, I realize.  But what can a submarine collide with if submerged in open ocean, other than another submarine or surfacing under a ship by accident?  (Which has happened more than once)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

CBH99 said:


> I realize my question is going to most likely be rhetorical due to a variety of OPSEC reasons…
> 
> But how does a Seawolf class submarine collide with an ‘object’ (Alien USO and US Navy traffic accident?) - and have the USN submarine NOT see the object first?
> 
> And what could the object even be?  Speculation, I realize.  But what can a submarine collide with if submerged in open ocean, other than another submarine or surfacing under a ship by accident?  (Which has happened more than once)


The wording of the news release begs a few questions. It could be an uncharted seamount or wreck- it happens, as our knowledge of the seabottom is never 100%.  

It could also have been another submarine or a ship. The reason that can happen when relying on passive sonar is that while it is relatively easy to determine a bearing to another contact, range to contact is always a dark art.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There's always the chance of hitting something not man-made that is neither on the ocean floor, or surface.  I recall reading about huge trees/logs, becoming water-logged and riding the current below the surface, as an example.  

Crew with minor cuts/injuries suggests something of significant size/mass to me (just a WAG).  8600+ tons...


----------



## Czech_pivo

SeaKingTacco said:


> The wording of the news release begs a few questions. It could be an uncharted seamount or wreck- it happens, as our knowledge of the seabottom is never 100%.
> 
> It could also have been another submarine or a ship. The reason that can happen when relying on passive sonar is that while it is relatively easy to determine a bearing to another contact, range to contact is always a dark art.


There is this interesting article (from the title0 but I can't (won't) get behind the pay wall.  Wondering if this could be a case of blue on blue - total speculation.

Royal Navy submarine jousts with Japanese in show of strength aimed at China​‘Cat and mouse’ training exercise between navies of Britain and Japan signals strategic cooperation in face of Beijing’s sabre-rattling










						Google News
					

Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.




					news.google.com


----------



## Czech_pivo

SeaKingTacco said:


> The wording of the news release begs a few questions. It could be an uncharted seamount or wreck- it happens, as our knowledge of the seabottom is never 100%.
> 
> It could also have been another submarine or a ship. The reason that can happen when relying on passive sonar is that while it is relatively easy to determine a bearing to another contact, range to contact is always a dark art.


CBC article on the previously mentioned 17 ship Taskforce -



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/china-japan-taiwan-u-k-canada-australia-1.6204130
		


"Chinese intelligence-gathering vessels were in the region," 
"I've been in the navy for 20 years and I have never been in such a showcase of naval power," said Layton.


----------



## Czech_pivo

And here we go….


China demands answers on US nuclear submarine accident in South China Sea



__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1446545551504379917


----------



## Good2Golf

“Get stuffed!” 😆


----------



## Czech_pivo

Looks like the US is bringing back a standing force to actively seek out Russian subs in the Atlantic.  Have to wonder if we'll have any role at all in this.

US Navy Launches Task Group to Hunt Russian Submarines​








						US Navy Launches Task Group to Hunt Russian Submarines
					

The US Navy announced the formation of a task group comprising Arleigh Burke-class destroyers to counter the Russian submarine threat.




					www.thedefensepost.com


----------



## Uzlu

> ‘Tough questions’ ahead in deciding future of Canada’s submarine fleet
> 
> After Australia reversed course and decided to acquire nuclear-powered submarines instead of conventionally-powered ones, could Canada make the same decision?
> 
> After Australia partnered with the United States and United Kingdom to acquire eight nuclear-powered submarines, experts say Canada will face tough decisions on the type of submarine it procures with a distant, but fast approaching, timeline looming if it wants to keep its submarine capacity afloat.
> 
> The need to maintain the Canadian Navy’s submarine capabilities was highlighted in the government’s 2017 defence policy review, _Strong, Secure, Engaged_, but it did not outline when replacements for Canada’s four Victoria-class submarines would be procured.
> 
> In July, the Canadian Press reported that the military had created a team to analyze what is needed in a future submarine fleet for Canada.
> 
> That team will likely be focused on determining the type and size of submarine that Canada should acquire, as well as the tools and systems it requires, according to experts. That could include deciding whether Canada should purchase conventional-powered submarines or costlier nuclear-powered ones.
> 
> Navy spokesperson Lt.-Cmdr. Jordan Holder said in an email that the Canadian Forces is establishing the “Canadian Patrol Submarine Project to inform timely governmental decision-making about a potential replacement class of submarines, and to avoid any gap in submarine capability.”
> 
> He didn’t address what kind of timeline would be needed for the procurement of a future submarine fleet.
> 
> “Timelines for large and complex defence procurement projects can be lengthy from project establishment to first delivery, to completion,” he noted.
> 
> After initially aiming to purchase conventionally-powered submarines from France, Australia reversed course and decided to buy eight nuclear-powered underwater vessels as part of the recent three-nation defence pact known as AUKUS—an agreement that goes well beyond submarine purchases, including “cyber capabilities, artificial intelligence, quantum technologies and additional undersea capabilities.”
> 
> Australia’s decision to acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines may impact a future Canadian submarine procurement, said Jeffrey Collins, who recently published a Macdonald-Laurier Institute report on the future project, titled _Deadline 2036: Assessing the requirements and options for Canada’s future submarine force_—a reference to the year in which Canada’s current Victoria-class submarines could start to be decommissioned as they approach the 50th anniversary of their initial launch.
> 
> He said Australia is one of the few countries with “parallel submarine requirements” as Canada, with a large coastline, similar populations, comparable economic strength, and both being close allies to the United States. He noted that Canada’s current fleet is similar to Australia’s current diesel-powered Collins-class submarines.
> 
> “The [AUKUS pact] throws open the idea that we probably should put nuclear SSNs on the table as an option to just see what that looks like,” said Mr. Collins, a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and an expert on defence policy and procurement.
> 
> He noted that when the Canadian government last had discussions about acquiring nuclear-powered submarines in the 1980s, the U.S. and the U.K. were unwilling to share the technology.
> 
> Navy spokesperson Lt.-Cmdr. Holder wouldn’t address a question on whether Canada would consider procuring nuclear-powered submarines.“ At this stage, our focus is on standing up the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project, which will be responsible for investigating all available options and responding to any questions the government may have, as it makes any required policy decisions,” he said.
> 
> Former naval officer Norman Jolin, who served on both submarines and surface ships during a 37-year career in the Canadian Armed Forces, said Australia has the same requirements as Canada does and there is only one submarine that can fulfill those needs—one that is nuclear-powered.
> 
> But, he suggested that won’t be the submarine that Canada acquires.
> 
> “Canada will not be looking at nuclear submarines to replace the current submarines—that’s just a non-starter,” said Mr. Jolin, now an associate consultant at CFN, referencing having been assigned to look at the procurement of nuclear submarines while with the CAF in the 1980s, which was ultimately pushed aside due to economic constraints.
> 
> “The nation gets the navy it can afford,” he said.
> 
> But he said Canada could acquire nuclear submarines, if it wanted to.
> 
> Canadian submarines need to go long distances, and do so covertly, he said, which is done better by nuclear-powered submarines as they don’t have to resurface to charge their batteries. Nuclear-powered submarines, he added, have increased under-ice capabilities, which allows them to better operate in the Arctic.
> 
> Mr. Jolin noted that advances in technology have enabled conventionally-powered submarines to operate in the Arctic along the ice edge, and use autonomous underwater vehicles.
> 
> He said Canada must figure out how it can procure a submarine for what it needs.
> 
> Conservative MP-elect James Bezan (Selkirk-Interlake-Eastman, Man.), his party’s defence critic during the last Parliament (critics for the new Parliament have yet to be named), said Canada needs submarines with under-ice capabilities to patrol Canada’s Arctic and affirm sovereignty.
> 
> “We have to look at exactly what capability we need,” Mr. Bezan said. “Can we procure that capability and manufacture it domestically? If the answer is that we don’t have the capabilities of something like a nuclear-powered submarine, then we need to look at buying off the shelf from one of our allies.”
> 
> He added buying a submarine from an ally could shorten the procurement timeline.
> 
> “If there are out there submarines that can stay extended times—diesel or electric—under the ice and have the ability to punch through ice when needed, then that also changes the dynamics [in] exactly the type of submarines that are required,” he said.
> 
> *Risk of losing Canada’s submarine capacity*
> 
> Due to the complexity and long timelines that come with naval procurements, naval experts say there is a need to get moving on procuring a future submarine fleet as major capital projects generally take 15 years. The government’s own 2017 review found that 70 per cent of major procurement projects are delayed.
> 
> Mr. Collins said Canada “really runs the risk” of losing its submarine capability if delays complicate the procurement.
> 
> The current fleet of submarines might have to be removed from the water before a new procurement is finalized if they become too risky to operate, or they might have to be modernized again, Mr. Collins said.
> 
> The Victoria-class submarines are currently going through a modernization to extend their life cycle and “continued effectiveness out to the mid-2030s,” as described in the 2017 report.
> 
> Another complicating factor is that the traditional builders of Canadian submarines—the United States and the United Kingdom—no longer make conventionally-powered submarines.
> 
> “We have some tough questions to answer and really in the next few years [as] we don’t have much time,” said Mr. Collins.
> 
> Mr. Bezan said he doesn’t know whether Canada has until upwards of 2040 to replace the Victoria-class submarines.
> 
> “[They] have had numerous problems in staying out of dry dock and being in service,” he said. “If we’re going to be serious about securing our own sovereign territory—up and down the coasts on all three shorelines—then we better procure that capability sooner than later.”
> 
> Mr. Jolin said delivery of the first unit for a major procurement like a new submarine fleet could take 18 to 20 years. The timeline, he said, is complicated as the submarine that Canada wants doesn’t yet exist.
> 
> “We want something that’s big. It’s got to be ocean going,” he said, but noted that most submarine designers and builders are European, and they don’t build large submarines as they don’t need them to traverse the Baltic Sea.
> 
> He said Canada’s next submarine would likely need to be bigger than the Victoria-class submarines to provide for increased range, suggesting they should be in the range of around 3,000 to 4,000 tonnes.
> 
> He said those who are building submarines that big are generally making nuclear-powered ones.
> 
> An added complication will be whether the government requires a made-in-Canada approach to build the submarines, Mr. Jolin said.
> 
> The infrastructure at shipyards needed to build such vessels is much different than what is needed to construct any other naval ships, and there isn’t a Canadian shipyard that currently has the infrastructure to build a complete submarine, he said.
> 
> *How many subs does Canada need?*
> 
> Another thing the government will have to decide is how many submarines it wants in a new fleet.
> 
> A 2017 report by the Senate Committee on National Security and Defence recommended the government acquire 12 submarines.
> 
> Mr. Bezan said he didn’t disagree with the Senate report, but noted he would leave it to the experts to decide what number of submarines the navy needs.
> 
> Mr. Jolin said it makes sense to have 12 submarines as the minimum that is needed in one geographic area is six, which would allow Canada to have six stationed in the Pacific and six in the Atlantic.
> 
> White Paper reviews and parliamentary committee recommendations have traditionally gone with a higher number of submarines than ended up being acquired, Mr. Collins noted. Currently having only two submarines each on the west and east coasts limits the navy’s capabilities.
> 
> If a future fleet of submarines does operate in the Arctic, it will require Canada to have more than four submarines as it brings a third ocean into its operating theatre, Mr. Collins said.











						‘Tough questions’ ahead in deciding future of Canada’s submarine fleet
					

After Australia reversed course and decided to acquire nuclear-powered submarines instead of conventionally-powered ones, could Canada make the same decision?




					www.hilltimes.com


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Czech_pivo said:


> Have to wonder if we'll have any role at all in this.



If recent history is any indicator (past....10ish years?)....

LRP fleet...







RCN skimmers...






 😁


----------



## Czech_pivo

Uzlu said:


> ‘Tough questions’ ahead in deciding future of Canada’s submarine fleet
> 
> 
> After Australia reversed course and decided to acquire nuclear-powered submarines instead of conventionally-powered ones, could Canada make the same decision?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hilltimes.com


“The nation gets the navy it can afford,” he said.

I completely, completely, disagree with this sentence - it should say, ‘The nation gets the navy it’s willing to pay for.’ 
And since we all know that Canadians are the cheapest, most willing to ride on others coat tails, we’ll get either nothing at all or something that won’t do the complete job of defending/patrolling all 3 of this nations oceans.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Good God, Czech pive, by now I'd be happy if we got something that could do a complete job of defending one of this nation's oceans. You really are asking for the sky if you want to defend three.


----------



## CBH99

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Good God, Czech pive, by now I'd be happy if we got something that could do a complete job of defending one of this nation's oceans. You really are asking for the sky if you want to defend three.


Heck you really are asking for the sky if you want to adequately defend two of the three!


----------



## Happy Guy

No nation in the world today will ever say that they have enough resources to defend its strategic interests.  Even the Americans with 11 Aircraft Carriers, down from 14 at the Cold War, thinks they don't have enough.

As far as I know the Type 26 Frigates will be one of the most capable platforms in the world when it is finally launched and with the corresponding high price.  One for one replacement.  The AORs, when it is launched will also quite the versatile platform too.  Two for three replacement if you don't count the commercial AOR. The Arctic Patrol Ships are finally coming online and from the little that I do know, the RCN likes it.  This is a new capablity.  Hopefully the Gov't will replace the Victoria Class subs with a much more worthy successorand with a one for one replacement at the very least. 

The Gov't is spending but given our vast size, small population the amount of resources spent on defence will never be enough.  Don't forget that we are now having significant problems with recruiting and retention - something that even money can't solve.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Happy Guy said:


> No nation in the world today will ever say that they have enough resources to defend its strategic interests.  Even the Americans with 11 Aircraft Carriers, down from 14 at the Cold War, thinks they don't have enough.



How do we shape up now in terms of spending (GDP seems to be the usual metric?) against....the US, UK, Australia, etc though?  




Happy Guy said:


> As far as I know the Type 26 Frigates will be one of the most capable platforms in the world when it is finally launched and with the corresponding high price.  One for one replacement.



I'll hold my breath on this one; especially the "one for one" part.  Pre-pandemic intentions...will they remain the same and with the current govt?



Happy Guy said:


> The AORs, when it is launched will also quite the versatile platform too.  Two for three replacement if you don't count the commercial AOR. The Arctic Patrol Ships are finally coming online and from the little that I do know, the RCN likes it.  This is a new capablity.



All positive news for Canada and the RCN, despite the AOPS being a toothless, slow vessel (IMO at least).  


Happy Guy said:


> Hopefully the Gov't will replace the Victoria Class subs with a much more worthy successor and with a one for one replacement at the very least.






Happy Guy said:


> The Gov't is spending but given our vast size, small population the amount of resources spent on defence will never be enough.  Don't forget that we are now having significant problems with recruiting and retention - something that even money can't solve.



The more notable things the current govt has given mbr's are (1) pot (2) beards and (3) a boot allowance.  Other than that, I just see a lot of the 'shell game' stuff.


----------



## suffolkowner

Corporal Frisk with a look at the swedish submarine situation. With only two A26 ordered, might be in need of some foreign orders to Canada (6) and the Dutch (4)?









						Sunken Costs and Good Enough – the A26 Blekinge-class
					

Let me start by being absolutely clear: everything points to that the A26 Blekinge-class submarine will be a stellar piece of engineering, highly adept at its mission, and by quite a margin the sub…




					corporalfrisk.com


----------



## Stoker

suffolkowner said:


> Corporal Frisk with a look at the swedish submarine situation. With only two A26 ordered, might be in need of some foreign orders to Canada (6) and the Dutch (4)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunken Costs and Good Enough – the A26 Blekinge-class
> 
> 
> Let me start by being absolutely clear: everything points to that the A26 Blekinge-class submarine will be a stellar piece of engineering, highly adept at its mission, and by quite a margin the sub…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> corporalfrisk.com


Why would Canada want to buy a submarine that was designed to operate in the Baltic and heavily dependent on shore support. It doesn't meet our requirements.


----------



## Happy Guy

Eye In The Sky said:


> How do we shape up now in terms of spending (GDP seems to be the usual metric?) against....the US, UK, Australia, etc though?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll hold my breath on this one; especially the "one for one" part.  Pre-pandemic intentions...will they remain the same and with the current govt?
> 
> 
> 
> All positive news for Canada and the RCN, despite the AOPS being a toothless, slow vessel (IMO at least).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more notable things the current govt has given mbr's are (1) pot (2) beards and (3) a boot allowance.  Other than that, I just see a lot of the 'shell game' stuff.


I am not a Liberal Gov't apologist, in fact the opposite, but I have been around the block and so I am a bit cynical with any Gov't with respect to Defence spending.

ACK in terms of GDP Canada ranks abysmally low in comparison with our NATO Allies and Australia, but if you look at Canada's willingness to deploy ad do things we rank higher.

The new Type 26 Frigates will come because the Gov't knows that it is urgently required and the Navy is one of the deployable resources where one ship can have a strategic effect.  The biggest thing, and the Gov't knows this, is that the ships will be built in Canada, specifically Atlantic Canada where the Liberals have a strong hold.  If they make any drastic cuts, support to the Gov't will drop like a lead balloon.

I agree that the armament for AOPS is lacking, but it was the RCN who specified this requirement and it was not politically driven.   It is a new capability that the RCN will learn to use, much like the Army had to when it first received the first wheeled AVGPs - Grizzlies and Bisons.  I have no idea if this new platform will be effective but I'm hoping that add a layer of defence capability that we never had and needed.

I realize that you are being overly pessimistic with what this Gov't has delivered, which if you review their past accomplishments as a whole it has failed to make good with any of their campaign promises.  What I am hopefully is that this is a minority Gov't who will beholden to their constituencies.  The National Ship Building Programme, planned and implemented by the Harper Gov't will need to be executed by the Trudeau Gov't because of the following:

votes in Atlantic Canada
vote in BC
built in Canada
high paying and sustainable jobs in Canada

I used to work on the AVGP project and I know well how political things can get with respect to defence spending. Each province wants wants their fair share!

Will this means sub replacements? I honestly don't know and this will depend whether the RCN can make a convincing case to the Gov't.

What the MND needs to do, with the CAF, is develop a CAF modernization, equipment plan  (5-10 years ahead) so the Gov't plan forward.

Cheers


----------



## suffolkowner

Stoker said:


> Why would Canada want to buy a submarine that was designed to operate in the Baltic and heavily dependent on shore support. It doesn't meet our requirements.


Hard for me to say what design limitations there are in the A26 but the submarine offered to the Dutch will be based on the extended range version









						Oceanic Extended range | Saab
					

Oceanic Extended (XR) range submarines enable long-distance operations, suitable for any navy using forward deployment of their submarines on extended missions.




					www.saab.com
				




I'm just hoping for 6 so we can have 3 on each coast and for it to not be an orphan class. I'm not beholden to any one offering. Before Australia went with a nuclear option I was hoping for a shared Australian/Dutch/Canadian fleet. I believe the Dutch Walrus Class replacement is down to Naval Group, TKMS, and Saab


----------



## CBH99

Eye In The Sky said:


> The more notable things the current govt has given mbr's are (1) pot (2) beards and (3) a boot allowance.  Other than that, I just see a lot of the 'shell game' stuff.


Just wait until the new and updated dress regs are released within a week or so and made public 😈🤦🏼‍♂️


----------



## Colin Parkinson

To sell the subs, we need to point out that even though they would not be built here, the amount of long term jobs they provide throughout their lives is significant as they require more maintenance and support than regular surface ships.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Is GDP even a thing in Canada anymore? I mean, you have to have one if you're going to use it as a metric, right? A percentage of zero is still zero.


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> Just wait until the new and updated dress regs are released within a week or so and made public 😈🤦🏼‍♂️


----------



## OldSolduer

CBH99 said:


> Just wait until the new and updated dress regs are released within a week or so and made public 😈🤦🏼‍♂️


I’d love to see them


----------



## CBH99

OldSolduer said:


> I’d love to see them


You say that now… 😅

Dimsum has the right idea with the popcorn.




Fishbone Jones said:


> Is GDP even a thing in Canada anymore? I mean, you have to have one if you're going to use it as a metric, right? A percentage of zero is still zero.


Between vowing not to support any oil & gas industry development…

failing to build a pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast (even though a majority of it is simply twinning a pipeline that already exists, and enhancing both with more effective/modern safety features)…

Failing to approve the Tekk project, which was the most environmentally friendly and efficient oil & gas project in the world…

Failing to approve a LNG pipeline throughout southern Ontario and Quebec…

Allowing factories and facilities to close in Ontario…

Failing to secure a ‘made-in-Canada’ vaccine product, and the capability to actually produce it…

Allowing a few medical research companies to pack up and head to the US, because they can’t get some of the funding they need to finalize their work & make potential breakthroughs…  (yet will throw money at anything covid related, no questions asked)

Introducing a carbon tax which makes everything more expensive, the most notable for me has been fuel — implemented during the same time period as all of the jobs above have been disappearing…


I’d say if our goal was zero GDP, he’s done an amazing job of helping us get there!  😅


----------



## Spencer100

CBH99 said:


> You say that now… 😅
> 
> Dimsum has the right idea with the popcorn.
> 
> 
> 
> Between vowing not to support any oil & gas industry development…
> 
> failing to build a pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast (even though a majority of it is simply twinning a pipeline that already exists, and enhancing both with more effective/modern safety features)…
> 
> Failing to approve the Tekk project, which was the most environmentally friendly and efficient oil & gas project in the world…
> 
> Failing to approve a LNG pipeline throughout southern Ontario and Quebec…
> 
> Allowing factories and facilities to close in Ontario…
> 
> Failing to secure a ‘made-in-Canada’ vaccine product, and the capability to actually produce it…
> 
> Allowing a few medical research companies to pack up and head to the US, because they can’t get some of the funding they need to finalize their work & make potential breakthroughs…  (yet will throw money at anything covid related, no questions asked)
> 
> Introducing a carbon tax which makes everything more expensive, the most notable for me has been fuel — implemented during the same time period as all of the jobs above have been disappearing…
> 
> 
> I’d say if our goal was zero GDP, he’s done an amazing job of helping us get there!  😅


It's like they have a plan or something.


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> Dimsum has the right idea with the popcorn.


The popcorn is for the dinosaurs (not rank-specific) who will go off on this.  I am 1000000% behind the changes.


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> The popcorn is for the dinosaurs (not rank-specific) who will go off on this.  I am 1000000% behind the changes.


I think it's stupid:
 My 1 Hair standard would have been - #1 on sides and back - #3 on top,  with a second option for bald.
 My 1 Earring standard would have been: NONE.

There everyone is uniform.


I wonder how much money could be saved from not publishing idiot CANFORGENS over the years.
Probably enough to buy 12 SSN's...


----------



## CBH99

KevinB said:


> I think it's stupid:
> My 1 Hair standard would have been - #1 on sides and back - #3 on top,  with a second option for bald.
> My 1 Earring standard would have been: NONE.
> 
> There everyone is uniform.
> 
> 
> I wonder how much money could be saved from not publishing idiot CANFORGENS over the years.
> Probably enough to buy 12 SSN's...


I agree mostly.  Keep it simple.  

I don’t mind if someone has longer hair, as long as it looks professional and isn’t a mop.  But overall, agreed - stay clean cut and professional looking.  

I also don’t mind beards if a member so desires, and it _doesn’t interfere with potential safety issues._

No earrings for males.  Period.  

Yes, I want to be inclusive of everybody, etc etc.  (Standard disclosure, not a bigot.)

But in many cases it will get ripped out during training or ops when putting on helmets, HAZMAT kit, perhaps the flame-resistant hoods the Navy guys wear, etc.   


The military needs to maintain an image.  Heck, looking ‘Operator as F**k’ is like 80% of being SOF, isn’t it?  😈😉

But it does need to maintain an image, and be a place of professional and personal growth.  And while I do want everybody to feel welcome, and bring their skill sets - the military for a long time has been a place where young people can go, and come out well seasoned.  

I joined the Army Reserve when I was 16yo.  I had ‘longer hair’ on top, scrawny, had an earring, and was beyond naive.  It also took me significantly longer to say things than it does now.   It toughened me up, realized how much could get done in a day when I wake up early and stay focused, and how to push through physical exhaustion.  

The best thing the Army ever did was introduce me to what real leadership looked like, as you until then I had only ever had ‘managers.’   Own up to mistakes and use them as a learning point, take care of your troops first, lead by example, be the first person willing to go do something you’d ask a subordinate to do, etc.  

If I went in with an earring and long hair, and was annoyingly chatty — and came out of QL2 the same way?  I wouldn’t want that for myself.  

Bottom line - just look professional, and stop whining that X don’t feel included because we aren’t accepting of pink hair and nail polish on male members.  Nobody f**king cares… just be pleasant to be around and competent at your job.  Period.  Dress standards exist for a reason.  


Anyways.  Sorry.  Crack cocaine fingers here is done with his bathroom break, back to work.


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> But in many cases it will get ripped out during training or ops when putting on helmets, HAZMAT kit, perhaps the flame-resistant hoods the Navy guys wear, etc.


I wouldn't wear an earring either way but why not prohibit it when on training/ops where it's possible to get them ripped off?  There is little chance that the HRA/FSA going into work at the Orderly Room will have that issue on a standard workday.



CBH99 said:


> Dress standards exist for a reason.


Except they aren't even "standard".  Pictures prior to WWI had soldiers in muttonchops and longer hair than what's allowed now.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> The popcorn is for the dinosaurs (not rank-specific) who will go off on this. I am 1000000% behind the changes.


 There's going to be a LOT of this I am sure!


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> I wouldn't wear an earring either way but why not prohibit it when on training/ops where it's possible to get them ripped off?  There is little chance that the HRA/FSA going into work at the Orderly Room will have that issue on a standard workday.
> 
> 
> Except they aren't even "standard".  Pictures prior to WWI had soldiers in muttonchops and longer hair than what's allowed now.


Which was changed due to lessons in personal hygiene.

 So the new standard will cause issues in the field force or those deployed without the ability to bath regularity -- thus it creates a medical issue.

The fact that someone in the CF GOFO level thought this mades sense makes me shake my head.


----------



## OldSolduer

CBH99 said:


> You say that now… 😅


I'm retired now but I am certain there are things in the new regs that will make my head go KaBOOM!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

My opinion on dress regs still lines up with this post....I'll enforce whatever comes down.  With all the other changes the past....5 years, nothing surprises me at this point.

However...I don't think the CAF changes in recent years are winning us respect internationally.  That doesn't seem to matter, though.


----------



## Weinie

Eye In The Sky said:


> My opinion on dress regs still lines up with this post....I'll enforce whatever comes down.  With all the other changes the past....5 years, nothing surprises me at this point.
> 
> However...*I don't think the CAF changes in recent years are winning us respect internationally. * That doesn't seem to matter, though.


EITS,

Our international respect has little to do with dress regs, and more with the fact that we have done ^&*$ all to be regarded as a credible fighting force, with a well thought out Defence strategy, and bringing real stuff to the table. Couple that with a milquetoast foreign policy < respect.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I've had some discussions with Allies on deployments in the past....5 years.  Since "pot was a thing" and beards etc.  Actually beards came out on one of them.  I know what some of the thoughts are/were having heard them directly from them (USN, USCG, RAAF, RNZAF, RAF).

I'll politely disagree, because to some Forces, appearance still is important...along with the other things you mentioned above, of course.  But, like it or not, some books are judged by their cover.


----------



## CBH99

Weinie said:


> EITS,
> 
> Our international respect has little to do with dress regs, and more with the fact that we have done ^&*$ all to be regarded as a credible fighting force, with a well thought out Defence strategy, and bringing real stuff to the table. Couple that with a milquetoast foreign policy < respect.


I am genuinely curious about this.  Not in an ‘anticipated defensive’ way for myself, but out of curiosity as to how the CAF are viewed by the average person/troop outside of Canada’s borders.  

1000 troops in Iraq training Iraqi security forces, CANSOF doing their things in Syria and northern Iraq, 450-ish troops in Latvian RCAF fighters conducting air policing missions over Romania and Iceland, and RCN vessels either contributing to, or commanding, the NATO standing fleet concept.  

In addition to responding very quickly, and reliably, to any NORAD incursion/concern.  


Now I’m biased for obvious reasons.  I’m curious (for anybody who has recent or somewhat recent experience to answer) - how is the CAF viewed by our allies??

_And by that, I mean the average service person, not the upper echelons of intelligence agencies/governments, etc_


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> You say that now… 😅
> 
> Dimsum has the right idea with the popcorn.
> 
> 
> 
> Between vowing not to support any oil & gas industry development…
> 
> failing to build a pipeline from Alberta to the BC coast (even though a majority of it is simply twinning a pipeline that already exists, and enhancing both with more effective/modern safety features)…
> 
> Failing to approve the Tekk project, which was the most environmentally friendly and efficient oil & gas project in the world…
> 
> Failing to approve a LNG pipeline throughout southern Ontario and Quebec…
> 
> Allowing factories and facilities to close in Ontario…
> 
> Failing to secure a ‘made-in-Canada’ vaccine product, and the capability to actually produce it…
> 
> Allowing a few medical research companies to pack up and head to the US, because they can’t get some of the funding they need to finalize their work & make potential breakthroughs…  (yet will throw money at anything covid related, no questions asked)
> 
> Introducing a carbon tax which makes everything more expensive, the most notable for me has been fuel — implemented during the same time period as all of the jobs above have been disappearing…
> 
> 
> I’d say if our goal was zero GDP, he’s done an amazing job of helping us get there!  😅




And then there's the railways. Our trade dealers are writing cheques our national infrastructure can't cash.

From 2019....

Canadian railways ration space as congestion problems worsen​
Canada‘s two major railways are rationing space on trains traveling to the country’s biggest port and recently prioritized some commodities over others to deal with congestion, the latest indication of their struggle to meet demand from new trade deals.

That move prompted Canada‘s transport regulator last week to start an investigation into rail services around Port Metro Vancouver, after shippers complained of “discriminatory treatment of certain commodities” by Canadian National Railway (CN) and Canadian Pacific Railway (CP).

Canada is a top shipper of crops, fertilizer, oil and pulp, but has in recent years needed government intervention to keep commodities moving, from ordering railways to clear grain backlogs to Alberta’s crude oil curtailments this month due to full pipelines.

Free-trade deals with the European Union and Pacific Nations are boosting demand for commodities, adding further strain to Canada‘s transportation infrastructure. Currently, the United States and Mexico account for at least 75 percent of Canadian exports.










						Canadian railways ration space as congestion problems worsen  | Globalnews.ca
					

Canada's two major railways are prioritizing some commodities over others -- which has launched investigation into "discriminatory treatment of certain commodities."




					globalnews.ca


----------



## CBH99

We’ve veered so far off of ‘Replacing Canada’s Submarines’ at this point 😂  


But I think we can all agree:


4 to 6 submarines would be ideal
Conventionally powered, as nuclear power is completely off the table for now
Partner onto another country’s buy to significantly reduce risk
If possible/able, procure a class that requires a small crew.




daftandbarmy said:


> And then there's the railways. Our trade dealers are writing cheques our national infrastructure can't cash.
> 
> From 2019....
> 
> Canadian railways ration space as congestion problems worsen​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian railways ration space as congestion problems worsen  | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Canada's two major railways are prioritizing some commodities over others -- which has launched investigation into "discriminatory treatment of certain commodities."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca


So what exactly is the problem here?  And what would the solution be?

Is it that there aren’t enough trains to move the commodities?  Not enough tracks?  Not enough operators?


----------



## JMCanada

Well, i don't think 4-6 boats would be ideal, and probably i'm not alone on this.

IIRC there was a parliament recommendation for twelve, which i admit may be too much in terms of costs (purchasing and operating) and manning.
would be nice to have at least 10: three per ocean and one under extensive works/repairs/upgrades.
eight would, at least, allow to keep one sailing at any time (hopefully) on each coast.
six should be the bare minimun target.


----------



## CBH99

JMCanada said:


> Well, i don't think 4-6 boats would be ideal, and probably i'm not alone on this.
> 
> IIRC there was a parliament recommendation for twelve, which i admit may be too much in terms of costs (purchasing and operating) and manning.
> would be nice to have at least 10: three per ocean and one under extensive works/repairs/upgrades.
> eight would, at least, allow to keep one sailing at any time (hopefully) on each coast.
> six should be the bare minimun target.


We would have to fix recruiting before even attempting to operate that many subs!  And enhance fleet support services somewhere along the way.  

One of the problems with having such a large country and yet such a small population (in my opinion anyway) is that not many Canadians feel ‘connected’ to the coasts, hence challenges in recruiting for the RCN.  

Realistically, I’d be surprised if we even get 6.  I’m betting that when/if this ever happens, it will be a 1 for 1 replacement with a newer class.  


0.02


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBH99 said:


> I’d be surprised if we even get 6.



I tend to agree with this position.  Historically, we usually do not even replace 1 for 1.  Leo 1/Leo 2 tanks, Argus and Aurora, CF18s with unicorns....I remember the Iltis/radio replacement in the PRes Zipperhead world...not even CLOSE to 1 for 1.

As for crewing issues....should the RCN/CAF be looking to increase financial compensation for sub duty?  This isn't a huge amount of $ out of the overall budget and $475 isn't much, really, after taxes.  After having been inside one of our boats....this service is a unique kind of hardship.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBH99 said:


> I’m curious (for anybody who has recent or somewhat recent experience to answer) - how is the CAF viewed by our allies??
> 
> _And by that, I mean the average service person, not the upper echelons of intelligence agencies/governments, etc_



- We're well-liked, respected as professionals but...we do 'drive-by deployments', we let our kit lag behind what is needed, we're willing to go places and do things but don't necessarily have the funding to play with others properly.  Example, Link 16 is sort of "yesterday" now....

- It was interesting talking to American pers when the Liberals decided "bombs are bad, m'kay?" in Iraq.  Was a little harder to hold your head up high...

- Showing up and showing up able and ready to play....2 different things.   We _might_ show up, and we _might_ be able to play.

That is my summary after working with/talking to folks from the US, UK, Norway, Australia, New Zealand in locations including North and Central America, Asia, the UK, Norway, the Middle East....only my experience and perspective, of course.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> So what exactly is the problem here?  And what would the solution be?
> 
> Is it that there aren’t enough trains to move the commodities?  Not enough tracks?  Not enough operators?



Pretty much all of that. The slow downs becasue of COVID have taken the heat and light off of the huge, underlying issues for awhile but we've got eyes bigger than our stomach, basically:

Transportation in Canada 2019​





						Transportation in Canada 2019
					

Transportation in Canada 2019 Annual Report is tabled in both chambers of parliament according to the article 52 of the Canada Transportation Act. The report provides an overview of the transportation system in Canada for 201.




					tc.canada.ca


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:


> Example, Link 16 is sort of "yesterday" now....


Kind of.  Link 22 isn't designed to replace L16.


----------



## Czech_pivo

daftandbarmy said:


> Pretty much all of that. The slow downs becasue of COVID have taken the heat and light off of the huge, underlying issues for awhile but we've got eyes bigger than our stomach, basically:
> 
> Transportation in Canada 2019​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transportation in Canada 2019
> 
> 
> Transportation in Canada 2019 Annual Report is tabled in both chambers of parliament according to the article 52 of the Canada Transportation Act. The report provides an overview of the transportation system in Canada for 201.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tc.canada.ca



Here's some examples of current rail limitations.
The rail tunnel between Sarnia-Port Huron is a single track, rebuilt about 25yrs ago to replace what was then a 100+yrs old tunnel.  The new, single track tunnel can accommodate new inter-modal stack containers.

The rail tunnel between Windsor-Detroit is over 110yrs old, twin tracked, but only 1 of the 2 tracks can accommodate 'some' inter-modal stacked containers in a limited height fashion.

The rail bridge between the 2 Niagara Falls is close to 150yrs old and is a single track.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Czech_pivo said:


> Here's some examples of current rail limitations.
> The rail tunnel between Sarnia-Port Huron is a single track, rebuilt about 25yrs ago to replace what was then a 100+yrs old tunnel.  The new, single track tunnel can accommodate new inter-modal stack containers.
> 
> The rail tunnel between Windsor-Detroit is over 110yrs old, twin tracked, but only 1 of the 2 tracks can accommodate 'some' inter-modal stacked containers in a limited height fashion.
> 
> The rail bridge between the 2 Niagara Falls is close to 150yrs old and is a single track.



Excellent examples.

Times that by a few hundred across the country, add 'no pipelines' etc, and you've got a national revenue crisis looming.... pretty much...

And with that, I have no idea how we got here from 'Sub Replacements'. You're welcome


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CBH99 said:


> We would have to fix recruiting before even attempting to operate that many subs!  And enhance fleet support services somewhere along the way.
> 
> One of the problems with having such a large country and yet such a small population (in my opinion anyway) is that not many Canadians feel ‘connected’ to the coasts, hence challenges in recruiting for the RCN.
> 
> Realistically, I’d be surprised if we even get 6.  I’m betting that when/if this ever happens, it will be a 1 for 1 replacement with a newer class.
> 
> 
> 0.02


Even with recruitment problems I argue for 6, that means 2 in deep maintenance, 2 working up and 2 fully operational at any one time. 6 also that the yards have more time to complete maintenance with less demand from the operational side, meaning less OT and better quality control and more stable work for the repair facility. The RCN is guaranteed to have 2 operational subs and to that can be pushed to full operational at almost anytime. New subs may also help recruitment in that area as well.


----------



## Happy Guy

I am not suggesting that we should compete with our USN, UK and AUS allies but please note the numbers for attack submarines:

USN. 50 nuclear
UK. 7 nuclear
RAN. 6 Diesel-Electric (current), 8 (minimum) future nuclear.  Cost AUS$ 90 Billion.

Our closest relevant comparison would be the RAN who has a huge coastline to protect and similar population size.  Of course they are facing a direct threat from China.  Canada does not have any overt direct threats, but as we have seen in the past few years, China is growing increasing aggressive and hostile.  It does not hesitate to use it political and economic power to get what it wants.   It has disregarded international laws - kidnapping of Hong Kong citizens back to China for reeducation.  Unknown if they will, like Russia, assassinate their political enemies oversea. Plus Canada must be aware of the waning international influence and willingness of US to deploy and use force to maintain World order and peace - a topic for discussion: Will the USA honour its NATO commitments?  Will Canada too?  Will Canada deploy and support our Aussie and Kiwi cousins if they are threaten and in danger?

With the need for deep maintenance, work ups/training and operations I would suggest that we need a minimum of 9 subs : 3 x maintenance, 3 x workup/training and 3 x operational (Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic).

Given the future threats I believe that we should go nuclear - I know most people think that the overall procurement cost, maintenance, infrastructure and training costs will be prohibitive, but perhaps we can partner up with Australia to lower the costs.

Our immediate threats are: China, Russia and a potential rogue non-nation player. 

I agree that diplomacy is the best approach, but Theodore Roosevelt said it best : "speak softly and carry a big stick;  you will go far"
In short use diplomacy, but if that fails be able to back yourself up with the willinginess to use might.


----------



## Weinie

Happy Guy said:


> I am not suggesting that we should compete with our USN, UK and AUS allies but please note the numbers for attack submarines:
> 
> USN. 50 nuclear
> UK. 7 nuclear
> RAN. 6 Diesel-Electric (current), 8 (minimum) future nuclear.  Cost AUS$ 90 Billion.
> 
> Our closest relevant comparison would be the RAN who has a huge coastline to protect and similar population size.  Of course they are facing a direct threat from China.  Canada does not have any overt direct threats, but as we have seen in the past few years, China is growing increasing aggressive and hostile.  It does not hesitate to use it political and economic power to get what it wants.   It has disregarded international laws - kidnapping of Hong Kong citizens back to China for reeducation.  Unknown if they will, like Russia, assassinate their political enemies oversea. Plus Canada must be aware of the waning international influence and willingness of US to deploy and use force to maintain World order and peace - a topic for discussion: Will the USA honour its NATO commitments?  Will Canada too?  Will Canada deploy and support our Aussie and Kiwi cousins if they are threaten and in danger?
> 
> With the need for deep maintenance, work ups/training and operations I would suggest that we need a minimum of 9 subs : 3 x maintenance, 3 x workup/training and 3 x operational (Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic).
> 
> Given the future threats I believe that we should go nuclear - I know most people think that the overall procurement cost, maintenance, infrastructure and training costs will be prohibitive, but perhaps we can partner up with Australia to lower the costs.
> 
> Our immediate threats are: China, Russia and a potential rogue non-nation player.
> 
> I agree that diplomacy is the best approach, but Theodore Roosevelt said it best : "speak softly and carry a big stick;  you will go far"
> In short use diplomacy, but if that fails be able to back yourself up with the willinginess to use might.


Why does it take 2 years to do an upgrade on a sub. Not trying to be snotty here. Does technology change that much that we can’t do a plug and play. Why even 12 months?


----------



## Stoker

Weinie said:


> Why does it take 2 years to do an upgrade on a sub. Not trying to be snotty here. Does technology change that much that we can’t do a plug and play. Why even 12 months?


Because upgrading a submarine that operates under hundreds of meters of water is a very different process then upgrading say a surface ship. We have a whole SUBSAFE process that must be followed to ensure the safety of all crew.


----------



## Happy Guy

Quick question - can an air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarine break through Arctic ice like the nuclear subs?  If not, should we even consider AIPs and leave the Arctic unpatrolled when it is winter / Northwest Passage ice covered?
I'm not really well versed about ships and submarines.


----------



## Stoker

Happy Guy said:


> Quick question - can an air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarine break through Arctic ice like the nuclear subs?  If not, should we even consider AIPs and leave the Arctic unpatrolled when it is winter / Northwest Passage ice covered?
> I'm not really well versed about ships and submarines.


No one has ever tried as no one is foolish enough to go under the ice. The endurance/power is still not there.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Eye In The Sky said:


> - It was interesting talking to American pers when the Liberals decided "bombs are bad, m'kay?" in Iraq.  Was a little harder to hold your head up high...





Eye In The Sky said:


> - It was interesting talking to American pers when the Liberals decided "bombs are bad, m'kay?" in Iraq.  Was a little harder to hold your head up high...


I was stationed in AFSOUTH J2 (Naples, Italy) from 99-03. For the most part we were well regarded, however, Chretians actions were noted by the Americans and it didn't help that a certain female Liberal MP was going around making anti-US statements/actions which were also noted.


----------



## OldSolduer

Retired AF Guy said:


> I was stationed in AFSOUTH J2 (Naples, Italy) from 99-03. For the most part we were well regarded, however, Chretians actions were noted by the Americans and it didn't help that a certain female Liberal MP was going around making anti-US statements/actions which were also noted.


Oh I remember her. A wing nut of the First Order. The PM should have had her in his office in a one way session of counselling ala The RSM way, and if she didn't like it well boot her butt out of caucus.


----------



## CBH99

daftandbarmy said:


> Pretty much all of that. The slow downs becasue of COVID have taken the heat and light off of the huge, underlying issues for awhile but we've got eyes bigger than our stomach, basically:
> 
> Transportation in Canada 2019​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Transportation in Canada 2019
> 
> 
> Transportation in Canada 2019 Annual Report is tabled in both chambers of parliament according to the article 52 of the Canada Transportation Act. The report provides an overview of the transportation system in Canada for 201.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tc.canada.ca


It sounds like the rail transport system is efficient when not facing any challenges, but can screech to a halt if anything happens as the trains are dependent on the rail system to be fully functioning at large?  (I was just read the one part on the performance of the rail system.)

If _anything_ comes along and disrupts _anything_, mass freight comes to a standstill or is sluggish to move. 

Would additional rail tracks constructed over similar but different routes help?


Happy Guy said:


> I am not suggesting that we should compete with our USN, UK and AUS allies but please note the numbers for attack submarines:
> 
> USN. 50 nuclear
> UK. 7 nuclear
> RAN. 6 Diesel-Electric (current), 8 (minimum) future nuclear.  Cost AUS$ 90 Billion.
> 
> Our closest relevant comparison would be the RAN who has a huge coastline to protect and similar population size.  Of course they are facing a direct threat from China.  Canada does not have any overt direct threats, but as we have seen in the past few years, China is growing increasing aggressive and hostile.  It does not hesitate to use it political and economic power to get what it wants.   It has disregarded international laws - kidnapping of Hong Kong citizens back to China for reeducation.  Unknown if they will, like Russia, assassinate their political enemies oversea. Plus Canada must be aware of the waning international influence and willingness of US to deploy and use force to maintain World order and peace - a topic for discussion: Will the USA honour its NATO commitments?  Will Canada too?  Will Canada deploy and support our Aussie and Kiwi cousins if they are threaten and in danger?
> 
> With the need for deep maintenance, work ups/training and operations I would suggest that we need a minimum of 9 subs : 3 x maintenance, 3 x workup/training and 3 x operational (Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic).
> 
> Given the future threats I believe that we should go nuclear - I know most people think that the overall procurement cost, maintenance, infrastructure and training costs will be prohibitive, but perhaps we can partner up with Australia to lower the costs.
> 
> Our immediate threats are: China, Russia and a potential rogue non-nation player.
> 
> I agree that diplomacy is the best approach, but Theodore Roosevelt said it best : "speak softly and carry a big stick;  you will go far"
> In short use diplomacy, but if that fails be able to back yourself up with the willinginess to use might.


just some overall thoughts on this post - great post btw 

-  Unknown if China will assassinate their political opponents overseas?  I think the answer is very much a yes, and most likely has already happened.  

-  Will the US honour it’s NATO commitments?  Yes I believe they will.  

One of the best ways to regain whatever influence has been lost to China, is to show up to the fight ready to take charge and support their NATO allies.  

Political influence, economic influence, military influence tends to substantially increase for the country that shows up ready to help one that is in need.  “Anybody need some F-35’s?  _ahem_”


-  The need for 9 submarines.  In an ideal scenario, that would be great - it just won’t happen though.  Not anytime soon.   

The public would balk at the cost.  But I wouldn’t worry too much about that, the Canadian public focuses on whatever the media tells them to, so I’m sure we could draw their attention elsewhere in no time.  

And we would have to essentially go from being a primarily surface fleet navy to a primarily sub-surface navy.  And since a lot of our current commitments revolve around waving the flag operations, being seen is important.


----------



## JMCanada

Happy Guy said:


> Quick question - can an air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarine break through Arctic ice like the nuclear subs?  If not, should we even consider AIPs and leave the Arctic unpatrolled when it is winter / Northwest Passage ice covered?
> I'm not really well versed about ships and submarines.


Not being an expert, from the technical point of view I see two issues for that:

First, breaking through Arctic ice should be a problem of buoyancy and reinforced hull. Probably not a big tech. problem for oceanic submarines of about 4,000 tonnes and above.

Secondly, patrolling the Arctic for nuclear boats is easy as they have virtually unlimited fuel which translates into high speeds when needed and no worries about endurance (just supplies). 
Designing an AIP submarine to patrol the Arctic requires a naval authority (RCN/DND) to set up the criteria on the endurance, range and speed of the patrol.

Grossly speaking, take for instance a 40 days submerged patrol to cover up to 6,000 nm (including 1,500 nm, 25%, as reserve) at about 7 knots. This would require an AIP about double the power of existing ones (600-700 kW vs 250-350kW) AND a fuel reserve about 4-6 times the reserves of typical AIP boats (*). Fuel reserves mean both Hydrogen in different forms (for fuel cells) and Oxygen (liquid, LOX), or fuel (Stirling engine) and Oxygen too.

Batteries would allow for sudden sprints at higher speeds but just for few hours.

The main problem is that up to now no allied submarines have had such requirements, that leads to the RCN needing a customized design.

There was an article about this in the 2020-fall Canadian Naval Review.

(*) At least, 4 times: double the power and double the endurance, from three weeks claimed by Type 212 or swedish Gotland (just gross figures as I remember) to six weeks.


----------



## CBH99

JMCanada said:


> Not being an expert, from the technical point of view I see two issues for that:
> 
> First, breaking through Arctic ice should be a problem of buoyancy and reinforced hull. Probably not a big tech. problem for oceanic submarines of about 4,000 tonnes and above.
> 
> Secondly, patrolling the Arctic for nuclear boats is easy as they have virtually unlimited fuel which translates into high speeds when needed and no worries about endurance (just supplies).
> Designing an AIP submarine to patrol the Arctic requires a naval authority (RCN/DND) to set up the criteria on the endurance, range and speed of the patrol.
> 
> Grossly speaking, take for instance a 40 days submerged patrol to cover up to 6,000 nm (including 1,500 nm, 25%, as reserve) at about 7 knots. This would require an AIP about double the power of existing ones (600-700 kW vs 250-350kW) AND a fuel reserve about 4-6 times the reserves of typical AIP boats (*). Fuel reserves mean both Hydrogen in different forms (for fuel cells) and Oxygen (liquid, LOX), or fuel (Stirling engine) and Oxygen too.
> 
> Batteries would allow for sudden sprints at higher speeds but just for few hours.
> 
> The main problem is that up to now no allied submarines have had such requirements, that leads to the RCN needing a customized design.
> 
> There was an article about this in the 2020-fall Canadian Naval Review.
> 
> (*) At least, 4 times: double the power and double the endurance, from three weeks claimed by Type 212 or swedish Gotland (just gross figures as I remember) to six weeks.


I’m no expert when it comes to submarines either, but from one non-expert to another, that post makes a lot of sense.  

When the question has been asked before about whether Canadian subs could break through the Arctic ice, I always had a few questions of my own:

1.  Why does being a nuclear submarine matter?  If the submarine can ‘push’ itself upwards and break through the ice, what does it matter if it’s propulsion is conventional or nuclear?

But after reading the above posts, I think I understand why.  No non-nuclear submarines have ever really operated under the arctic ice, and wouldn’t have the size/mass to do so safely - even with a strengthened or reinforced hull.  (I’m sure I’m missing something there…)


2.  Why would a Canadian submarine want to do so?

I can see if a submarine is in real distress and needs to surface, having that option would be nice.  Options are always nice.  But otherwise… why would a Canadian submarine want to?

American and British subs need to get close to the surface, or actually surface, to fire their missiles from their silos.  Since Canadian submarines aren’t going to be lobbing nukes at anybody anytime soon, the only reason to have this capability seems to be for safety.  


3.  A customized Canadian design.  

If no conventional submarine has ever been designed or build with reaching arctic ice in mind when it was built, then requiring a customized design would be needed - even if just a modified version of an existing design. 

But if modern conventional submarines only have about half the power & half the fuel for Arctic operations, and none are designed to breach ice, then we don’t have a choice but to continue doing the types of missions we do.  Which is totally fine.  

We need to remember that while the Victoria class gets a lot of negative press, I think we can all agree the press isn’t a reliable source of unbiased information.  

But the submarines have been upgraded substantially with the same combat management system found on US Navy subs, the latest version of the mark 48 heavyweight torpedo (I was quite surprised at how large of a buy we did), and various other capabilities they won’t make public.  

Are they the newest and deadliest boats around?  No.  

Are they capable of conducting surveillance operations against enemies, engaging targets if need be, and surfacing only a few hundred feet from a French warship that didn’t even know it was there?  Very much so.  



If we are only going to get 4 to 6 submarines at most, and they _will_ be conventionally powered - I would rather them focus on contributing to ongoing/future operations.  

The Canadian submarine conducting surveillance operations on North Korean sanction violations was a great example of the types of operations I envision our submarine fleet to continue doing.


0.02  🍻  

(not sure it’s even worth 2 cents, since we don’t use pennies anymore and I know jack all about subs)


----------



## JMCanada

I may be wrong but also believe that safety is the main reason to surface, followed by need for communications (send data collected, receive orders), by the amazing view of the plain frozen sea (in peace time) and by chance to capture some snaps of polar bears 😁

A customized design.

Well, there may be alternatives: build six boats with one "AIP module" of some  200-300 kW and fuel reserves for four weeks (full power), take in also one SOF module and one VLS module. Afterwards, build three more subs for the Arctic replacing the SOF and VLS modules by two more AIP modules. 😎

🍻


----------



## CBH99

JMCanada said:


> I may be wrong but also believe that safety is the main reason to surface, followed by need for communications (send data collected, receive orders), by the amazing view of the plain frozen sea (in peace time) and by chance to capture some snaps of polar bears 😁
> 
> A customized design.
> 
> Well, there may be alternatives: build six boats with one "AIP module" of some  200-300 kW and fuel reserves for four weeks (full power), take in also one SOF module and one VLS module. Afterwards, build three more subs for the Arctic replacing the SOF and VLS modules by two more AIP modules. 😎
> 
> 🍻


It may cost a LOT of money.  Be an orphan fleet.  Be extremely late entering service.  And make the Cyclone buy look like it was a series of logical choices.  

But heck, YOLO.  Let’s do it 😅  


But seriously, I think we should partner up with whatever project we think best fits our requirements, and add our order _to the end of whatever order has already been, or will be, coming about soon._

Let another country fix the bugs and recommend modifications, so by the time they start building ours they/we can capitalize on the lessons learned from the previous boats.  

(I’m not trying to sound condescending at all.  I actually enjoy this submarine thread, and like your enthusiasm!)


----------



## JMCanada

CBH99 said:


> It may cost a LOT of money.  Be an orphan fleet.  Be extremely late entering service.  And make the Cyclone buy look like it was a series of logical choices.
> 
> But heck, YOLO.  Let’s do it 😅
> 
> (...)
> 
> (I’m not trying to sound condescending at all.  I actually enjoy this submarine thread, and like your enthusiasm!)



I feel great today, my enthusiasm is bulletproof, don't worry at all.   🍻

But, naiveness apart, there are few options left:

Discard Japan: their boats are designed for a life-span of 15-20 years, ... not for the RCN
discard South Korea and Italy (sure?) since their designs are tributary to the Germans.
discard France: the Scorpenes would not be an option and the non-nuclear version of the Barracudas has proved to be a money sink, just think of the aussie Attack class. Foresee problems, overcosts and delays if US systems have to be integrated.
discard the Swedish *A26 type*, not oceanic and an orphan fleet also (2 boats). *Unless* the Dutchs finally select the oceanic variant for their Walrus replacement (4 units).
discard the Spanish S80+, despite featuring US systems, there will be only four boats and AIP performace is to be scrutinized.

... the only option would then be the German-Norwegian *Type 212 CD. *Six boats (disregarding previous Type 212A and export variants) plus ... six more for Canada? 

Yeah, I know ... I've been some kind drastic.


----------



## KevinB

Stoker said:


> No one has ever tried as no one is foolish enough to go under the ice. The endurance/power is still not there.


Additionally due to that - I don't believer anyone has made a SSK that is strengthened to operate "thru Ice" if needing to surface.
   The SSN, SSBN, SSGN are designed for that (at least to a certain ice thickness on multiyear polar ice).
To be honest I am not sure how they determine if the ice is penetrable for them.


----------



## CBH99

KevinB said:


> Additionally due to that - I don't believer anyone has made a SSK that is strengthened to operate "thru Ice" if needing to surface.
> The SSN, SSBN, SSGN are designed for that (at least to a certain ice thickness on multiyear polar ice).
> To be honest I am not sure how they determine if the ice is penetrable for them.


 I have realized over the last year or two, the more I observe the submarine thread on here, as well as doing some quick research on other forums about submarine operations -  That I truly didn't know anything about submarine warfare or submarine operations in general.

 There is a YouTube channel run by an ex-USN submarine guy ( I will post the link to his YouTube channel later today)  Where he answers all kinds of questions and explains how things work & a bit of the science behind it all.

 I can honestly say that from the outsider looking in, those guys seem to be the astronauts of the ocean.


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> That I truly didn't know anything about submarine warfare or submarine operations in general.


Aside from submariners and those who actively (heh) hunt them, very few people do.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

JMCanada said:


> I feel great today, my enthusiasm is bulletproof, don't worry at all.   🍻
> 
> But, naiveness apart, there are few options left:
> 
> Discard Japan: their boats are designed for a life-span of 15-20 years, ... not for the RCN
> discard South Korea and Italy (sure?) since their designs are tributary to the Germans.
> discard France: the Scorpenes would not be an option and the non-nuclear version of the Barracudas has proved to be a money sink, just think of the aussie Attack class. Foresee problems, overcosts and delays if US systems have to be integrated.
> discard the Swedish *A26 type*, not oceanic and an orphan fleet also (2 boats). *Unless* the Dutchs finally select the oceanic variant for their Walrus replacement (4 units).
> discard the Spanish S80+, despite featuring US systems, there will be only four boats and AIP performace is to be scrutinized.
> 
> ... the only option would then be the German-Norwegian *Type 212 CD. *Six boats (disregarding previous Type 212A and export variants) plus ... six more for Canada?
> 
> Yeah, I know ... I've been some kind drastic.


The Japanese have different sense of "lifespan" Even in their merchant fleet they don't keep a vessel as long as other nations would, generally people are happy to buy a highly maintained Japanese merchant ship that is at the end of it's "life" and then run them for another 20 years. From what I have seen is the Japanese want to keep their yards in work and calculate the annual maintenance cost and when it reaches a certain point, they get rid of it.


----------



## dimsum

Colin Parkinson said:


> The Japanese have different sense of "lifespan" Even in their merchant fleet they don't keep a vessel as long as other nations would, generally people are happy to buy a highly maintained Japanese merchant ship that is at the end of it's "life" and then run them for another 20 years. From what I have seen is the Japanese want to keep their yards in work and calculate the annual maintenance cost and when it reaches a certain point, they get rid of it.


Same with their aircraft.  They were chopping up Kawasaki-manufactured P-3C Orions as live egress trainers (ie. having crews physically chop out the breakout panels to GTFO) that had lifetime hours that would be "gently used" by other nations.


----------



## Stoker

JMCanada said:


> Not being an expert, from the technical point of view I see two issues for that:
> 
> First, breaking through Arctic ice should be a problem of buoyancy and reinforced hull. Probably not a big tech. problem for oceanic submarines of about 4,000 tonnes and above.
> 
> Secondly, patrolling the Arctic for nuclear boats is easy as they have virtually unlimited fuel which translates into high speeds when needed and no worries about endurance (just supplies).
> Designing an AIP submarine to patrol the Arctic requires a naval authority (RCN/DND) to set up the criteria on the endurance, range and speed of the patrol.
> 
> Grossly speaking, take for instance a 40 days submerged patrol to cover up to 6,000 nm (including 1,500 nm, 25%, as reserve) at about 7 knots. This would require an AIP about double the power of existing ones (600-700 kW vs 250-350kW) AND a fuel reserve about 4-6 times the reserves of typical AIP boats (*). Fuel reserves mean both Hydrogen in different forms (for fuel cells) and Oxygen (liquid, LOX), or fuel (Stirling engine) and Oxygen too.
> 
> Batteries would allow for sudden sprints at higher speeds but just for few hours.
> 
> The main problem is that up to now no allied submarines have had such requirements, that leads to the RCN needing a customized design.
> 
> There was an article about this in the 2020-fall Canadian Naval Review.
> 
> (*) At least, 4 times: double the power and double the endurance, from three weeks claimed by Type 212 or swedish Gotland (just gross figures as I remember) to six weeks.


Surfacing through the ice even with the sail reinforced is always a dicey operation that have caused damage to submarines in the past. Its not just a matter of buoyancy, its also a matter of brute power, AIP does not provide that. To operate under the ice in my opinion, we have to have the ability to surface in ice in case of emergency.  Why haven't other Nordic nations used their conventional submarines under ice before?


----------



## JMCanada

Thanks for the input. Certainly if brute power is needed, AIP does not provide it. Might batteries be used instead? they could provide peak currents for some time, especially since, once emerged, diesel gens would recharge them.

I agree with the ability to surface in case of emergency as a requisite.


----------



## Stoker

JMCanada said:


> Thanks for the input. Certainly if brute power is needed, AIP does not provide it. Might batteries be used instead? they could provide peak currents for some time, especially since, once emerged, diesel gens would recharge them.


Batteries is the same thing, slow speed and not a lot of power. If we did have a design, and it would have to be a fairly large design to facilitate the extra plating and reinforcement to the sail. Would you want the job of doing the testing of submerging through the ice for the first time?

We would be better off with a large design with efficient motors and lots of lit-ion battery capability and operating at the ice edge of the NW passage.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> Kind of.  Link 22 isn't designed to replace L16.



My point was more geared towards operating in a L16 environment, but not having L16 ourselves, and relying on someone (cough RAAF cough) re-broadcasting "the pic" in L11 for "some poor SOBs" in the BMA...

LRP...MH  "fitted for, but not with, L16".


----------



## Maxman1

JMCanada said:


> I may be wrong but also believe that safety is the main reason to surface, followed by need for communications (send data collected, receive orders), by the amazing view of the plain frozen sea (in peace time) and by chance to capture some snaps of polar bears 😁
> 
> A customized design.
> 
> Well, there may be alternatives: build six boats with one "AIP module" of some  200-300 kW and fuel reserves for four weeks (full power), take in also one SOF module and one VLS module. Afterwards, build three more subs for the Arctic replacing the SOF and VLS modules by two more AIP modules. 😎
> 
> 🍻





JMCanada said:


> I feel great today, my enthusiasm is bulletproof, don't worry at all.   🍻
> 
> But, naiveness apart, there are few options left:
> 
> Discard Japan: their boats are designed for a life-span of 15-20 years, ... not for the RCN
> discard South Korea and Italy (sure?) since their designs are tributary to the Germans.
> discard France: the Scorpenes would not be an option and the non-nuclear version of the Barracudas has proved to be a money sink, just think of the aussie Attack class. Foresee problems, overcosts and delays if US systems have to be integrated.
> discard the Swedish *A26 type*, not oceanic and an orphan fleet also (2 boats). *Unless* the Dutchs finally select the oceanic variant for their Walrus replacement (4 units).
> discard the Spanish S80+, despite featuring US systems, there will be only four boats and AIP performace is to be scrutinized.
> 
> ... the only option would then be the German-Norwegian *Type 212 CD. *Six boats (disregarding previous Type 212A and export variants) plus ... six more for Canada?
> 
> Yeah, I know ... I've been some kind drastic.



Sounds more like the Type 216 would fit the bill. It has up to three vertical multipurpose locks, which, configured as VLS modules, can carry 24 missile each, plus six 21 inch torpedo tubes and a deck gun.

Double hull design with two decks. 4,000 tons displacement.

Has a crew of 34 but can accommodate an additional 29.


----------



## lenaitch

_"Surfacing through the ice even with the sail reinforced is always a dicey operation that have caused damage to submarines in the past. Its not just a matter of buoyancy, its also a matter of brute power, AIP does not provide that. To operate under the ice in my opinion, we have to have the ability to surface in ice in case of emergency. Why haven't other Nordic nations used their conventional submarines under ice before?"_

(I seem to have lost my Quote function this morning)

Just an interested non-mariner here, but curious what power has to do with it.  Any images I have seen shows a completely vertical motion.  Is the requirement for more power simply to lug around a more reinforced hull?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Talking about sub's punching thru ice;  the issue isn't so much the "punching thru ice", it's being able to safely navigate under the ice and handle SHTF situations.  Imagine throwing a prop in a non-nuc boat under the icepac...at least a nuc can stay alive while help comes. 

Aggressively punching thru ice....I'm thinking RFN Typhoons.  Huge, double hulled and sorta designed for that in their CONOPs.  I'm not sure what thickness they were/are capable of.









						U.S. Navy kicks off ICEX 2020 in Arctic Ocean
					

Commander, Submarine Forces (COMSUBFOR) officially commenced Ice Exercise (ICEX) 2020 in the Arctic Ocean with the construction of a temporary ice camp, Camp Seadragon, and the arrival of two U.S.



					www.norad.mil


----------



## Eye In The Sky

lenaitch said:


> Is the requirement for more power simply to lug around a more reinforced hull?



SSN (blue water boats)....generally speaking have stronger hulls (not necessarily heavier....it's not a hard/fast rule when comparing nuc/non-nuc) as they are usually capable of deeper dives.  Depth can help things like eliminate/minimize cavitation (pressure) if a boat is running hard...

If you're interested in some decent open source reading on hulls...try Tom Clancy's Submarine: A Guided Tour Inside a Nuclear Warship (Tom Clancy's Military Referenc Book 1) eBook : Clancy, Tom, Gresham, John: Amazon.ca: Kindle Store.  There's some discussion on hulls for the 688/i688 and maybe a little on the Virgina's?  Been a while since I read it...


----------



## calculus

Maxman1 said:


> Sounds more like the Type 216 would fit the bill. It has up to three vertical multipurpose locks, which, configured as VLS modules, can carry 24 missile each, plus six 21 inch torpedo tubes and a deck gun.
> 
> Double hull design with two decks. 4,000 tons displacement.
> 
> Has a crew of 34 but can accommodate an additional 29.


As far as I know, the Type 216 is a paper design, originally proposed for SEA1000. I can't find any indication that it is even being planned to be built for any navy. The specifications do look good though, and given the size it _should _be capable of being stocked up to produce better endurance than the Victorias, but as a new unproven design, I would think there would be substantial risk to Canada.


----------



## Maxman1

calculus said:


> As far as I know, the Type 216 is a paper design, originally proposed for SEA1000. I can't find any indication that it is even being planned to be built for any navy. The specifications do look good though, and given the size it _should _be capable of being stocked up to produce better endurance than the Victorias, but as a new unproven design, I would think there would be substantial risk to Canada.



The Type 216 was designed for the Australian sub replacement program, before they went with the French _Shortfin Barracuda_.

While there haven't been any 216s built yet, due to Australia choosing a different design, the Singaporean Type 218SG is a variant of the 216. The first of the class, RSS _Invincible,_ was launched in 2019 and is undergoing sea trials.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> SSN (blue water boats)....generally speaking have stronger hulls (not necessarily heavier....it's not a hard/fast rule when comparing nuc/non-nuc) as they are usually capable of deeper dives.  Depth can help things like eliminate/minimize cavitation (pressure) if a boat is running hard...
> 
> If you're interested in some decent open source reading on hulls...try Tom Clancy's Submarine: A Guided Tour Inside a Nuclear Warship (Tom Clancy's Military Referenc Book 1) eBook : Clancy, Tom, Gresham, John: Amazon.ca: Kindle Store.  There's some discussion on hulls for the 688/i688 and maybe a little on the Virgina's?  Been a while since I read it...


I have that book hence why I know stuff about subs. Its a great resource for the amateur submariner - the kind that you play on a video game.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

688(i) Hunter/Killer?  Sub Command?  Dangerous Waters?  😁


----------



## RedFive

Eye In The Sky said:


> My point was more geared towards operating in a L16 environment, but not having L16 ourselves, and relying on someone (cough RAAF cough) re-broadcasting "the pic" in L11 for "some poor SOBs" in the BMA...
> 
> LRP...MH  "fitted for, but not with, L16".


You mean to tell me our shiny new MH helicopters and our LRP aircraft newly upgraded at great expense in Canada by Canadian workers to keep tax dollars in Canada don't have literally the base specification situational awareness and battle space management communication ability?

Who is running this goat rodeo?


----------



## CBH99

Eye In The Sky said:


> 688(i) Hunter/Killer?  Sub Command?  Dangerous Waters?  😁


Hey now, all fun games back when I was single & allowed my inner nerd to rage!  Combined with Star Citizen (which quickly took over) I remember stepping outside one winter afternoon and _actually_ thinking to myself “Oh yeah!  The sun!  I completely forgot about it…”

(In all fairness we get about 6hrs of actual sunlight here during the winter, so it isn’t hard to miss it depending on work hours)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

RedFive said:


> You mean to tell me our shiny new MH helicopters and our LRP aircraft newly upgraded at great expense in Canada by Canadian workers to keep tax dollars in Canada don't have literally the base specification situational awareness and battle space management communication ability?
> 
> Who is running this goat rodeo?


I wonder about that myself, somedays.


----------



## RedFive

SeaKingTacco said:


> I wonder about that myself, somedays.


And here I thought my federally acronymed organization had a monopoly on bad leadership, lack of foresight and waste of tax money.

How silly of me.


----------



## CBH99

lenaitch said:


> _"Surfacing through the ice even with the sail reinforced is always a dicey operation that have caused damage to submarines in the past. Its not just a matter of buoyancy, its also a matter of brute power, AIP does not provide that. To operate under the ice in my opinion, we have to have the ability to surface in ice in case of emergency. Why haven't other Nordic nations used their conventional submarines under ice before?"_
> 
> (I seem to have lost my Quote function this morning)
> 
> Just an interested non-mariner here, but curious what power has to do with it.  Any images I have seen shows a completely vertical motion.  Is the requirement for more power simply to lug around a more reinforced hull?


I’ve been asking myself that question also.  Why does a submarine require a certain amount of power in order to surface through the ice?  Wouldn’t a strengthened/reinforced hull be primary concern?  

But my thought now is - and again perhaps I am wrong - is that to push through Arctic ice (even if you find a thinner or weaker layer) - a submarine just have substantial mass/power to ‘muscle it’s way through.’

A reinforced hull wouldn’t be enough, if the submarine can’t push/muscle it’s way upwards with enough power to eventually break through.  It would just be the top of the sail/tower pushing against - but not hard enough to break the ice - unless there is enough muscle/power behind it to give it that extra push.  

If that isn’t possible, then it would be a) guaranteed damage of some kind to the tower, and b) a drain on batteries & such, in an area where resurfacing somewhere nearby isn’t possible 


The above is my assumption as someone who recently realized he doesn’t know anything about submarines other than what they are.  Am I close?



Also, I’m _guessing_ the reason why Nordic countries don’t surface their submarines in Arctic ice is because none of them are tasked with the delivery of nuclear weapons, if required.  (That had been my assumption.  I’ve never thought about it until I read the post above.)

Other than safety reasons, I’d assumed the reason a nuclear submarine from the US, UK, France, or Russia would surface in the Arctic in wartime conditions is to unleash a nuclear payload at a target - with over the Arctic being the shortest flight time, depending on the target.  

Since Nordic nations don’t have that capability, they didn’t practice it.


----------



## CBH99

Eye In The Sky said:


> My point was more geared towards operating in a L16 environment, but not having L16 ourselves, and relying on someone (cough RAAF cough) re-broadcasting "the pic" in L11 for "some poor SOBs" in the BMA...
> 
> LRP...MH  "fitted for, but not with, L16".


Please tell me I’m dreaming here man…

Our brand new shiny MH fleet, which took over a century to order and have delivered, were “fitted for, but not with, L16”?

That’s because L16 is being phased out for something faster & more secure, so we didn’t bother with L16 because it’s essentially ‘old tech.’  Right?  Riiigghhttt?  😕


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> Please tell me I’m dreaming here man…
> 
> Our brand new shiny MH fleet, which took over a century to order and have delivered, were “fitted for, but not with, L16”?
> 
> That’s because L16 is being phased out for something faster & more secure, so we didn’t bother with L16 because it’s essentially ‘old tech.’  Right?  Riiigghhttt?  😕


It might have been because it took so damn long, that the SOR was written when L16 wasn't a thing yet    

But seriously, requirements are for effects like "a secure two-way datalink system that is interoperable with allied units", not specific things.  If you write for a specific thing and it's obsolete by the time the contract is awarded, then you end up with something with an obsolete piece of equipment.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dimsum said:


> It might have been because it took so damn long, that the SOR was written when L16 wasn't a thing yet
> 
> But seriously, requirements are for effects like "a secure two-way datalink system that is interoperable with allied units", not specific things.  If you write for a specific thing and it's obsolete by the time the contract is awarded, then you end up with something with an obsolete piece of equipment.


Pretty much. It was spec’d for link 11, so that is what we got. L16 wasn’t even a thing when the spec was written.


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:


> Pretty much. It was spec’d for link 11, so that is what we got. L16 wasn’t even a thing when the spec was written.


I'm sure they _could_ put L16 onboard.  For a fee.


----------



## JMCanada

Maxman1 said:


> The Type 216 was designed for the Australian sub replacement program, before they went with the French _Shortfin Barracuda_.
> 
> While there haven't been any 216s built yet, due to Australia choosing a different design, the Singaporean Type 218SG is a variant of the 216. The first of the class, RSS _Invincible,_ was launched in 2019 and is undergoing sea trials.


Type 218SG, at 2000 tonnes surfaced, is closer to Type 212 (1500 tonnes) than to Type 216 (projected to be 4000 tonnes). Type 216 is just a kind of "preliminary design", double the size of whatever boat TKMS has built before. This would actually be a customized design. Just think of how the shortfin Barracuda (australian version) has ended up, design still being uncomplete after... a couple of years? despite using previously designed and built Suffren hull.

Indeed Type 212CD (2500 tonnes acc. to Wikipedia) should better match RCN requirements, not to say about technology: Type 212CD being for Germany and Norway will feature state-of-the-art  "gadgets" while 218SG is just an export variant for not a so close ally.


----------



## calculus

The timeline for the T212CD is certainly in line with where we would be looking, with the first boats scheduled for delivery to the Norwegians in 2029. However, while it is certainly chock full of new tech, and will undoubtedly have an improved _submerged _range, I'm not sure it will actually have much better _endurance _than the Victorias, which dimensionally are quite similar. While the 212CD seems to have a broader beam, it is not clear, given it's "stealthy" diamond-shaped hull, how much of that translates into more useable space. It is slightly longer, if published specifications can be trusted (it's difficult to find detailed information on this design). So, probably slightly better endurance than the Vics, but maybe not game changing for the RCN.









						Radical New Stealth Submarine, Type-212CD, Will Be Much Larger - Naval News
					

Submarines rely on stealth to maintain the element of surprise and escape threats. For decades this has focused on reducing the noise emitted by the submarine. A resurgence of using active sonar to locate submarines now means that new stealth measures may be required. German submarine builder...




					www.navalnews.com
				








						Type 212CD submarine - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				








						thyssenkrupp Marine Systems
					






					www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.nl
				




Realistically, if Canada wants to move quickly on this, an existing MOTS design is the best choice. Type 212CD and A26 Oceanic ER seem to be the only options at this time. However, assuming we would want to stick with American combat systems and weapons, not sure there even is a MOTS design out there that wouldn't need significant changes to accommodate the systems and weapons we are used to working with. So maybe a custom design isn't completely mad. A difficult conundrum for RCN planners.


----------



## Stoker

calculus said:


> The timeline for the T212CD is certainly in line with where we would be looking, with the first boats scheduled for delivery to the Norwegians in 2029. However, while it is certainly chock full of new tech, and will undoubtedly have an improved _submerged _range, I'm not sure it will actually have much better _endurance _than the Victorias, which dimensionally are quite similar. While the 212CD seems to have a broader beam, it is not clear, given it's "stealthy" diamond-shaped hull, how much of that translates into more useable space. It is slightly longer, if published specifications can be trusted (it's difficult to find detailed information on this design). So, probably slightly better endurance than the Vics, but maybe not game changing for the RCN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radical New Stealth Submarine, Type-212CD, Will Be Much Larger - Naval News
> 
> 
> Submarines rely on stealth to maintain the element of surprise and escape threats. For decades this has focused on reducing the noise emitted by the submarine. A resurgence of using active sonar to locate submarines now means that new stealth measures may be required. German submarine builder...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Type 212CD submarine - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thyssenkrupp Marine Systems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.nl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Realistically, if Canada wants to move quickly on this, an existing MOTS design is the best choice. Type 212CD and A26 Oceanic ER seem to be the only options at this time. However, assuming we would want to stick with American combat systems and weapons, not sure there even is a MOTS design out there that wouldn't need significant changes to accommodate the systems and weapons we are used to working with. So maybe a custom design isn't completely mad. A difficult conundrum for RCN planners.


The Victoria class replacement project just stood up and has about a half dozen pers posted to it, we are far, far away from selecting anything let alone building it.


----------



## Happy Guy

Stoker said:


> Batteries is the same thing, slow speed and not a lot of power. If we did have a design, and it would have to be a fairly large design to facilitate the extra plating and reinforcement to the sail. Would you want the job of doing the testing of submerging through the ice for the first time?
> 
> We would be better off with a large design with efficient motors and lots of lit-ion battery capability and operating at the ice edge of the NW passage.



Stoker is right.  We don't need subs that are capable of breaking through the ice.  We have satellites to track surface vessels in the Arctic.  If necessary we can send long range patrol aircraft, when the target comes within range and weather conditions, to gather more information and watch it.  If necessary the CAF can send the AOPS (depending on the ice conditions) to board it.

But still, I would still love for the RCN to have SSNs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

calculus said:


> The timeline for the T212CD is certainly in line with where we would be looking, with the first boats scheduled for delivery to the Norwegians in 2029. However, while it is certainly chock full of new tech, and will undoubtedly have an improved _submerged _range, I'm not sure it will actually have much better _endurance _than the Victorias, which dimensionally are quite similar. While the 212CD seems to have a broader beam, it is not clear, given it's "stealthy" diamond-shaped hull, how much of that translates into more useable space. It is slightly longer, if published specifications can be trusted (it's difficult to find detailed information on this design). So, probably slightly better endurance than the Vics, but maybe not game changing for the RCN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Radical New Stealth Submarine, Type-212CD, Will Be Much Larger - Naval News
> 
> 
> Submarines rely on stealth to maintain the element of surprise and escape threats. For decades this has focused on reducing the noise emitted by the submarine. A resurgence of using active sonar to locate submarines now means that new stealth measures may be required. German submarine builder...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Type 212CD submarine - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thyssenkrupp Marine Systems
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.nl
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Realistically, if Canada wants to move quickly on this, an existing MOTS design is the best choice. Type 212CD and A26 Oceanic ER seem to be the only options at this time. However, assuming we would want to stick with American combat systems and weapons, not sure there even is a MOTS design out there that wouldn't need significant changes to accommodate the systems and weapons we are used to working with. So maybe a custom design isn't completely mad. A difficult conundrum for RCN planners.


In my mind the three realistic options are:
Type 216
Saab Kockums 4,000-ton variant of the submarines, aka type 612
Sōryū-class or Taigei-class submarines

Currently only the Sōryū and Taigei are operational designs. A big question is how willing is the US to permit those countries/builders access to the sub tech we want to use? That will be one of the big questions. Personally I think closer ties with the Japanese defense industry might be useful for us in the coming years. Japanese build quality is also excellent.

If we went with the Taigei, it's possible that the Japanese would loan us Sōryū class subs as they come out of service till ours are built.


----------



## Dana381

Colin Parkinson said:


> If we went with the Taigei, it's possible that the Japanese would loan us Sōryū class subs as they come out of service till ours are built.



More likely we will offer to buy the Soryu class as it gets retired and not buy the Taigei. They have 12, maybe we will get all of them and actually have a decent number of subs for once?


----------



## suffolkowner

I see more potential in the SK KSS 3 batch 2 








						KSS-III submarine - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




Still think/hope that there is an opportunity to join on with the Dutch Walrus replacement project. Babcock could assemble the sections just like the Dutch are planning


----------



## Happy Guy

Just saw this on Youtube about a German Type 212 submarine.  U32 - German Submarine Soldiers | Full Documentary .   I am so glad that I never served in the submarines.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dana381 said:


> More likely we will offer to buy the Soryu class as it gets retired and not buy the Taigei. They have 12, maybe we will get all of them and actually have a decent number of subs for once?


Definitely a possibility, I wonder how possible it would be to adapt the current torpedo tubes to fire the Mk 48? Almost the same dimensions, same fuel/propulsion 






						Type 89 torpedo - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						Mark 48 torpedo - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## JMCanada

suffolkowner said:


> I see more potential in the SK KSS 3 batch 2
> 
> Still think/hope that there is an opportunity to join on with the Dutch Walrus replacement project. Babcock could assemble the sections just like the Dutch are planning


I also see joining KSS 3, Walrus replacement or Type 212CD as the best options. Any other alternative would be a customized design/ orphan class.
I would not discard a mixed submarine fleet in the future: six SSKs and three SSNs of those to be built for Australia. SSKs to be delivered in the (2nd half of) 2030s and SSNs 10-15 years later. I understand the authorities will never go for this option... but let me dream for a while.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CH-148 Cyclone proves its value at sea
					

Canada’s new maritime helicopter recently completed its first operational deployment, and by all accounts it was a resounding success.




					verticalmag.com
				




"_The TACCO sends and receives information from the ship via Link 11. The ship itself is Link 16 capable and can modulate data to Link 11 format for the CH-148._"

Think of how long the aircraft took from "approval to delivery".  The mission systems, etc....they weren't purchased the day before delivery.  Right? 

_In 2004, Canada awarded Sikorsky Aircraft a contract for 28 CH-148s with deliveries planned to start in 2009. Deliveries were repeatedly delayed due to development problems until the delivery of six initial helicopters in June 2015._


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> I'm sure they _could_ put L16 onboard.  For a fee.



Of course;  same as on the Aurora.  MLP replacement, SW....little bit of testing.  Should take a day or two...😁


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:


> Pretty much. It was spec’d for link 11, so that is what we got. L16 wasn’t even a thing when the spec was written.



That right there says lots about the NSA/MHP and mishandling by more than one gov't....


----------



## CBH99

Forgive my following question, but I’ve been out for a while and honestly didn’t really deal with any ‘Link’ type system when I was in.  

But in terms of installing Link 16 instead of Link 11, is there any sort of notable work required to install L16 over L11?  I’m guessing it isn’t as simple as unplug one and plug in the other…??


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Here's some open source on TDES.   Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone

Not quite as simple as unplug/plug.  There's a whole gamble of airworthiness/testing processes that have to be completed, after determining, sourcing and procuring the hardware and software.  It is a fairly substantial level of effort.


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> Forgive my following question, but I’ve been out for a while and honestly didn’t really deal with any ‘Link’ type system when I was in.
> 
> But in terms of installing Link 16 instead of Link 11, is there any sort of notable work required to install L16 over L11?  I’m guessing it isn’t as simple as unplug one and plug in the other…??


To add onto @Eye In The Sky 's comments, that pretty much goes with any aircraft equipment.  

Part of the reason why bolts (similar to, but not the same as, ones you can get at Canadian Tire) are so expensive for aircraft.  Those bolts, or at least that line of bolts, has to pass airworthiness standards.  Same with heating coffee cups.


----------



## OldSolduer

dimsum said:


> To add onto @Eye In The Sky 's comments, that pretty much goes with any aircraft equipment.
> 
> Part of the reason why bolts (similar to, but not the same as, ones you can get at Canadian Tire) are so expensive for aircraft.  Those bolts, or at least that line of bolts, has to pass airworthiness standards.  Same with heating coffee cups.


. Correct - there are different grades of bolts and while they might appear the same the ones from Canadian Tire are less strong and may not hold up.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Aircraft systems such as hardware and software are considered "aeronautical products" in Canada, IAW the Aeronautics Act.  

Fun fact of the day.


----------



## CBH99

Eye In The Sky said:


> Here's some open source on TDES.   Sikorsky CH-148 Cyclone
> 
> Not quite as simple as unplug/plug.  There's a whole gamble of airworthiness/testing processes that have to be completed, after determining, sourcing and procuring the hardware and software.  It is a fairly substantial level of effort.


Absolutely makes sense.

In the context of Link 16 over Link 11, since Link 16 is so common now and installed on so many platforms, would that same level of testing have been required to install it aboard our MPA?


----------



## Dana381

dimsum said:


> To add onto @Eye In The Sky 's comments, that pretty much goes with any aircraft equipment.
> 
> Part of the reason why bolts (similar to, but not the same as, ones you can get at Canadian Tire) are so expensive for aircraft.  Those bolts, or at least that line of bolts, has to pass airworthiness standards.  Same with heating coffee cups.



The bolts may be different or they may well be exactly the same, the majority of the cost in aerospace parts is the paper work. Every nut, bolt washer, etc. is traceable right back to the ingot it was stamped from. Every person who touches it has to log it. My late uncle worked at Vector Aerospace for years. He explained that when he received a part no matter how small it came with a stack of paper work a couple inches thick. 

A plane once crashed that had one of their engines in it. If the engine was at fault the whole plant would have been shut down till the cause was found and the problem rectified. It turned out to be the propeller that was at fault.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My friend works at MTU in Vancouver where they rebuild jet engines. If an employee tells the manger they goofed and did not follow the repair process, they are not punished, but the engine is stripped back down and redone. if they lie or do not admit to a known goof, they are fired on the spot. They have the same process you describe for all the parts. I don't think most people realize how much goes into keeping a commercial aircraft flying. One of the problems for companies like Buffalo Air, is that the parts they can source do not have known histories, but often there are no other sources.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think the French are on a PR offensive.









						World's Newest Class of Nuclear Attack Submarine: Rare Access Inside Suffren - Naval News
					

Leading Navies are secretive about the full capabilities of their submarines. In a rare privilege, Naval News has been allowed aboard the French Navy's (Marine Nationale) newest boat, Suffren. Here is what it is like to step inside a next generation nuclear-powered attack submarine.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBH99 said:


> Absolutely makes sense.
> 
> In the context of Link 16 over Link 11, since Link 16 is so common now and installed on so many platforms, would that same level of testing have been required to install it aboard our MPA?



Yes; ground and airborne testing.  Link 16 is part of the ongoing Aurora Block 4 upgrades.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin Parkinson said:


> I think the French are on a PR offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World's Newest Class of Nuclear Attack Submarine: Rare Access Inside Suffren - Naval News
> 
> 
> Leading Navies are secretive about the full capabilities of their submarines. In a rare privilege, Naval News has been allowed aboard the French Navy's (Marine Nationale) newest boat, Suffren. Here is what it is like to step inside a next generation nuclear-powered attack submarine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com



Nice article, tks for that.


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin Parkinson said:


> I think the French are on a PR offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> World's Newest Class of Nuclear Attack Submarine: Rare Access Inside Suffren - Naval News
> 
> 
> Leading Navies are secretive about the full capabilities of their submarines. In a rare privilege, Naval News has been allowed aboard the French Navy's (Marine Nationale) newest boat, Suffren. Here is what it is like to step inside a next generation nuclear-powered attack submarine.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com


Good article, you can also see the issue to Australianize it as the article states everything is French derived, however if they want a true PR victory they should just deliver 6 to the RCN. CAFRA or FRACA?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Since both France and Canada has French speakers, I would use FRACA, as it sounds just like the French word "fracas", meaning a loud noise of something breaking (in English, I suppose it would be "clatter"). And such a sale would make a lot of noise in the international defense community.


----------



## MilEME09

suffolkowner said:


> Good article, you can also see the issue to Australianize it as the article states everything is French derived, however if they want a true PR victory they should just deliver 6 to the RCN. CAFRA or FRACA?


You would think we would have a closer relationship with France, at the same time the Eryx wasn't the greatest..... we almost got the mistral Egypt now owns, according to Jason Kenny that fell through due to bureaucrats thinking it would undermine the NSPS. 

If France was interested in building us some subs, I say we should take it


----------



## Happy Guy

Colin Parkinson said:


> Definitely a possibility, I wonder how possible it would be to adapt the current torpedo tubes to fire the Mk 48? Almost the same dimensions, same fuel/propulsion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Type 89 torpedo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark 48 torpedo - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


I'm certainly not an expert in naval armaments or an engineer, but I would be concerned about adapting these established classes to use the same torpedoes, other weapons and combat systems as the RCN now uses.  This is based on my observation based on how long it took for us to get the Victoria Class submarines operational (the long term storage issues notwithstanding).  The oldest Sōryū-Class submarine is already 14 years old (based on launched date) and I know that, if we buy these used subs, we will need to extensively outfit/modify to our needs.  The question still remains how much service life will we get out of these submarines?  Perhaps the RCN aside from the initial outfitting, will get one mid life upgrade out of this Class before it gets old and modifications are no longer worthwhile.   If we bought brand new, perhaps we can get two or three major upgrades/modifications out of the life the submarine.  I am not capable of doing a cost benefit analysis, but to me, while the initial outlay will be expensive, it would be less expensive to buy brand new and we would get what we want without having to perform extensive modifications.


----------



## Stoker

Happy Guy said:


> I'm certainly not an expert in naval armaments or an engineer, but I would be concerned about adapting these established classes to use the same torpedoes, other weapons and combat systems as the RCN now uses.  This is based on my observation based on how long it took for us to get the Victoria Class submarines operational (the long term storage issues notwithstanding).  The oldest Sōryū-Class submarine is already 14 years old (based on launched date) and I know that, if we buy these used subs, we will need to extensively outfit/modify to our needs.  The question still remains how much service life will we get out of these submarines?  Perhaps the RCN aside from the initial outfitting, will get one mid life upgrade out of this Class before it gets old and modifications are no longer worthwhile.   If we bought brand new, perhaps we can get two or three major upgrades/modifications out of the life the submarine.  I am not capable of doing a cost benefit analysis, but to me, while the initial outlay will be expensive, it would be less expensive to buy brand new and we would get what we want without having to perform extensive modifications.


I think I can speak on behalf of the RCN in saying we will never buy used submarines again.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Until we do, I will never say never. We might not have a choice if the Victoria class can't sail because we have dithered for far to long.


----------



## Stoker

Colin Parkinson said:


> Until we do, I will never say never. We might not have a choice if the Victoria class can't sail because we have dithered for far to long.


Very easy for you to say that. At the last meeting I was at the person who actually has a lot of say about such things was very adamant that we won't. The last purchase we made prior was based on submarines that just several years old, from a close ally that we bought submarines from them before. There is no purchase out there like that currently.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yes it is easy to say that, because I have seen a change in governments or circumstances that have upended a lot of work to satisfy the politics of the day. Your looking at around 3 changes in government before a real decision is made. I fully admit that I am very cynical in this regard. I would love new, fit for our purpose subs purchased in a timely manner and at least 6 of them. Despite our Allies all being busy renewing their sub fleets, I am not holding my breath.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

MilEME09 said:


> You would think we would have a closer relationship with France, at the same time the Eryx wasn't the greatest..... we almost got the mistral Egypt now owns, according to Jason Kenny that fell through due to bureaucrats thinking it would undermine the NSPS.
> 
> If France was interested in building us some subs, I say we should take it


Not sure if anyone has reported on this before but it was reported a couple of weeks ago that Macron wants a face-to-face meeting with PM Trudeau. Anybody want to bet that submarines doesn't enter the conversation?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So has a French nuke sub been recorded punching through the ice yet? I wonder if they are capable of that?


----------



## quadrapiper

Colin Parkinson said:


> So has a French nuke sub been recorded punching through the ice yet? I wonder if they are capable of that?


Idiot-level question for the subsurface world: for a nuclear boat, how _useful _is punching through ice, other than for missile launching and photo ops? Assume there's a desire to be able to reach fresh air soonest in case of emergency, too.


----------



## MilEME09

Depends, how far in the program was France? Are they trying to offload hulls at this point?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Likely want to repurpose domestic job promises and to maintain their rep so it does not impact the ongoing sales of the Scorpène class subs.


----------



## lenaitch

Hmmm, and perhaps a little marketting while he's at it:









						Macron seeking face-to-face meeting with Trudeau to talk China, AUKUS alliance, climate
					

'I think that Canada, like France is very aware that China is a competitor -- could be a partner on some subjects, and can be military or strategic threat'




					nationalpost.com


----------



## MarkOttawa

lenaitch said:


> Hmmm, and perhaps a little marketting while he's at it:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Macron seeking face-to-face meeting with Trudeau to talk China, AUKUS alliance, climate
> 
> 
> 'I think that Canada, like France is very aware that China is a competitor -- could be a partner on some subjects, and can be military or strategic threat'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nationalpost.com


Trudeau would not understand a "military or strategic threat" if it were heading towards him with full armour, gun and "tankety tankety" treads.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Happy Guy

Retired AF Guy said:


> Not sure if anyone has reported on this before but it was reported a couple of weeks ago that Macron wants a face-to-face meeting with PM Trudeau. Anybody want to bet that submarines doesn't enter the conversation?


This is pure speculation on my part but I'm guessing that President Macron wants to pressure Prime Minister Trudeau into a deal to buy French submarines.  The French will probably use their influence leverage within the European Union, to imply that trade with them (EU) and Canada would be lessen.  The President will be facing reelection in Apr 2022 and the lost of the Australian submarine contract meant a significant loss in French jobs.  Note this is not the first time Canada faced and bent to European pressure due to a trade threat.  In 1975, Canada bought Leopard 1 MBTs after Prime Minister Trudeau (father of the current PM) had a discussion with West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. The suggestion was that if Canada wanted trade with Europe, it would have to help defend Europe. A new submarine deal would greatly help President Macron's chances for re-election.

I don't know much about the The Barracuda class (or _Suffren_ class) except that the Australians were to buy a conventional power variant of this class and presumably this is what the French will offer.

I know that PM Trudeau and his advisors are not politically astute in comparison to PM Harper or Chretien, but I think that they can link loss of trade equals loss of revenue for Canada.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Happy Guy said:


> This is pure speculation on my part but I'm guessing that President Macron wants to pressure Prime Minister Trudeau into a deal to buy French submarines.  The French will probably use their influence leverage within the European Union, to imply that trade with them (EU) and Canada would be lessen.  The President will be facing reelection in Apr 2022 and the lost of the Australian submarine contract meant a significant loss in French jobs.  Note this is not the first time Canada faced and bent to European pressure due to a trade threat.  In 1975, Canada bought Leopard 1 MBTs after Prime Minister Trudeau (father of the current PM) had a discussion with West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. The suggestion was that if Canada wanted trade with Europe, it would have to help defend Europe. A new submarine deal would greatly help President Macron's chances for re-election.
> 
> I don't know much about the The Barracuda class (or _Suffren_ class) except that the Australians were to buy a conventional power variant of this class and presumably this is what the French will offer.
> 
> I know that PM Trudeau and his advisors are not politically astute in comparison to PM Harper or Chretien, but I think that they can link loss of trade equals loss of revenue for Canada.


PM Pretty Socks should ask Macron to throw in St Pierre et Miquelon as part of any deal in buying French subs. 😁


----------



## MilEME09

Czech_pivo said:


> PM Pretty Socks should ask Macron to throw in St Pierre et Miquelon as part of any deal in buying French subs. 😁


considering naval group builds just about the entire french fleet, if the french president is just trying to keep jobs, he may not be trying to keep them in just the submarine facilities in Cherbourg. Naval Group also makes the Mistral, Gowind class Corvette's and others. He could pitch any number of vessels to Canada, the Gowind 1000 for example could be offered to replace the Kingston's. Crazy thought but if it is about jobs, enough arm twisting and we may do it.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MilEME09 said:


> considering naval group builds just about the entire french fleet, if the french president is just trying to keep jobs, he may not be trying to keep them in just the submarine facilities in Cherbourg. Naval Group also makes the Mistral, Gowind class Corvette's and others. He could pitch any number of vessels to Canada, the Gowind 1000 for example could be offered to replace the Kingston's. Crazy thought but if it is about jobs, enough arm twisting and we may do it.


A few years ago I toured their first nuc sub in Cherbourg. 
The timing of the announcement lends one to believe that the chat will be about subs.


----------



## CBH99

Happy Guy said:


> This is pure speculation on my part but I'm guessing that President Macron wants to pressure Prime Minister Trudeau into a deal to buy French submarines.  The French will probably use their influence leverage within the European Union, to imply that trade with them (EU) and Canada would be lessen.  The President will be facing reelection in Apr 2022 and the lost of the Australian submarine contract meant a significant loss in French jobs.  Note this is not the first time Canada faced and bent to European pressure due to a trade threat.  In 1975, Canada bought Leopard 1 MBTs after Prime Minister Trudeau (father of the current PM) had a discussion with West German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt. The suggestion was that if Canada wanted trade with Europe, it would have to help defend Europe. A new submarine deal would greatly help President Macron's chances for re-election.
> 
> I don't know much about the The Barracuda class (or _Suffren_ class) except that the Australians were to buy a conventional power variant of this class and presumably this is what the French will offer.
> 
> I know that PM Trudeau and his advisors are not politically astute in comparison to PM Harper or Chretien, but I think that they can link loss of trade equals loss of revenue for Canada.


As long as we learn from the lessons generated by the Australian situation, re buying a nuclear submarine redesigned to be conventionally powered.  

Submarines are some of the most complicated ships built on this planet, and almost everything about them is classified to one extent or another.  

We can’t just say ‘Plug in a conventional propulsion system and power system please.”  The Australians learned that the hard way.  (Need to make room for fuel storage, fuel cells, different engines, etc.)

Whatever we buy will need to be built with US combat systems in mind, same with the Aussies.  US combat management systems, US weapons.  (Our recent buy of advanced mk48 torpedoes is a good indicator that we are sticking with it, which is a good thing.)

The French make good kit, and good ships.  

I’m not opposed to the idea up front, as long as we don’t experience the same issues the Australians did.  France needs to solicit a bid that is designed with conventional power from the start, not a complete redesign.   


As for trade being used as an influencer, let’s chat with both the Americans and the French.

Who do we do more trade with?  The US.  Who do we live right beside?  The US.  Who can make our lives more challenging if we tick them off?  The US.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

CBH99 said:


> As long as we learn from the lessons generated by the Australian situation, re buying a nuclear submarine redesigned to be conventionally powered.
> 
> Submarines are some of the most complicated ships built on this planet, and almost everything about them is classified to one extent or another.
> 
> We can’t just say ‘Plug in a conventional propulsion system and power system please.”  The Australians learned that the hard way.  (Need to make room for fuel storage, fuel cells, different engines, etc.)
> 
> Whatever we buy will need to be built with US combat systems in mind, same with the Aussies.  US combat management systems, US weapons.  (Our recent buy of advanced mk48 torpedoes is a good indicator that we are sticking with it, which is a good thing.)
> 
> The French make good kit, and good ships.
> 
> I’m not opposed to the idea up front, as long as we don’t experience the same issues the Australians did.  France needs to solicit a bid that is designed with conventional power from the start, not a complete redesign.
> 
> 
> As for trade being used as an influencer, let’s chat with both the Americans and the French.
> 
> Who do we do more trade with?  The US.  Who do we live right beside?  The US.  Who can make our lives more challenging if we tick them off?  The US.


I would not put it past some folks in Ottawa to fall for a “Euro-centric ego stroking” that puts us on the wrong side of our own Geo-political/Economic interests…


----------



## GR66

CBH99 said:


> As long as we learn from the lessons generated by the Australian situation, re buying a nuclear submarine redesigned to be conventionally powered.
> 
> Submarines are some of the most complicated ships built on this planet, and almost everything about them is classified to one extent or another.
> 
> We can’t just say ‘Plug in a conventional propulsion system and power system please.”  The Australians learned that the hard way.  (Need to make room for fuel storage, fuel cells, different engines, etc.)
> 
> Whatever we buy will need to be built with US combat systems in mind, same with the Aussies.  US combat management systems, US weapons.  (Our recent buy of advanced mk48 torpedoes is a good indicator that we are sticking with it, which is a good thing.)
> 
> The French make good kit, and good ships.
> 
> I’m not opposed to the idea up front, as long as we don’t experience the same issues the Australians did.  France needs to solicit a bid that is designed with conventional power from the start, not a complete redesign.
> 
> 
> As for trade being used as an influencer, let’s chat with both the Americans and the French.
> 
> Who do we do more trade with?  The US.  Who do we live right beside?  The US.  Who can make our lives more challenging if we tick them off?  The US.


It wouldn't shock me if the French were to offer us the opportunity to take over the Australian Shortfin Barracuda program.  On paper the sub is a fairly good fit for us (US combat systems, etc.) and they could offer it at a reduced rate due to the amount of pre-work already done by the Aussies (which wouldn't have to be duplicated unlike any other Canadianized conversion of other existing designs) and an additional reduction on the price to have them built in France (keeping French shipyards working) since our yards are already at capacity with the current shipbuilding program.


----------



## Uzlu

GR66 said:


> On paper the sub is a fairly good fit for us (US combat systems, etc.) and they could offer it at a reduced rate due to the amount of pre-work already done by the Aussies (which wouldn't have to be duplicated unlike any other Canadianized conversion of other existing designs) and an additional reduction on the price to have them built in France (keeping French shipyards working) since our yards are already at capacity with the current shipbuilding program.


No Canadian yards are able to build submarines.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CBH99 said:


> As long as we learn from the lessons generated by the Australian situation, re buying a nuclear submarine redesigned to be conventionally powered.
> 
> Submarines are some of the most complicated ships built on this planet, and almost everything about them is classified to one extent or another.
> 
> We can’t just say ‘Plug in a conventional propulsion system and power system please.”  The Australians learned that the hard way.  (Need to make room for fuel storage, fuel cells, different engines, etc.)
> 
> Whatever we buy will need to be built with US combat systems in mind, same with the Aussies.  US combat management systems, US weapons.  (Our recent buy of advanced mk48 torpedoes is a good indicator that we are sticking with it, which is a good thing.)
> 
> The French make good kit, and good ships.
> 
> I’m not opposed to the idea up front, as long as we don’t experience the same issues the Australians did.  France needs to solicit a bid that is designed with conventional power from the start, not a complete redesign.
> 
> 
> As for trade being used as an influencer, let’s chat with both the Americans and the French.
> 
> Who do we do more trade with?  The US.  Who do we live right beside?  The US.  Who can make our lives more challenging if we tick them off?  The US.


The US does not build non nuclear subs and unlikely we will buy US nuclear attack subs, even if they were willing to build them for us. So our options are German, Japanese or south Korean for large subs. Most of the subs on the market are to small for our stated needs.


----------



## Maxman1

Colin Parkinson said:


> So our options are German, Japanese or south Korean for large subs.


----------



## GR66

Uzlu said:


> No Canadian yards are able to build submarines.


Our compliant Canadian yards were unable to build the ships they are currently building prior to the investments provided by the shipbuilding strategy.  With enough money poured into the hole we could create the capability to build submarines under license in Canada.  Never underestimate the Government's ability to make stupid decisions in order to get the political benefit of creating high paying jobs in their ridings.

That being said, I of course think it would be absolutely insane for us to try and build submarines domestically and I think the idea would be dismissed once anybody with half a brain looked at the cost to create that capability.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin Parkinson said:


> The US does not build non nuclear subs and unlikely we will buy US nuclear attack subs, even if they were willing to build them for us. So our options are German, Japanese or south Korean for large subs. Most of the subs on the market are to small for our stated needs.


I seem to remember reading something previous in the Australian lead ups to selecting a replacement for the Collins class that Japan would be a difficult choice since they haven't really been in the export market for military equipment in recent  memory and that would prove challenging.


----------



## Czech_pivo

GR66 said:


> Our compliant Canadian yards were unable to build the ships they are currently building prior to the investments provided by the shipbuilding strategy.  With enough money poured into the hole we could create the capability to build submarines under license in Canada.  Never underestimate the Government's ability to make stupid decisions in order to get the political benefit of creating high paying jobs in their ridings.
> 
> That being said, I of course think it would be absolutely insane for us to try and build submarines domestically and I think the idea would be dismissed once anybody with half a brain looked at the cost to create that capability.


Maybe they can build them in Windsor. 
I hear that Chrysler's old Plant 3 (mini-van/Pacifica manufacturing site) is down to one shift.  We can re-train those autoworkers to build submarines, good Union jobs!  Windsor does now have the highest unemployment rate in Canada and floating those finished subs down the Detroit River on its way to the Welland Canal and out the St. Lawrence would show the American public that we're serious about our defence!


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:


> Maybe they can build them in Windsor.
> I hear that Chrysler's old Plant 3 (mini-van/Pacifica manufacturing site) is down to one shift.  We can re-train those autoworkers to build submarines, good Union jobs!  Windsor does now have the highest unemployment rate in Canada and floating those finished subs down the Detroit River on its way to the Welland Canal and out the St. Lawrence would show the American public that we're serious about our defence!


It's not WWII anymore, where car companies re-tooled to build airplanes.  Systems now are much more sophisticated and submarines would be at the top end of that complexity.

How long would we need to re-train them, for potentially just one block of subs?  Also, that is an entirely different industry, with a completely different set of infrastructure.  The costs (and time) associated would be prohibitive.


----------



## lenaitch

GR66 said:


> It wouldn't shock me if the French were to offer us the opportunity to take over the Australian Shortfin Barracuda program.  On paper the sub is a fairly good fit for us (US combat systems, etc.) and they could offer it at a reduced rate due to the amount of pre-work already done by the Aussies *(which wouldn't have to be duplicated unlike any other Canadianized conversion of other existing designs)* and an additional reduction on the price to have them built in France (keeping French shipyards working) since our yards are already at capacity with the current shipbuilding program.



But wouldn't all the instruments and controls in the Aussie design be upside down for us? 😁


----------



## Czech_pivo

dimsum said:


> It's not WWII anymore, where car companies re-tooled to build airplanes.  Systems now are much more sophisticated and submarines would be at the top end of that complexity.
> 
> How long would we need to re-train them, for potentially just one block of subs?  Also, that is an entirely different industry, with a completely different set of infrastructure.  The costs (and time) associated would be prohibitive.


I was trying to be humorous!
Playing on the craziness of the political games that are played out all to often in this industry!  
Windsor and Essex County used to be absolute Liberal strongholds (think Herb Gray, Eugene Whelan), they are not anymore.  Something as big as this, as stupid as this, would lock up those Federal ridings for decades and decades.


----------



## Uzlu

Colin Parkinson said:


> So our options are German, Japanese or south Korean for large subs.


Not Swedish-Dutch?  Not even if the Dutch go with the A26 Oceanic Extended Range?

"In terms of a market outlook, Lars Brännström the Chief Marketing Officer at Saab Kockums, hinted towards Canada. This is would be particularly interesting as the Canadian Navy will need to replace its Victoria Class submarines. The Netherlands is known to be considering the A-26 to replace its Walrus Class boats."


----------



## CBH99

dimsum said:


> It's not WWII anymore, where car companies re-tooled to build airplanes.  Systems now are much more sophisticated and submarines would be at the top end of that complexity.
> 
> How long would we need to re-train them, for potentially just one block of subs?  Also, that is an entirely different industry, with a completely different set of infrastructure.  The costs (and time) associated would be prohibitive.


Pretty sure he was being sarcastic there Dimsum 😉



Czech_pivo said:


> Maybe they can build them in Windsor.
> I hear that Chrysler's old Plant 3 (mini-van/Pacifica manufacturing site) is down to one shift.  We can re-train those autoworkers to build submarines, good Union jobs!  Windsor does now have the highest unemployment rate in Canada and floating those finished subs down the Detroit River on its way to the Welland Canal and out the St. Lawrence would show the American public that we're serious about our defence!


Why does Windsor have such a high unemployment rate?  

Must be cursed ground or something, Detroit hasn’t been doing all too well either for a while…_giving police officers a house as a hiring incentive_…


----------



## CBH99

Colin Parkinson said:


> The US does not build non nuclear subs and unlikely we will buy US nuclear attack subs, even if they were willing to build them for us. So our options are German, Japanese or south Korean for large subs. Most of the subs on the market are to small for our stated needs.


Oh I know, the Americans went all nuclear ages ago.  And it actually makes a lot of sense for them to have done so at the time.  

I was saying hopefully we learn some lessons from how that situation evolved between the French & Aussies.  And the French finish the redesign before it is proposed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Uzlu said:


> Not Swedish-Dutch?  Not even if the Dutch go with the A26 Oceanic Extended Range?
> 
> "In terms of a market outlook, Lars Brännström the Chief Marketing Officer at Saab Kockums, hinted towards Canada. This is would be particularly interesting as the Canadian Navy will need to replace its Victoria Class submarines. The Netherlands is known to be considering the A-26 to replace its Walrus Class boats."


From wiki, sounds way to much like a Canadian style Cluster****

_Order cancelled and alternatives
On 27 February 2014 the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) cancelled its plans for ordering the A26 submarine from Kockums. According to FMV the new Kockums owner, the German company Thyssen Krupp has refused to allow Sweden to share the cost with any other nation, making the submarine too expensive. Sweden has instead approached Saab.[29][30] Saab plans to rehire many of Kockums submarine engineers if they receive orders for a new submarine.[31][32] As a result, Saab recruited top people from Kockums and issued a press release that the company was seeking employees for its naval division. In a letter to the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, FMV, the head of the German ThyssenKrupp Marine Division, Dr. Hans Atzpodien begs FMV to stop Saab from recruiting key personnel from Kockums. On 2 April 2014 the Swedish government officially terminated all talks about a deal with ThyssenKrupp.[33]

On 14 April 2014 about 200 employees had left Thyssen Krupp for Saab and it was reported that Saab and Thyssen Krupp had started to negotiate about selling Kockums.[34] In June 2014 Thyssen Krupp agreed to sell Kockums to Saab.[35]

On 22 July 2014 it was announced that Saab had bought Kockums from Thyssen Krupp for 340 million SEK. The new name will be Saab Kockums.[36]

On 12 September 2014, Saab Kockums proposed a 4,000-ton variant of the submarines, known as the type 612, for the Royal Australian Navy to replace their ageing Collins-class submarine, however the DCNS entry based on the Shortfin Barracuda class was selected instead.

In December 2014 an agreement between Saab and Damen Shipyards was announced to jointly develop, offer and build next-generation submarines (based on the Type 612 design).[37] Initially focused on replacing the four Walrus-class submarines currently in use by the Royal Netherlands Navy by 2025 combined with the still existing Swedish submarine requirements after cancellation of the previous A26 program.

During a visit to Kockums facilities on 30 June 2015 the Swedish defence minister, Peter Hultqvist, announced that two submarines will be ordered for a cost of 8.2 billion SEK (US$ 867 million).[38] The two submarines were to be delivered to the Swedish Navy in 2024 and 2025. [39] However, in 2021 it was indicated that the delivery date had slipped by a further three years, to 2027–28, and the costs had risen by SEK5.2 billion (or USD600 million).[40]

A26 Blekinge submarines have been offered to Polish Navy as a possible choice for the "Orka" modernization programme which is to be introduced by 2025._


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CBH99 said:


> Oh I know, the Americans went all nuclear ages ago.  And it actually makes a lot of sense for them to have done so at the time.
> 
> I was saying hopefully we learn some lessons from how that situation evolved between the French & Aussies.  And the French finish the redesign before it is proposed.


Had we bought the Barbel Class subs from the US instead of the O-boats, it would be interesting to see how the US would have viewed non-nukes for export. From all reports the Barbels were excellent and the preferred choice of the RCN at the time.


----------



## KevinB

Happy Guy said:


> Stoker is right.  We don't need subs that are capable of breaking through the ice.  We have satellites to track surface vessels in the Arctic.  If necessary we can send long range patrol aircraft, when the target comes within range and weather conditions, to gather more information and watch it.  If necessary the CAF can send the AOPS (depending on the ice conditions) to board it.


None of things see what is going on under the ice...
  While the RCN may not need a sub to break through the ice - I firmly believe it does need a sub that can operate under the ice -- and based on what the Navy folks have posted here and elsewhere it is pretty risky to operate under the ice, if you can't break through in extremis.

Given the ability of current technology - and the state of the world - I personally believe that one would want to have the pulse of what is going on in ones own waters.



Happy Guy said:


> But still, I would still love for the RCN to have SSNs.


I know it's a snowballs chance in hell, but I think it is honestly the only credible submarine option for Canada.

I honestly think IF the RCN attempted to explain this to the .gov and Canadian public - that it would probably get a lot of support -- I mean you can squeeze "True North Strong and Free" for all it's worth - and even the non nuke beatnik's can't make much of a fit - because at the end of the day, it is a cleaner, and safer way to patrol CANADA's Oceans.


----------



## Happy Guy

GR66 said:


> It wouldn't shock me if the French were to offer us the opportunity to take over the Australian Shortfin Barracuda program.  On paper the sub is a fairly good fit for us (US combat systems, etc.) and they could offer it at a reduced rate due to the amount of pre-work already done by the Aussies (which wouldn't have to be duplicated unlike any other Canadianized conversion of other existing designs) and an additional reduction on the price to have them built in France (keeping French shipyards working) since our yards are already at capacity with the current shipbuilding program.


From the little that I know of this program, the Australian Gov't and Armed Forces were taking a beating from the general public for the massive cost over runs and seemingly insurmountable complex engineering / design issues in adapting a SSN into a SSK. Based on this alone I would be extremely cautious about signing a contract for a conventionally powered Barracuda.

I am not sure which conventional submarine meets our needs as the RCN has not issued a Statement of Requirements (SOR).  I would presume that the submarine must better than the current Victoria Class submarines:

*Speed:* 12 knots (surfaced), 20 knots (submerged)
*Patrol endurance:* approximately 8 weeks
*Complement:* 49 crew and 10 trainees
*Diving depth:* > 200 metres
Weapons:

M48 torpedoes
be able to launch missiles (Harpoon)
must be able to deploy mines

Stealth: Must incorporate the latest technology / design in order to reduce detection

Special Forces
- must be able to carry a detachment of Special Forces with their equipment

I made no mention of combat, communication and sonar systems as this is beyond my expertise and knowledge.  Besides this would be classified anyway.


----------



## calculus

Happy Guy said:


> From the little that I know of this program, the Australian Gov't and Armed Forces were taking a beating from the general public for the massive cost over runs and seemingly insurmountable complex engineering / design issues in adapting a SSN into a SSK. Based on this alone I would be extremely cautions about signing a contract for a conventional powered Barracuda.
> 
> I am not sure which conventional submarine meets our needs as the RCN has not issued a Statement of Requirements (SOR).  I would presume that the submarine must better than the current Victoria Class submarines:
> 
> *Speed:* 12 knots (surfaced), 20 knots (submerged)
> *Patrol endurance:* approximately 8 weeks
> *Complement:* 49 crew and 10 trainees
> *Diving depth:* > 200 metres
> Weapons:
> 
> M48 torpedoes
> be able to launch missiles (Harpoon)
> must be able to deploy mines
> 
> Stealth: Must incorporate the latest technology / design in order to reduce detection
> 
> Special Forces
> - must be able to carry a detachment of Special Forces with their equipment
> 
> I made no mention of combat, communication and sonar systems as this is beyond my expertise and knowledge.  Besides this would be classified anyway.


With regards to the combat system and sonar, the upgraded Victorias actually set the bar pretty high, so a follow-on class has relatively big shoes to fill.


Victoria Class Submarine Command and Control System
Navy News | Increasing underwater awareness through submarine upgrades


----------



## GR66

Happy Guy said:


> From the little that I know of this program, the Australian Gov't and Armed Forces were taking a beating from the general public for the massive cost over runs and seemingly insurmountable complex engineering / design issues in adapting a SSN into a SSK. Based on this alone I would be extremely cautions about signing a contract for a conventional powered Barracuda.


I'm not suggesting that Canada should accept such an offer.  I'm just saying that to my little mind it would make sense for the French to make such an offer.  They've already sunk a bunch of their own costs into the design conversion and don't have any sales to show for it.  

By offering a deal to Canada they could keep their project team intact and employed, get the actual construction work on the subs for their shipyards and in the end possibly have a good conventional sub design which would be sellable to other US allies that prefer to use American technology and systems over European ones.


----------



## Happy Guy

GR66 said:


> I'm not suggesting that Canada should accept such an offer.  I'm just saying that to my little mind it would make sense for the French to make such an offer.  They've already sunk a bunch of their own costs into the design conversion and don't have any sales to show for it.
> 
> By offering a deal to Canada they could keep their project team intact and employed, get the actual construction work on the subs for their shipyards and in the end possibly have a good conventional sub design which would be sellable to other US allies that prefer to use American technology and systems over European ones.


ACK.  My radar (which has been wrong many times before) is telling me to stay away from the the conventionally powered Barracuda, but the nuclear powered one - go for it!


----------



## Happy Guy

calculus said:


> With regards to the combat system and sonar, the upgraded Victorias actually set the bar pretty high, so a follow-on class has relatively big shoes to fill.
> 
> 
> Victoria Class Submarine Command and Control System
> Navy News | Increasing underwater awareness through submarine upgrades


Thanks.  Even after reading that on the Lockheed Martin website I still don't understand what it means.  I simply don't have the background to comprehend its effect.  I'll take your word for it that it is impressive.


----------



## CBH99

Happy Guy said:


> Thanks.  Even after reading that on the Lockheed Martin website I still don't understand what it means.  I simply don't have the background to comprehend its effect.  I'll take your word for it that it is impressive.


I’m nowhere near a submarine expert.  We did have a guy posting on here for a short period who claimed, believably, that he worked on our subs - I wish he was still here, especially for this thread.   

But the CMS (combat management system) is state of the art, and the same system the US was installing on it’s new boats at the time.  (This was a year or so ago.)

The sonar not only does a better job of ‘doing sonar things’ - but the post processing means it can tell the Sonar Ops onboard more information, more accurate information, and much faster than previous.  

The screens actually are a big deal.  They can display the image more clearly, and from different selectable angles than previous.  Think of it like an old PC monitor from the early 90’s (big, bulky, heavy, pixels, etc) - compared to a 4K screen today.  

And we purchased a fair number of the most recent version of the mk48 torpedo, and quite a few upgrade kits for the ones in stock.  (I don’t know about you guys but the size of that purchase surprised me.)

Point of the above is that while they may not be the newest or most stealthy subs out there, the Victoria class really will leave big shoes to fill.  



_The above information was based on a very brief tour a few of us received on board a submarine just over a year ago.  We didn’t see much, it didn’t last long, and most of it didn’t make sense.  But the lad giving the tour was talking about this upgrade quite enthusiastically - it hadn’t happened yet, so we didn’t actually physically see anything.  Just relaying what was said, how I understood it.  Absolutely feel free to correct anything I got wrong._


----------



## dapaterson

Given the RCN's personnel shortfalls, perhaps the next generation submarine should have reduced crewing requirements.

Fortunately, there's a country that willing to export to anyone with cold, hard cash that has a domestic submarine industry.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:


> Given the RCN's personnel shortfalls, perhaps the next generation submarine should have reduced crewing requirements.
> 
> Fortunately, there's a country that willing to export to anyone with cold, hard cash that has a domestic submarine industry.


How much can we automat on a sub safely?


----------



## CBH99

275 - 360 tons for Sang-O vs 2400 tons for Victoria class.  Almost same size of crew…

The Victoria class must feel like a Sandals resort in comparison 😬


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Why is it important (IMO, at least) for Allied submarines to be able to operate under the icepack.....hmmmmm.









						Watch 3 Russian Nuclear Submarines Smash Through Arctic Ice at Once
					

It's a show of force with a loud message: the subs can fire their missiles from places U.S. forces can't reach.




					www.popularmechanics.com
				




_Three Russian missile submarines carrying up to 200 nuclear weapons surfaced in the Arctic Ocean last week..._


----------



## Happy Guy

I think that most all Parliamentary MPs do not understand the significance of this - the threat to Canadian sovereignty that these submarines pose to us.  I think that our Senior Leadership and particularly their staffs must be articulate and personable enough to brief the MPs of what DND/CAF is there for besides fighting forest fires and providing fresh water to our communities.  Even more significantly we need a switched on MND to help us with getting capital equipment, besides fixing our issues with sexual misconduct and sexual harassment.  While fixing our cultural is pressing, our ability to defend the country must not suffer too.


----------



## suffolkowner

Corporal Frisk has a good article (as usual) on the swedish sub, I'm pretty sure TKMS was sabotaging Kockums on purpose, if Saab doesn't land the Dutch project they may have problems with the economics going forward. 









						Sunken Costs and Good Enough – the A26 Blekinge-class
					

Let me start by being absolutely clear: everything points to that the A26 Blekinge-class submarine will be a stellar piece of engineering, highly adept at its mission, and by quite a margin the sub…




					corporalfrisk.com
				




Trouble brewing in Australia before they even get started?






						France's Barracuda-Suffren SSN Article: Personnel
					

A professional level blog on strategic matters, especially submarines (nuclear and conventional) in English, Hindi & most other major languages.




					gentleseas.blogspot.com
				




While Naval Group might be a pain in the ass to deal with, it's possible the Australian's aren't that easy to deal with themselves on this. The French-Brazilian collaboration seems to be progressing including the Brazilian nuclear submarine derivative of the scorpene









						Brazilian submarine Álvaro Alberto - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




So to me Naval Group has two new nuclear designs and the Scorpene's to work off of.  Still unlikely we ever see a nuclear sub ourselves but I will continue to hope


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Here's my pick for a replacement boat.









						Astute-class submarine - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## suffolkowner

Eye In The Sky said:


> Here's my pick for a replacement boat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Astute-class submarine - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


It's a good choice. 

1. A Joint Australian-Canadian buy  8 for Aus and 5 for Can?
2. swap in the American systems/weapons?
3. build an extra one in the UK and then transfer the tooling to Australia to continue construction. Canadian assembly by Babcock?


----------



## Uzlu

calculus said:


> With regards to the combat system and sonar, the upgraded Victorias actually set the bar pretty high, so a follow-on class has relatively big shoes to fill.
> 
> 
> Victoria Class Submarine Command and Control System
> Navy News | Increasing underwater awareness through submarine upgrades


The BQQ-10 sonar suites in the _Victoria_-class boats are also in the _Virginia_-class subs.


----------



## dimsum

Uzlu said:


> The BQQ-10 sonar suites in the _Victoria_-class boats are also in the _Virginia_-class subs.


That's the thing - despite our older frames (air, sea, etc) the upgraded insides are generally world-class.  

Bit of a side note - the current Aurora acoustics system (which we've had for quite a few years now) is what GA was _proposing_ for the next upgrade for the P-8A fleet.  This was a couple of years ago, so I'm not sure if Boeing accepted it or not.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Happy Guy said:


> Even more significantly we need a *switched on MND *to help us with getting capital equipment, besides fixing our issues with sexual misconduct and sexual harassment.  While fixing our cultural is pressing, our ability to defend the country must not suffer too.


Well the new MND is Anita Anand. How switched-on she is only time will tell.


----------



## Happy Guy

Just read her profile on the internet.  Seems to be a highly intelligent lawyer who worked in private practice and was a law professor at U of T.  I thought that she did a good job as the Minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada in buying COVID 19 vaccines.

Time will tell if she is the right person for DND/CAF.  Perhaps it is fortuitous that she was in charge of procurement hopefully she can speed things along with major capital equipment projects.


----------



## Happy Guy

I just read this article from the USN. They are making a case for the USN to procure Diesel-Electric (AIP) submarines and it is based on cost, capabilities and emerging threats. My head says SSKs but my heart still wants SSNs.


----------



## Weinie

Happy Guy said:


> Just read her profile on the internet.  Seems to be a highly intelligent lawyer who worked in private practice and was a law professor at U of T.  I thought that she did a good job as the Minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada in buying COVID 19 vaccines.
> 
> Time will tell if she is the right person for DND/CAF.  Perhaps it is fortuitous that she was in charge of procurement hopefully she can speed things along with major capital equipment projects.


She bought nothing. The bureaucrats that work for her conceived the plan and then procured vaccines, albeit after a slow, politically driven start.


----------



## Happy Guy

Weinie said:


> She bought nothing. The bureaucrats that work for her conceived the plan and then procured vaccines, albeit after a slow, politically driven start.


Ministers in charge of their departments are aided by their specialists and staffs, but the Minister is the one who gives direction.

She was in charge and gave necessary direction / priorities to the procurement specialists.  This meant detailed discussions with the medical communities, other government departments for their input, distribution and storage of the vaccines, packaging and so forth - she ensure coordination and synchronization of effort and information.  She answered questions from the both political and media organizations which is not easy.  

Cheers


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Ministers decide day to day stuff, but at the end of the day, they pass on direction decided by the Cabinet  PMO and figure out how best to implement it without to much embarrassment.


----------



## Weinie

Happy Guy said:


> Ministers in charge of their departments are aided by their specialists and staffs, but the Minister *is the one who gives direction.*
> 
> She was in charge and gave necessary direction / priorities to the procurement specialists.  This meant detailed discussions with the medical communities, other government departments for their input, distribution and storage of the vaccines, packaging and so forth - she ensure coordination and synchronization of effort and information.  *She answered questions from the both political and media organizations which is not easy. *
> 
> Cheers


She gave direction after receiving specialist knowledge from her staff. She is a lawyer, she knows next to nothing about government procurement. She relies on the bureaucrats to give her advice, and *potentially* makes the right decision.

She answered questions because Hansard and media expectations demands it. It is not supposed to be easy. 

Cheers


----------



## Happy Guy

The medical specialists provides the details regarding vaccines and assists in the filing out SOW.
The procurement specialist provides details with respect to the contracting mechanism and the SOW.

The Minister makes the decision based on their recommendations.  At this high level procurement is all about contract law.  As she is a lawyer will be understand a good deal of this, although she will need to learn the terminology.   As the Minister she would have learned procurement  regulations, contracting laws, strategy and negotiation.  

A Brigade Commander maybe a Infantry Officer.  This person will be familiar with the Arty, Armd and Cbt Eng functions after being on the Cbt Tm Comd's crse. The Comd may have learn some things about comms, CSS and Med but this pers is not the expert.  The Comd will rely on the advice and recommendations from the experts before making a decision.  The Minister is the same as is the PM or CEO of any company.  The Minister makes the decision not the procurement expert.

Cheers


----------



## Eye In The Sky

KevinB said:


> None of things see what is going on under the ice...
> While the RCN may not need a sub to break through the ice - I firmly believe it does need a sub that can operate under the ice -- and based on what the Navy folks have posted here and elsewhere it is pretty risky to operate under the ice, if you can't break through in extremis.
> 
> Given the ability of current technology - and the state of the world - I personally believe that one would want to have the pulse of what is going on in ones own waters.
> 
> 
> I know it's a snowballs chance in hell, but I think it is honestly the only credible submarine option for Canada.
> 
> I honestly think IF the RCN attempted to explain this to the .gov and Canadian public - that it would probably get a lot of support -- I mean you can squeeze "True North Strong and Free" for all it's worth - and even the non nuke beatnik's can't make much of a fit - because at the end of the day, it is a cleaner, and safer way to patrol CANADA's Oceans.



Space surveillance assets, LRP aircraft...AOPS (not really worth mentioning IMO;  sorry RCN folks).

None of those have the presence and 'on station' capability a sub, especially a nuc (no snorting required) has.  Satellites can detect, something still needs to go ONSTA.  LRP...sure, if we had more.  14 is our fleet, total.  14...for all the FG, FE, FD....including ones that are 'gone' for TLIR, upgrades, etc. 

If you want presence, on station up the wah-zoo compared to aircraft....a sub.  If you want a capable sub....nuc.

I also agree....snowballs chance in hell...


----------



## MilEME09

Eye In The Sky said:


> Space surveillance assets, LRP aircraft...AOPS, not really worth mentioning IMO.
> 
> None of those have the presence and 'on station' capability a sub, especially a nuc (no snorting required) has.  Satellites can detect, something still needs to go ONSTA.  LRP...sure, if we had more.  14 is our fleet, total.  14...for all the FG, FE, FD....including ones that are 'gone' for TLIR, upgrades, etc.
> 
> If you want presence, on station up the wah-zoo compared to aircraft....a sub.  If you want a capable sub....nuc.
> 
> I also agree....snowballs chance in hell...


Sometimes you just gotta get lucky with a big enough snow ball


----------



## JMCanada

For those who (like myself) would like RCN had SSNs... there is a series of three articles (up to now) by Peter Briggs in the Australian ASPI .
The last one provides interesting assessment on the training requirements and planning for their future nukes.









						Making the shift to nuclear-powered submarines: training and recruiting | The Strategist
					

In the first post in this series, I considered the structure of the safety regimes needed to independently audit the Royal Australian Navy’s procedures and training to operate a nuclear-powered submarine (SSN), along with the ...




					www.aspistrategist.org.au


----------



## Czech_pivo

Happy Guy said:


> Ministers in charge of their departments are aided by their specialists and staffs, but the Minister is the one who gives direction.
> 
> She was in charge and gave necessary direction / priorities to the procurement specialists.  This meant detailed discussions with the medical communities, other government departments for their input, distribution and storage of the vaccines, packaging and so forth - she ensure coordination and synchronization of effort and information.  She answered questions from the both political and media organizations which is not easy.
> 
> Cheers


*Guys, are they shifting her out of this post just in time to avoid being tainted.*

HC will approve Pfizer for kids any day now and when that happens tens of thousands of parents will be clambering to line their kids up for the shots and guess what?  Not a single dose will be available for them.  
Why?
Because HC has ruled that we can't use the existing Pfizer doses on hand and withdraw a smaller dose that is being approved for children 5-11yrs old.  New doses/vials will be required that contain a larger amount of doses per vial and the formulation being specific to this age group.

Anand has said that we have a new, specific contract with Pfizer for children's doses but what she has never, ever said is the length of time required to fulfill this contract.  It might be a few weeks after HC approves or it might be a few months.....but for certain no one is saying a word on timelines yet. For my 2 cents, I'm betting on early months of 2022.

Our current set of contracts, for the adult doses, does specify that we will receive millions of new Pfizer doses in 2022 and even more in 2023, but there are no timelines disclosed to the general public. 

For each children's vial Pfizer produces there is one less adult vial it can produce.  Simple production math.


----------



## Good2Golf

Can the Barracuda shoot Mk48s?


----------



## KevinB

Czech_pivo said:


> For each children's vial Pfizer produces there is one less adult vial it can produce.  Simple production math.


Not necessarily true.
  That is assuming the production is limited by vial production, and not the quantity of the actual vaccine.
Based on what I have seen from production capacity from similar items - I strongly doubt the availability, and loading/sealing of vials is the issue.


Next week we start 5-11's down here.

All of which has nothing to do with Sub's...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Weinie said:


> She gave direction after receiving specialist knowledge from her staff. She is a lawyer, she knows next to nothing about government procurement. She relies on the bureaucrats to give her advice, and *potentially* makes the right decision.
> 
> She answered questions because Hansard and media expectations demands it. It is not supposed to be easy.
> 
> Cheers



And, in this government, the PM micromanages everything through the 'Lip Sticked Pit Bull', and cabinet committees etc, so there's that too.


----------



## CBH99

daftandbarmy said:


> And, in this government, the PM micromanages everything through the 'Lip Sticked Pit Bull', and cabinet committees etc, so there's that too.


Like KevinB hinted at…  getting back to Submarine chat…

-  Yes, we do need a switched on MND that has a genuinely good relationship with the PM.  I personally thought our current MND was going to perform a lot better than he has.  As a guy who deployed several times in a combat theatre, and who was a detective with VPD on the civi-side… my expectations for performance in almost all areas or higher than what he has delivered. 

-  when it comes to military matters I don’t know that we will get another MND that was more switched on than someone who was in, and had deployed a number of times - yet wasn’t able to turn that experience into anything tangible once in a Minister’s post.  (I truly do believe MND is a cursed post.)


-  Yes, the MND & senior flag officers do need to educate their fellow MP’s on these issues.  They need to be personable enough to communicate the issue(s) in a way that their audience will gladly focus on the presentation being made - I don’t think that will be an issue.  

**I think the primary challenge is going to be how to communicate it in such a way that the price tag does not immediately cause the audience to balk.  

** One thing we do terribly in this country is communicate the price tag of a project in a way that makes sense to anybody.  We’ve discussed this before in other threads.   

** I am sure it would be fairly easy to break the costs down into much more palatable sizes, than just throw a project with a giant price tag out there - the way we usually do. This would go a long way in getting much needed projects funded and approved, compared to the current pace of things.   


0.02


----------



## rmc_wannabe

CBH99 said:


> I am sure it would be fairly easy to break the costs down into much more palatable sizes, than just throw a project with a giant price tag out there - the way we usually do. This would go a long way in getting much needed projects funded and approved, compared to the current pace of things.


Ahhh yes. the ol' "turn this procurement of 25k into 5 procurments of 5k" model.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

rmc_wannabe said:


> Ahhh yes. the ol' "turn this procurement of 25k into 5 procurments of 5k" model.


People do that because the procurement system is pretty much broken, so they find work arounds. so rather than fix the issues, they want to punish people for trying to get on with their job.


----------



## Brad Sallows

> As a guy who deployed several times in a combat theatre, and who was a detective with VPD on the civi-side… my expectations for performance in almost all areas or higher than what he has delivered.



Not everyone is above average.


----------



## Czech_pivo

This is what passes as journalism in Canada today.









						French nuclear submarines in Canada?
					

An important file on the office of the new Defense Minister Anita Anand. Last summer, Ottawa launched a study to purchase patrol submarines. France is on its way to winning…




					www.vaughantoday.ca


----------



## KevinB

Czech_pivo said:


> This is what passes as journalism in Canada today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> French nuclear submarines in Canada?
> 
> 
> An important file on the office of the new Defense Minister Anita Anand. Last summer, Ottawa launched a study to purchase patrol submarines. France is on its way to winning…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vaughantoday.ca


Clearly the blame is on that Beren Petty guy


----------



## Good2Golf

Czech_pivo said:


> This is what passes as journalism in Canada today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> French nuclear submarines in Canada?
> 
> 
> An important file on the office of the new Defense Minister Anita Anand. Last summer, Ottawa launched a study to purchase patrol submarines. France is on its way to winning…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vaughantoday.ca


Or it’s actually a somewhat better intentional leak by Government than the usual “information provided by an insider at XXXX because they weren’t authorized to comment publicly…” BS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My take away from that lame article ;

_"Quebec could benefit from the economic benefits of such a contract"_

Maybe we should call them "baguette d'attaque"


----------



## CBH99

rmc_wannabe said:


> Ahhh yes. the ol' "turn this procurement of 25k into 5 procurments of 5k" model.


No dumber audience than a room full of MP’s who don’t seem to have much connection to the real world…

But that’s not even what I’m suggesting.  We include a lot of things in the price tag of our procurements which, in actuality, are NOT part of the procurement at all.  

And while they do fall under operating costs, we also include things in this which are duplicate numbers that do not need to be included.   

We tend to combine the price of procurement and the price of 20+ yrs of sustainment into a number which makes it seem like ‘buying this capability is just too much money.’

Which then gives the government a much appreciated exit.   


If we briefed the MPs of the situation in a way that caught their attention, but we didn’t stack the cards against ourselves in the way that we propose projects, replacing the subs might not be anywhere near as challenging as we make it.  (As a DND.)

0.02


----------



## dapaterson

What are not appropriate costs to charge to the capital cost of a project?  Name them.

And if you claim "Reg F pay", well, it's clear you're not serious.


----------



## Good2Golf

Post-FOC O&M? 😃


----------



## dapaterson

Bah.  Having the funds to operate equipment is overrated.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

By the way, Canada did build subs, out here in BC, during WWI and in the 1980's 

Skip to 1:18


----------



## lenaitch

Czech_pivo said:


> This is what passes as journalism in Canada today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> French nuclear submarines in Canada?
> 
> 
> An important file on the office of the new Defense Minister Anita Anand. Last summer, Ottawa launched a study to purchase patrol submarines. France is on its way to winning…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vaughantoday.ca



Ha-ha.  Vaughan Today - the community news for 'The City Above Toronto'.  I get a kick out her profile:

_“Subtly charming problem solver. Extreme tv enthusiast. Web scholar. Evil beer expert. Music nerd. Food junkie.”_​​Clearly the path to ensure your articles are taken seriously.


----------



## Dale Denton

Not a bad idea for the French to sell us SSNs. A potential alternative to the SSK limitation in range/under ice or very costly SSNs. 

*TL;DR* - Get French tech for cheap, train with France, UK, US, Australia. Semi-CAUKUS? 

*Industry/Political factors*

Boosts their nuclear/SSN/SSBN industry that was severely hurt by AUKUS, gives us a cheap deal to repair its image, brownie points with the French. Potential is there for this to make us a full or semi-member of AUKUS. 
Build in a domestic nuclear energy plan to support industry, maybe fund smaller reactors for a temporary cleaner energy until other sources are found/funded. 
Add additional academic/university involvement for industry and RCN recruitment and R&D.
A supposedly cheaper alternative to buying Astutes or Virginia Class ships, used Subs are no longer an option politically, and Suffrens are better than SSKs that probably won't be of too much use in the Pacific or under-ice due to range and any other factors. 
Show how expensive it can be for us to build it at home, taking a shot at Australia while learning from their experiences.
Build in higher IRBs due to the build to be likely all French (more on that further down).

*Personnel*

They offer to train RCN crews and potential mixed French/Canadian crews for the next while. Send RCN sailors to train with AUKUS crews in weapons and similar systems we'll add to our variant. 
Start a new recruitment and retention pilot project starting with SSN/RCN trades. Listen to industry in how to keep people happy. Properly fund the project so it throws benefits and salary at anyone willing to join the sub service.

*Build Timelines*

_Casabianca_, the 6th and last Suffren is to be launched in 2028 (wiki), maybe neatly slot-in 6-8 RCN variants at the tail end?
_Casabianca _is set to be laid down in 2023, and all previous subs have been laid down every 4 years , so we could set to have our 1st RCN Suffren-variant SSN laid down as early as 2027. 
They sell is as a package that the build at least X number in France (if not all), but selecting a Canadian yard to build some will take years of dogfighting in an industry already rife with it - simply to pick the yard. 
Plus there would be a large gap between the French built and the first Canadian built.
This gets even worse since this is waaay out of our industrial wheelhouse, and would really skyrocket with our procurement design.

Yes, it's a very short time (esp for us) to add enough products with sufficient IRBs in order to meet the 2027 laid down deadline. Its a pipe-dream non-starter ya ya...


----------



## CBH99

dapaterson said:


> What are not appropriate costs to charge to the capital cost of a project?  Name them.
> 
> And if you claim "Reg F pay", well, it's clear you're not serious.


Would I ever expect submarines - regardless of conventional or nuclear - to be crewed be reservists!?  (No disrespect to reservists!)



I’m going to start posting from my old phone and PC again.   

That post above wasn’t supposed to post.  I had it about half written, and was going expand once a few things before actually posting.  

This new work phone is a Samsung, and I’m still getting the hang of it.  I’m liking the phone more and more, but it isn’t as user friendly as my old iPhone was.   


Allow me to edit later tonight or tomorrow, that wasnt supposed to post just yet.  

(Nor my post in Victoria’s crime thread, it posted a few days after I had thought I posted it.  Tech issues here lads.)


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:


> Would I ever expect submarines - regardless of conventional or nuclear - to be crewed be reservists!?  (No disrespect to reservists!)
> 
> 
> 
> I’m going to start posting from my old phone and PC again.
> 
> That post above wasn’t supposed to post.  I had it about half written, and was going expand once a few things before actually posting.
> 
> This new work phone is a Samsung, and I’m still getting the hang of it.  I’m liking the phone more and more, but it isn’t as user friendly as my old iPhone was.
> 
> 
> Allow me to edit later tonight or tomorrow, that wasnt supposed to post just yet.
> 
> (Nor my post in Victoria’s crime thread, it posted a few days after I had thought I posted it.  Tech issues here lads.)


There would be key positions that would have to be Reg F, others that likely could be NavRes, remember the Res Force in the Navy and Air force are handled vastly different from how the army treats, and uses the Ares.


----------



## CBH99

Truth be told I’ve been in and out of hospital all week, and by Monday I am looking at the potential loss of approximately 65% of my leg.  I’ll know by Friday - I will either be totally fine, or finally have a good excuse to skip leg day for a while.   

I distinctly remember writing a post about an article, and I am now almost convinced it must have been a dream.  Because I can’t even Google the situation the article was about.  

I may go into reading mode soon also.  I feel like you only have energy for about 20 minutes at a time and it’s back to resting.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hope all goes well


----------



## KevinB

dapaterson said:


> Bah.  Having the funds to operate equipment is overrated.


That should come out of O&M not Acquisition.

While I don't think the US DoD is the shining example of efficiencies - the cost of the acquisition is the capital equipment itself - not the PM shops, the Requirement Staff, and when the items are fielded, they now become the owners responsiblity.
   Now some contracts due have X years Parts and Maintenance on them, but that goes to the receiver O&M - not the project itself.

The staff is getting paid regardless of what project they work on.
The Field Force needs to maintain and operate the equipment it has - regardless of what equipment it is.

The way the CF looks at acquisitions, I am legitimately surprised that the Ferret scout car and M4 Sherman aren't still plodding around.


----------



## Dana381

LoboCanada said:


> Not a bad idea for the French to sell us SSNs. A potential alternative to the SSK limitation in range/under ice or very costly SSNs.
> 
> *TL;DR* - Get French tech for cheap, train with France, UK, US, Australia. Semi-CAUKUS?
> 
> *Industry/Political factors*
> 
> Boosts their nuclear/SSN/SSBN industry that was severely hurt by AUKUS, gives us a cheap deal to repair its image, brownie points with the French. Potential is there for this to make us a full or semi-member of AUKUS.
> Build in a domestic nuclear energy plan to support industry, maybe fund smaller reactors for a temporary cleaner energy until other sources are found/funded.
> Add additional academic/university involvement for industry and RCN recruitment and R&D.
> A supposedly cheaper alternative to buying Astutes or Virginia Class ships, used Subs are no longer an option politically, and Suffrens are better than SSKs that probably won't be of too much use in the Pacific or under-ice due to range and any other factors.
> Show how expensive it can be for us to build it at home, taking a shot at Australia while learning from their experiences.
> Build in higher IRBs due to the build to be likely all French (more on that further down).
> 
> *Personnel*
> 
> They offer to train RCN crews and potential mixed French/Canadian crews for the next while. Send RCN sailors to train with AUKUS crews in weapons and similar systems we'll add to our variant.
> Start a new recruitment and retention pilot project starting with SSN/RCN trades. Listen to industry in how to keep people happy. Properly fund the project so it throws benefits and salary at anyone willing to join the sub service.
> 
> *Build Timelines*
> 
> _Casabianca_, the 6th and last Suffren is to be launched in 2028 (wiki), maybe neatly slot-in 6-8 RCN variants at the tail end?
> _Casabianca _is set to be laid down in 2023, and all previous subs have been laid down every 4 years , so we could set to have our 1st RCN Suffren-variant SSN laid down as early as 2027.
> They sell is as a package that the build at least X number in France (if not all), but selecting a Canadian yard to build some will take years of dogfighting in an industry already rife with it - simply to pick the yard.
> Plus there would be a large gap between the French built and the first Canadian built.
> This gets even worse since this is waaay out of our industrial wheelhouse, and would really skyrocket with our procurement design.
> 
> Yes, it's a very short time (esp for us) to add enough products with sufficient IRBs in order to meet the 2027 laid down deadline. Its a pipe-dream non-starter ya ya...



I think there is a lot of good reasons to buy the French nuclear subs but I wonder if we can? 

The CAF spent billions converting the Vic's to use U.S. torpedos because they have a bunch in storage that would be scrap if they didn't convert the Vic's. 
I'm sure there is other changes we will want to make to Canadianize them likely using U.S. or British tech. Will the U.S. allow the French to have access to their tech? 

If the U.S. doesn't allow the French access to the we would have to buy the sub shell and install the tech here and that sounds too much like Victoria deja vu. I really think if we do go with SSN's we need to buy complete mature designs. Save the Canadianizing for later when we get familiar with the new subs and their capabilities. Sign and drive! How can the French train us to operate them if we replace multiple systems with our own stuff? We are already familiar with the torpedos so maybe they can be built from the start for the U.S. torpedos (If the U.S. allows it) but the rest of the sub should be left alone.


----------



## JMCanada

CBH99 said:


> Truth be told I’ve been in and out of hospital all week, (...)
> 
> I may go into reading mode soon also.  I feel like you only have energy for about 20 minutes at a time and it’s back to resting.



Take your rests, wish you get good news tomorrow.


----------



## GR66

CBH99 said:


> Truth be told I’ve been in and out of hospital all week, and by Monday I am looking at the potential loss of approximately 65% of my leg.  I’ll know by Friday - I will either be totally fine, or finally have a good excuse to skip leg day for a while.
> 
> I distinctly remember writing a post about an article, and I am now almost convinced it must have been a dream.  Because I can’t even Google the situation the article was about.
> 
> I may go into reading mode soon also.  I feel like you only have energy for about 20 minutes at a time and it’s back to resting.


Take care...hope things go the right way for you.


----------



## Happy Guy

Some information regarding the hard choices that the RAN must make regarding the decision to nuclear.  Eitherway, the Collins Class is expected to last sometime 2048, by which time hopefully their first nuclear submarine will arrive, with the infrastructure in place and sailors trained.

Despite the need for clear nuclear submarines for Canada, the Government will reject this option as they would consider the cost as too exorbitant. The Liberals, NDP, Green Party and the Bloc will automatically reject it out of hand because of nuclear power.  They tend to equate nuclear with nuclear weapons, of which Canada doesn't have any.

Cheers


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Happy Guy said:


> Some information regarding the hard choices that the RAN must make regarding the decision to nuclear.  Eitherway, the Collins Class is expected to last sometime 2048, by which time hopefully their first nuclear submarine will arrive, with the infrastructure in place and sailors trained.
> 
> Despite the need for clear nuclear submarines for Canada, the Government will reject this option as they would consider the cost as too exorbitant. The Liberals, NDP, Green Party and the Bloc will automatically reject it out of hand because of nuclear power.  They tend to equate nuclear with nuclear weapons, of which Canada doesn't have any.
> 
> Cheers


You mean “have nuclear weapons, anymore” (yeah, I know it is a quibble that the weapons were US owned…).


----------



## GR66

Happy Guy said:


> Some information regarding the hard choices that the RAN must make regarding the decision to nuclear.  Eitherway, the Collins Class is expected to last sometime 2048, by which time hopefully their first nuclear submarine will arrive, with the infrastructure in place and sailors trained.
> 
> Despite the need for clear nuclear submarines for Canada, the Government will reject this option as they would consider the cost as too exorbitant. The Liberals, NDP, Green Party and the Bloc will automatically reject it out of hand because of nuclear power.  They tend to equate nuclear with nuclear weapons, of which Canada doesn't have any.
> 
> Cheers


The smart strategy would be to push hard for nuclear power generation using small modular reactors as the only low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels which has the potential to both meet our future electricity needs and achieve our commitments to being carbon neutral.  Once the greens and the woke are on board with the concept of nuclear electricity generation it's a much shorter leap to get acceptance of nuclear power for propulsion in place of that dirty, evil diesel.


----------



## Weinie

Happy Guy said:


> Some information regarding the hard choices that the RAN must make regarding the decision to nuclear.  *Eitherway, the Collins Class is expected to last sometime 2048, by which time hopefully their first nuclear submarine will arrive, with the infrastructure in place and sailors trained.*
> 
> Despite the need for clear nuclear submarines for Canada, the Government will reject this option as they would consider the cost as too exorbitant. The Liberals, NDP, Green Party and the Bloc will automatically reject it out of hand because of nuclear power.  They tend to equate nuclear with nuclear weapons, of which Canada doesn't have any.
> 
> Cheers


I expect the global strategic picture will have morphed significantly in the next 27 years (2048)


----------



## Happy Guy

SeaKingTacco said:


> You mean “have nuclear weapons, anymore” (yeah, I know it is a quibble that the weapons were US owned…).



You're right. Bomarc missiles, Honest John Arty rockets and nuclear bombs that could be carried by the CF 104 Starfighters.

I should have said: "Canada doesn't have any more."


----------



## Czech_pivo

Happy Guy said:


> Some information regarding the hard choices that the RAN must make regarding the decision to nuclear.  Eitherway, the Collins Class is expected to last sometime 2048, by which time hopefully their first nuclear submarine will arrive, with the infrastructure in place and sailors trained.
> 
> Despite the need for clear nuclear submarines for Canada, the Government will reject this option as they would consider the cost as too exorbitant. The Liberals, NDP, Green Party and the Bloc will automatically reject it out of hand because of nuclear power.  They tend to equate nuclear with nuclear weapons, of which Canada doesn't have any.
> 
> Cheers


I wonder how much the BQ would be against them if Davie got some of the work…


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Happy Guy said:


> You're right. Bomarc missiles, Honest John Arty rockets and nuclear bombs that could be carried by the CF 104 Starfighters.
> 
> I should have said: "Canada doesn't have any more."


Don't forget the nuclear AAMs carried by the CF-101 VooDoo's.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Plus nuclear depth charges at Comox and I think Greenwood


----------



## CBH99

KevinB said:


> That should come out of O&M not Acquisition.
> 
> While I don't think the US DoD is the shining example of efficiencies - the cost of the acquisition is the capital equipment itself - not the PM shops, the Requirement Staff, and when the items are fielded, they now become the owners responsiblity.
> Now some contracts due have X years Parts and Maintenance on them, but that goes to the receiver O&M - not the project itself.
> 
> The staff is getting paid regardless of what project they work on.
> The Field Force needs to maintain and operate the equipment it has - regardless of what equipment it is.
> 
> The way the CF looks at acquisitions, I am legitimately surprised that the Ferret scout car and M4 Sherman aren't still plodding around.


KevinB explained what I was getting at.  

Our projects costs enormous amounts of money, the way they are presented to the public - which makes some things a harder sell than they should be.   

The acquisition is one project.  And we _tend_ award a project for 20yrs or more of service support, usually to a Canadian company if at all possible.  

When we publish the numbers, or do a press release, we tend to combine the costs of both projects into one.  

Which I do understand on the one hand, as the taxpayer deserves to know what their tax dollars are being spent on.  But on the other hand, it tends to be reported to the taxpayer in a way that doesn’t fully explain the picture.   


It’s easy for something to sound overly expensive if we say “Canada Chooses X Platform, Will Cost $4.5 Billion!”  (The way the media tends to report things, as it captures attention.  The media then capitalizes on all of the unnecessary outrage that comes as a result of that.)


But it’s not unreasonable when it’s explained that…

 “We are acquiring X number of platforms for roughly $3 billion.  They are more 20% fuel efficient than our older ones, can deliver cargo much faster, are more reliable and much easier to maintain.  The company awarded this contract isn’t Canadian, but they have to spend $3 billion in Canada as part of the deal…”

“The remaining $1.5 billion is for 15 years of maintenance & support, which we would have to pay roughly the same amount regardless of what platform we chose.  Again, if it isn’t awarded to a Canadian company, that company is required to invest an equal amount back into Canada as part of the deal.”


I wasn’t suggesting not accounting for O&M funds.  I’m saying that when we present such projects to Canadians, and their local MP’s - we have to perhaps change the way we communicate about certain things.  

I feel like if we do that (my example above may not have been the greatest) we wouldn’t have to push so hard on certain projects.


----------



## CBH99

Colin Parkinson said:


> Plus nuclear depth charges at Comox and I think Greenwood


😳  I feel like nuclear depth charges are a horrible idea for oh so many reasons?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CBH99 said:


> 😳  I feel like nuclear depth charges are a horrible idea for oh so many reasons?


yes but they existed and my buddy used to guard them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin Parkinson said:


> Plus nuclear depth charges at Comox and I think Greenwood


AKA- “little buckets of sunshine”


----------



## SeaKingTacco

CBH99 said:


> 😳  I feel like nuclear depth charges are a horrible idea for oh so many reasons?


The Sea King was wired for them. I am not sure how in the world the helicopter could have possibly gotten out of the blast radius in time…


----------



## Weinie

SeaKingTacco said:


> The Sea King was wired for them. I am not sure how in the world the helicopter could have possibly gotten out of the blast radius in time…


Just like the 104's. Launch,and then immediately do an inverted loop and run as fast as you could


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> You mean “have nuclear weapons, anymore” (yeah, I know it is a quibble that the weapons were US owned…).


Brought to Canada by Nobel Peace Prize recipient Lester B. Pearson…a Liberal, no less!


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> “The remaining $1.5 billion is for 15 years of maintenance & support, which we would have to pay roughly the same amount regardless of what platform we chose.  Again, if it isn’t awarded to a Canadian company, that company is required to invest an equal amount back into Canada as part of the deal.”


While that can be a way to explain some of it -- I still don't think it really needs to be public info.

I am a big fan of Don't Ask, Don't Tell as far as O&M goes.   O&M is the day to day running of any entity.
   Now unexpected Operations - like a Combat deployment will bleed it like a sieve - and usually Governments add money to the Military budgets to cover what they have asked of their Forces.

  The problem with upfront cost loading of O&M for a platform is, it's utter bullshit.
     No one knows what the lifespan is of a platform in the CF - until one has done it.
 You can have a rough idea - but any company that signs a FFP contract for that you know has highballed it to hell, and has several clauses to bail if you take it to war etc.

Sure you need a rough idea to factor into your O&M at whatever level accounts for it - but to think it is a fixed cost over X years is a fallacy.

I'm not sure how Canada counts O&M for certain fleets - y'all don't have a TACOM type entity AFAIK for ground vehicles - probably because the O&M was rolled up into the Project cost.

 But for example what happens in Canada if a LAV 6.0 is destroyed 
a) Combat operations
b) training use
c) arson 

How does the replacement get costed, and is it different for the different scenarios @Infanteer @McG @dapaterson I know at least one of you will have that answer.


----------



## Happy Guy

Colin Parkinson said:


> yes but they existed and my buddy used to guard them.


That I didn't know.  I agree, if the Sea King would have destroyed themselves too if they had launched them.


----------



## Happy Guy

GR66 said:


> The smart strategy would be to push hard for nuclear power generation using small modular reactors as the only low-carbon alternative to fossil fuels which has the potential to both meet our future electricity needs and achieve our commitments to being carbon neutral.  Once the greens and the woke are on board with the concept of nuclear electricity generation it's a much shorter leap to get acceptance of nuclear power for propulsion in place of that dirty, evil diesel.


Speaking of which the Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is planning to do that as well as New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Alberta. Despite this more green alternative people are still afraid of Nuclear Power Plants because of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima.

Cheers


----------



## Good2Golf

…because most people don’t know the difference between a deuterium-moderated heavy water reactor and a graphite-moderated boiling light water reactor.   But I’m sure a few hours on the Internet makes them an equivalent of a nuclear physicist.

Heck, most people these days couldn’t change the tire on their car, even though they’ve informed themselves how it’s done from the Internet…


----------



## Swampbuggy

CBH99 said:


> Truth be told I’ve been in and out of hospital all week, and by Monday I am looking at the potential loss of approximately 65% of my leg.  I’ll know by Friday - I will either be totally fine, or finally have a good excuse to skip leg day for a while.
> 
> I distinctly remember writing a post about an article, and I am now almost convinced it must have been a dream.  Because I can’t even Google the situation the article was about.
> 
> I may go into reading mode soon also.  I feel like you only have energy for about 20 minutes at a time and it’s back to resting.


My thoughts are with you, my friend. Best of luck!


----------



## McG

KevinB said:


> How does the replacement get costed, and is it different for the different scenarios


It definitely varies depending on what is being bought, and if it is replacing something that did basically the same job.  We have a tendency to magic-away the detailed analysis of O&M for systems that replace similar older systems ... and this applies to dollar costs and PYs.  So, for example, an APC with an RWS replaces an APC with a pintle mount, but our estimates don't consider the extra EO Tech and dollar costs that RWS will impose on the system.

I would like to imagine that the navy and air force are better at this, but I don't really know.


----------



## Happy Guy

I used to work on the AVGP (Grizzly, Bison, Husky) Project in the early 2000s.  This project was looking at the modernization of this fleets which brought the new variants of the BISON ambs and  so forth.  When I worked on the project the Army was well aware of the cost and made decisions that directly impacted it.  The Project Management Teams works to deliver the Army's stated requirements

There is a detailed analysis of the logistical impact of each potential variant upon the user, which in our case was the Canadian Army.  Since I was working in the Integrated Logistics Systems side there were plans and schedules.  Here were just a few of them :


training plans for vehicle, weapons, material, EO techs to work on the new components.  There was an training impact analysis done by the RCEME school
requirement for specialized tools and training for its use
revised maintenance schedules - directly confirms requirement for additional trained manpower
training plans for driving and operating variant.  These were given to the Armour Branch for analysis and incorporated into then operator courses
spare parts scaling at all levels.  How much more space is required in the workshop and on the truck
comprehensive technical drawings and development of technical publications

There is a costing for operating the vehicle but it dependent on various assumptions based on usage and so forth.

Many of the issues with maintenance within the Army be attributed to the following: lack of trained technicians, lack of proper driver maintenance and reporting of faults, and related to lack of trained technicians - tasking of manpower to perform other tasks.

You have to report O&M as part of the project cost because many our weapons platforms uses sophisicated weapons systems that must be maintained by the contractor.  We just don't have the expertise or can't retain the skilled technicians.  This is the same for most Western countries around the world.  The CAF needs to know this for budgetary planning purposes.  The CAF is expensive to operate because the Navy, Army and Air Force wants the latest technology.  In general : high tech = high operational / logistical cost.

I am that Air Force and Navy project teams are like this since we are gpverned by the same regulations.

Cheers


----------



## KevinB

Happy Guy said:


> You have to report O&M as part of the project cost because many our weapons platforms uses sophisicated weapons systems that must be maintained by the contractor.  We just don't have the expertise or can't retain the skilled technicians.


That is what the contractor wants you to think...
   Trust me I am a Defense Contractor and here to help 
(but seriously I have been on this side of the aisle since 2009 -and it doesn't do the Services any favors)
   I can pretty much guarantee over half of the Contractors team are prior service folks - making more now - and the contractor making even more.
  This is the same model used in the US - and basically everyone I run into on a base working for one of the OEM's is prior service - Senior Officers/GOFO for sales and BD - and NCO tech trades for the actual work.

Part of this is due to Service related manning caps (PY's) and the fact that no Western Army has an acceptable number of support personnel to do the work.


Happy Guy said:


> This is the same for most Western countries around the world.  The CAF needs to know this for budgetary planning purposes.  The CAF is expensive to operate because the Navy, Army and Air Force wants the latest technology.  In general : high tech = high operational / logistical cost.
> 
> I am that Air Force and Navy project teams are like this since we are gpverned by the same regulations.
> 
> Cheers


Part of the problem with those FFP, or Cost Plus Support Contracts is they generally stick you into the Manufacturers upgrade schedule - as you CANNOT do certain things to the platform without approval - so you can add XYZ part to the system - even if it is a better fit for your needs.


----------



## Czech_pivo

An interesting read -

Why Is Canada Missing From the Indo-Pacific?​It’s time to bring Canada more fully and formally into the joint Indo-Pacific security fold.









						Why Is Canada Missing From the Indo-Pacific?
					

It’s time to bring Canada more fully and formally into the joint Indo-Pacific security fold.



					thediplomat.com
				




"Due to its deeply incised geography and over 40,000 islands of varying sizes, the actual length of Canada’s Pacific coast is over 25,000 km, compared to Australia’s Pacific coastline of about 33,000 km."

"Canada is .... overwhelmingly dependent on Pacific-based maritime trade, freedom of navigation, and maintenance of the rules-based order of ocean governance, security, and safety of shipping."

"The incursion of a four-ship Chinese task force into the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) off Alaska in late August should send a clear signal to Canada also" - _I didn't read/hear about this in any Canadian news outlet, did anyone on here? - I found it only in US news sources, here it is out of Alaska - note the timing, very close to when HdW would be crossing through the area. - Coast Guard encountered Chinese warships in the Aleutians in August

"*Canada: Punching Below Its Weight?"

"*a population of nearly 40 million, compared to Australia’s circa 25 million; and a GDP of over US$1.7 trillion, compared to Australia’s US$1.4 trillion." - _hmmm, to be only 300m$ USD ahead of the Ozzie's and having 13ish million  more people is not a good thing

"For 2020 the total Canadian defense budget was US$22.8 billion, only 1.4 percent of GDP, while for 2021-2022 Australia’s consolidated defense budget is AU$44.6 billion (around US$32.4 billion), $10 billion more than Canada in real terms and just over 2 percent of GDP."

"perhaps the most startling difference is that Australia is extremely active in forming and participating in, and indeed driving, defense and security alliances, partnerships, and cooperative arrangements in the Indo-Pacific region."

"despite being a Pacific nation.....Canada is notably “missing in action” in terms of international development aid, with only $11.86 million spent in the Pacific Islands in 2019 compared to Australia’s $865 million, New Zealand’s $253 million, and China’s $169 million that year." - _ Don't forget that of the 11.86$m, just over 2$m of it was spent in Communist China

"Canada does participate, with relatively small numbers of personnel (tens to hundreds), in Pacific-based multilateral exercises......However, Canada does not undertake these activities under any formal treaty or alliance agreements. Canada’s participation is operational and largely ad-hoc, based on “customary practice” and technical engagement."

"For various reasons such calls have not gained traction. This is due in part to the concentration of Canada’s population, industry, and government in the Atlantic-focused east, and a general lack of recognition among Canadians of their status, opportunities, and vulnerabilities as a Pacific nation. The generally low priority placed on defense investment by successive Canadian governments and an over-reliance on the U.S. umbrella have not helped,"_


----------



## Happy Guy

KevinB said:


> That is what the contractor wants you to think...
> Trust me I am a Defense Contractor and here to help
> (but seriously I have been on this side of the aisle since 2009 -and it doesn't do the Services any favors)
> I can pretty much guarantee over half of the Contractors team are prior service folks - making more now - and the contractor making even more.
> This is the same model used in the US - and basically everyone I run into on a base working for one of the OEM's is prior service - Senior Officers/GOFO for sales and BD - and NCO tech trades for the actual work.
> 
> Part of this is due to Service related manning caps (PY's) and the fact that no Western Army has an acceptable number of support personnel to do the work.
> 
> Part of the problem with those FFP, or Cost Plus Support Contracts is they generally stick you into the Manufacturers upgrade schedule - as you CANNOT do certain things to the platform without approval - so you can add XYZ part to the system - even if it is a better fit for your needs.


Cheers


----------



## Uzlu

A good article from the Naval Association of Canada--A Canadian Patrol Submarine: What are the Options?  The author of the article lists the following as the contenders:

_Blekinge_ class
_Taigei_ class
Type 216
Shortfin Barracuda
S-80 Plus class
_Dosan Ahn Changho_ class
The author of the article, however, does not list the Type 212CD as a contender.  Yes, it might be the smallest of these seven classes.  But it might also be the only class of these seven classes to serve in a minimum of two NATO navies.  

The author of the article does say that “given the long association between Canada and the Netherlands, and the mutual commonality in requirements, the submarine design the Dutch select for the replacement of their four Walrus-class submarines should be of particular interest to Canada.”

The Dutch will choose from the _Blekinge_ class, Shortfin Barracuda, or Type 212CD.  They rejected the S-80 Plus.


----------



## Maxman1

Czech_pivo said:


> _*"*a population of nearly 40 million, compared to Australia’s circa 25 million; and a GDP of over US$1.7 trillion, compared to Australia’s US$1.4 trillion." - _hmmm, to be only 300m$ USD ahead of the Ozzie's and having 13ish million  more people is not a good thing



Give Canadian realtors a break, there's only so many houses to sell.


----------



## JMCanada

Uzlu said:


> The author of the article, however, does not list the Type 212CD as a contender.  Yes, it might be the smallest of these seven classes.  But it might also be the only class of these seven classes to serve in a minimum of two NATO navies.


Thanks for the input.
As long as the germans are there, the name doesn't matter so much. Name it 216 (new, unproven design) name it 212CD variant for Canada (departing from an on-going project). Let's the germans make their best offer according to (yet to be set) Canadian requirements. ;-)

This is not the case as with the french Barracuda vs. Scorpene, clearly two different designs. I believe Type 216 is mostly an upsized Type 212.


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:


> As long as the germans are there, the name doesn't matter so much. Name it 216 (new, unproven design) name it 212CD variant for Canada (departing from an on-going project). Let's the germans make their best offer according to (yet to be set) Canadian requirements. ;-)
> 
> This is not the case as with the french Barracuda vs. Scorpene, clearly two different designs. I believe Type 216 is mostly an upsized Type 212.


The _Walrus_-class submarine is larger than the _Victoria_-class submarine.  But ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems offered the Dutch the Type 212CD and not the Type 216.  Do you not find this at least a bit unusual?  I agree, however, that Canada should just release the requirements and let ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems make their offer—Type 216, Type 212CD, or any other design.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu said:


> The _Walrus_-class submarine is larger than the _Victoria_-class submarine.  But ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems offered the Dutch the Type 212CD and not the Type 216.  Do you not find this at least a bit unusual?  I agree, however, that Canada should just release the requirements and let ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems make their offer—Type 216, Type 212CD, or any other design.


Reading between the lines of the excellent analysis I find it hard to believe replacement subs will ever be procured in light of Canadian political realities, costs of CSsC and new fighters, and increasing domestic focus for CAF. And, as the article notes, there is that visibility problem. Plus no way they can be built in Canada, no great jobs! jobs! jobs!

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Happy Guy

You are correct that the possibility of a submarine replacement for the Victoria Class looks quite sparse indeed.  There are fiscal pressure brought on because of the pandemic and funding pressures due to the modernization of the RCAF (fighters, Griffon helicopter replacement, Long range patrol aircraft replacement) and RCN (CSC, submarine, Kingston class replacement).

If DND/CAF can craft a well written letter not just focusing on the enhance capabilities that a submarine can bring but also on the economic aspects as well. True Canada cannot build a submarine (no shipyard, no skilled workforce, lack of industrial base and so forth) but it can build the components necessary for the submarine such as the complex command management systems and so forth. There is also the maintenance required after commissioning, the mid-life upgrades and so forth that could be done in Canada.

Of course what DND/CAF needs is a comprehensive major project spending plan, linked to the defence policy, and equally as important the direct and indirect effect such a spending plan will have on the economy - jobs, jobs, jobs. 

Perhaps I'm being too optimistic.


----------



## suffolkowner

The Dutch aren't helping us out too much as they drag their decision out for another year









						Netherlands’ Walrus-Class Submarine Replacement Program Facing Delays - Naval News
					

The Dutch "Walrus-class replacement program" will take more time than initially planned. The delay in the procurement of four new generation submarines to replace the four in-service Walrus-class submarines of the Royal Netherlands Navy is because talks with the three competing shipbuilders has...




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maybe they are, we just spent whacks of money upgrading ours, so perhaps by the time they are almost completed their run, we can add ours onto it. the timing might be better if they start in a few years.


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin Parkinson said:


> Maybe they are, we just spent whacks of money upgrading ours, so perhaps by the time they are almost completed their run, we can add ours onto it. the timing might be better if they start in a few years.


Maybe, I doubt we're making a decision quicker than they are anyway.

On the 212CD it's 73m long with a 10m beam so that is already bigger than the Walrus at 67.8m long and a 8.4m beam so the 216 derivative might not be that different spatially, throw in a 10m or 15m plug


----------



## Maxman1

In other news, a few days ago a walrus climbed aboard a _Walrus_ class submarine.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Problem with putting a "plug" into a sub is they have a very delicate centre of buoyancy and getting that right takes a lot of calculation and design work. Ships are more forgiving and can often benefit by putting a addition to the hull, but subs can be a different story.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

oops


----------



## dimsum

Maxman1 said:


> In other news, a few days ago a walrus climbed aboard a _Walrus_ class submarine.


Obviously the ship's mascot.


----------



## Underway

Happy Guy said:


> You are correct that the possibility of a submarine replacement for the Victoria Class looks quite sparse indeed.  There are fiscal pressure brought on because of the pandemic and funding pressures due to the modernization of the RCAF (fighters, Griffon helicopter replacement, Long range patrol aircraft replacement) and RCN (CSC, submarine, Kingston class replacement).
> 
> If DND/CAF can craft a well written letter not just focusing on the enhance capabilities that a submarine can bring but also on the economic aspects as well. True Canada cannot build a submarine (no shipyard, no skilled workforce, lack of industrial base and so forth) but it can build the components necessary for the submarine such as the complex command management systems and so forth. There is also the maintenance required after commissioning, the mid-life upgrades and so forth that could be done in Canada.
> 
> Of course what DND/CAF needs is a comprehensive major project spending plan, linked to the defence policy, and equally as important the direct and indirect effect such a spending plan will have on the economy - jobs, jobs, jobs.
> 
> Perhaps I'm being too optimistic.


Even Canadian shipyards reject the idea of building a submarine in Canada.  A committee hearing a few years ago asked the head of Davie (before they lobbied themselves into the NSS) if Canada should build submarines.  He laughed and said, "absolutely not due to the specialist yards that would be required".


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good article by Dave Perry of CGAI on whether Canada can afford new subs for RCN (plus very costly CSCs) in addition to large sums that will be required for NORAD modernization (well beyond North Warning System )?



> Dollars and Sense:
> Canadian Patrol Submarines: Complementing or Competing with Continental Defence?
> 
> 
> https://navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol17num2/cnr_vol17_2_Perry.pdf



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## OldSolduer

Maxman1 said:


> In other news, a few days ago a walrus climbed aboard a _Walrus_ class submarine.


I'd thought the crew may have visited the Grant in Winnipeg and brought this back....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Even Canadian shipyards reject the idea of building a submarine in Canada.  A committee hearing a few years ago asked the head of Davie (before they lobbied themselves into the NSS) if Canada should build submarines.  He laughed and said, "absolutely not due to the specialist yards that would be required".


I am actually happy about that response, it clears the decks of the possibility of a "Made in Canada" sub. So they can focus on a design and builder overseas. No doubt so politician will bring it up again later and force everyone to stop and educate them.


----------



## Dana381

Colin Parkinson said:


> I am actually happy about that response, it clears the decks of the possibility of a "Made in Canada" sub. So they can focus on a design and builder overseas. No doubt so politician will bring it up again later and force everyone to stop and educate them.



Asking questions like if we can build something here is what we want them to do, If some thing can be built here by all means do it for the sake of the economy. The problem lies when they won't listen to reason when told that we can't/shouldn't build something here and press on stubbornly.


----------



## OldSolduer

Dana381 said:


> Asking questions like if we can build something here is what we want them to do, If some thing can be built here by all means do it for the sake of the economy. The problem lies when they won't listen to reason when told that we can't/shouldn't build something here and press on stubbornly.


A submarine is probably one of the most tech advanced platforms on the ocean. Its not something you build on a whim.


----------



## KevinB

Dana381 said:


> Asking questions like if we can build something here is what we want them to do, If some thing can be built here by all means do it for the sake of the economy. The problem lies when they won't listen to reason when told that we can't/shouldn't build something here and press on stubbornly.


While it could be done - it would be ruinous financially - having seen a US Sub Construction drydock - it is vastly different that a ship construction dry dock - - the only way it would make sense is if the RCN was going to buy 30 or so boats - and commit to a replacement cycle that the dock was kicking out a boat every 6 months to a year.

 Even then it would be a small  LARGE fortune.
   You would be better off throwing several 10's of billions to the US for 12 SeaWolf class SSN's


----------



## Dana381

I agree with both of you completely. I didn't always, but I now see the reasoning for not building subs in Canada.

My point was that we want our politicians to ask questions so they can make informed decisions. That's their job. The problem lies when they won't listen to reason when the truth is presented to them. Few if any politicians have a deep knowledge of how construction works never mind naval construction. Most politicians are white collar their whole life and can't even change a tire. These people are trusted to make these decisions for us and they need to ask lots of questions to be well informed. When they don't ask questions and assume building a sub is no different then building a Frigate that's when the problems begin. Ignorant and teachable politicians can be informed/educated, Stubborn and ignorant politicians can destroy a country very quickly.


----------



## KevinB

The role of education should be done by both Senior Level Military and Ministerial Staff.
     Both in terms of needed capabilities - and what can or cannot be done domestically.

Of course that assume that either of the above groups know...


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:


> Good article by Dave Perry of CGAI on whether Canada can afford new subs for RCN (plus very costly CSCs) in addition to large sums that will be required for NORAD modernization (well beyond North Warning System )?
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


* "the RCN should think long and hard about how new submarines can help keep Canada strong at home and secure in North America before focusing on how they can be engaged in foreign waters"..... *

I take this to mean that he's questioning the need for a 'blue water' navy and the focus should be a coastal defence force, like the Irish or the Icelandic.  Seems to forget that we need to have the sea lanes open for us to survive, must assume that the good old Americans and the Brits will pick up our slack. 

I also question his math.  He says *"Canadians should expect something on the order of 10$ budgeted to buy each new sub"*.....of which the initial purchase cost is 5$ billion per sub.  Using the estimate of 4$ billion over the lifetime for a CSC, is the cost to buy/operate a sub really 2.5 times the cost of a CSC over the same timeframe?


----------



## KevinB

Czech_pivo said:


> I also question his math.  He says *"Canadians should expect something on the order of 10$ budgeted to buy each new sub"*.....of which the initial purchase cost is 5$ billion per sub.  Using the estimate of 4$ billion over the lifetime for a CSC, is the cost to buy/operate a sub really 2.5 times the cost of a CSC over the same timeframe?


Well if you bought 60 - the 688 LA Class SSN was 1.9B each in 2019 USD...
  Overhauls running at 400-460M USD 2021 $

Virginia Class run 2.8 B current USD, however obvious buying 10-12 would have been more expensive.


I suspect he took his costing off the next gen USN SSN(X) 
CBO: Navy's Next Nuclear Attack Submarine Could Cost $5.5B a Hull - USNI News


----------



## MarkOttawa

Very interesting long piece at _The Drive's_ "War Zone", lots in second part on various types of AIP:



> The Truth About The Growing Diesel Submarine Threat From A Veteran Sub Hunter​
> The proliferation of ever more capable diesel-electric submarines is a major problem the U.S. Navy doesn't appear ready to deal with.​
> By              Kevin Noonan                    November 2, 2021
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Navy Isn't Prepared To Face The Growing Diesel Submarine Threat
> 
> 
> A veteran submarine hunter explains how the proliferation of ever more capable diesel-electric submarines is a major problem for the U.S. Navy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com



Mark 
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

KevinB said:


> Well if you bought 60 - the 688 LA Class SSN was 1.9B each in 2019 USD...
> Overhauls running at 400-460M USD 2021 $
> 
> Virginia Class run 2.8 B current USD, however obvious buying 10-12 would have been more expensive.





KevinB said:


> I suspect he took his costing off the next gen USN SSN(X)
> CBO: Navy's Next Nuclear Attack Submarine Could Cost $5.5B a Hull - USNI News


So he based his costing on a nuclear submarine that doesn’t even exist yet, but _could_ cost $5.5B per hull.  🤦🏼‍♂️

Since we are already dealing with imaginary designs, it _could_ also cost $10B per hull.  I mean why not??

I swear, these defense experts are only experts in sounding unbelievably dumb.  That thing better also fly for that price…


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> I swear, these defense experts are only experts in sounding unbelievably dumb. That thing better also fly for that price…


CBO are not defense experts.  From their website, they report on anything that Congress spends money on.  



> CBO is strictly nonpartisan; conducts objective, impartial analysis; and hires its employees solely on the basis of professional competence without regard to political affiliation. CBO does not make policy recommendations, and each report and cost estimate summarizes the methodology underlying the analysis. Learn more about CBO's commitment to objectivity and transparency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Introduction to CBO | Congressional Budget Office
> 
> 
> CBO is strictly nonpartisan; conducts objective, impartial analysis; and hires its employees solely on the basis of professional competence without regard to political affiliation. CBO does not make policy recommendations, and each report and cost estimate summarizes the methodology underlying...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbo.gov


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:


> Trudeau would not understand a "military or strategic threat" if it were heading towards him with full armour, gun and "tankety tankety" treads.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


No news or updates on this.  Not sure if it occurred off the record and behind the scenes in Rome or Glasgow. Clock is ticking if this is to occur during the timeframe that the French would like.


----------



## CBH99

dimsum said:


> CBO are not defense experts.  From their website, they report on anything that Congress spends money on.


I wasn’t referring to the CBO.   

I was referring to the folks who are contacted by our Canadian media as ‘defence experts’ - a well known one being Mr. Staples.  

I am somewhat familiar with Dave Perry’s work, but not familiar enough to have formed any sort of opinion on whether I agree with his general positions.  

But saying we should expect to pay roughly $10B per sub, when a brand new nuclear powered Virginia-class for the USN costs a fraction of that?  

It generates public controversy where there doesn’t necessarily need to be any.  And it frustrates people who actually work in the professions that they comment about.  


For example, he could have just as easily have said “until we look at what designs qualify for our needs, and what systems we will use - it’s far too early to be speculating on a cost.”


0.02


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> I wasn’t referring to the CBO.
> 
> I was referring to the folks who are contacted by our Canadian media as ‘defence experts’ - a well known one being Mr. Staples.
> 
> I am somewhat familiar with Dave Perry’s work, but not familiar enough to have formed any sort of opinion on whether I agree with his general positions.
> 
> But saying we should expect to pay roughly $10B per sub, when a brand new nuclear powered Virginia-class for the USN costs a fraction of that?
> 
> It generates public controversy where there doesn’t necessarily need to be any.  And it frustrates people who actually work in the professions that they comment about.
> 
> 
> For example, he could have just as easily have said “until we look at what designs qualify for our needs, and what systems we will use - it’s far too early to be speculating on a cost.”
> 
> 
> 0.02


Offer the USN $420m USD for each LA SSN they are replacing with the Virginias - as long as they go through refit just prior -- so revenue neutral for the USN - and work out a mixed fleet crew transition system to train up.

Sell it as a super cheap option, that keeps ugly Nuclear stuff from going into the landfill -- win win win


----------



## CBH99

KevinB said:


> Offer the USN $420m USD for each LA SSN they are replacing with the Virginias - as long as they go through refit just prior -- so revenue neutral for the USN - and work out a mixed fleet crew transition system to train up.
> 
> Sell it as a super cheap option, that keeps ugly Nuclear stuff from going into the landfill -- win win win


KevinB,

I realize you probably have 0 interest.  But can you run for office up here please?  Like pretty please?  

That idea is pure genius.  Retrofitted & recently modernized LA class subs, cheaper than a new conventionally powered boat, that allows us to maintain sovereignty, AAANNNDDD prevents nuclear waste from going to landfills??

🤯❤️

Pure genius.


----------



## dimsum

CBH99 said:


> KevinB,
> 
> I realize you probably have 0 interest.  But can you run for office up here please?  Like pretty please?
> 
> That idea is pure genius.  Retrofitted & recently modernized LA class subs, cheaper than a new conventionally powered boat, that allows us to maintain sovereignty, AAANNNDDD prevents nuclear waste from going to landfills??
> 
> 🤯❤️
> 
> Pure genius.


I can see the attack ad already: 

"We're buying old, used US nuclear submarines."


----------



## KevinB

dimsum said:


> I can see the attack ad already:
> 
> "We're buying old, used US nuclear submarines."


It's a green power solution - you point to climate change - and the fact this is fresh refurb (unlike old decaying British Subs) - and then you say only Donald Trump wouldn't like this deal...


----------



## CBH99

KevinB said:


> It's a green power solution - you point to climate change - and the fact this is fresh refurb (unlike old decaying British Subs) - and then you say only Donald Trump wouldn't like this deal...


Could also say “This will create over 1000 new jobs across the country!”

Just be vague on which country…



Trust me.  It’ll pass the apathy test.


----------



## Dale Denton

dimsum said:


> I can see the attack ad already:
> 
> "We're buying old, used US nuclear submarines."


Yup, unless their was much emphasis on the 'full refit' which would be vague.

Maybe strip out some VLS tubes out of the first one and use it as a AUKUS training ship, housing additional training crew, classrooms even. Fund a new AUKUS SSN training centre in Canada, the savings may shut up a hesitant USN/RN, due to the already strained SSN crew numbers. Hire out USN for the mixed crew training, add in some RAN and RN participation.



[In 2022] Two Los Angeles-class attack submarines will be recycled: Providence (SSN 719) and Oklahoma City (SSN 723). Source

It's a cheaper political win, less expensive than building a new fleet of SSNs for $60B+ or less effective and similarly expensive SSKs. People would say something if we divested a key strategic capability, and it would feed right into peoples heads (and the world) that we are increasingly pacifist. Coupled with the rest of the world building more Subs than ever, it would (and be) a huge step backwards for us.


----------



## Underway

Canada needs to start looking for new subs now, says report

Without plan for new submarines Canada faces defence gap in the Arctic

Some discussion on submarines.  Warming the turn has already started appearing.  National Post is hardly a hostile new site though.  Very pro-defence.


----------



## KevinB

LoboCanada said:


> Yup, unless their was much emphasis on the 'full refit' which would be vague.
> 
> Maybe strip out some VLS tubes out of the first one and use it as a AUKUS training ship, housing additional training crew, classrooms even. Fund a new AUKUS SSN training centre in Canada, the savings may shut up a hesitant USN/RN, due to the already strained SSN crew numbers. Hire out USN for the mixed crew training, add in some RAN and RN participation.
> 
> 
> 
> [In 2022] Two Los Angeles-class attack submarines will be recycled: Providence (SSN 719) and Oklahoma City (SSN 723). Source
> 
> It's a cheaper political win, less expensive than building a new fleet of SSNs for $60B+ or less effective and similarly expensive SSKs. People would say something if we divested a key strategic capability, and it would feed right into peoples heads (and the world) that we are increasingly pacifist. Coupled with the rest of the world building more Subs than ever, it would (and be) a huge step backwards for us.


4 more in 2024
2 in 2025
3 in 2026

How many does Canada need?
 The Providence is currently the oldest service SSN in the USN, and was commissioned in July 1985.
Which admittedly is older than the Vics - but they aren't at end of service life - she surfaced the North Pole July 1 2008 (Happy Canada Day)
   They are just being replaced by newer models - with refit they could see 20+ more years of service.


----------



## Dale Denton

KevinB said:


> 4 more in 2024
> 2 in 2025
> 3 in 2026
> 
> How many does Canada need?
> The Providence is currently the oldest service SSN in the USN, and was commissioned in July 1985.
> Which admittedly is older than the Vics - but they aren't at end of service life - she surfaced the North Pole July 1 2008 (Happy Canada Day)
> They are just being replaced by newer models - with refit they could see 20+ more years of service.



Arguably, 6 has been floated as the minimal needed for 1 on patrol in the arctic (for under ice training), and one out in the Pacific with allies.

Another idea would be to buy 6 new SSNs from France to bolster its SNN industry for a discount. But do we really wanna be on that side of the disagreement with Australia/AUKUS?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Point number 1 that most have to remember is the the US has ‘first right of refusal’ so to speak, when comes to us (or anyone else) attempting to buy either a UK or French nuc sub. They have joint treaties/agreements with both the UK and France to stop such sales.
It’s the first huddle we’d need to cross in going down this path and there would be little incentive for the US to sign off on us obtaining French nuc subs instead of US or UK nuc subs.


----------



## Czech_pivo

LoboCanada said:


> Arguably, 6 has been floated as the minimal needed for 1 on patrol in the arctic (for under ice training), and one out in the Pacific with allies.
> 
> Another idea would be to buy 6 new SSNs from France to bolster its SNN industry for a discount. But do we really wanna be on that side of the disagreement with Australia/AUKUS?


I’d rather build 12 CSC’s and go with 9 subs instead.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We could work this into our nuclear sub deal to get rid of US nuclear waste for a discount on the subs






						OPG and Moltex launch project to recycle Candu fuel - Nuclear Engineering International
					

Ontario Power Generation (OPG) said on 30 March that its Centre for Canadian Nuclear Sustainability (CCNS) has joined forces with Moltex Energy in a project aimed at recycling used fuel from Candu reactors. CCNS will provide CAD1 million...




					www.neimagazine.com


----------



## Dale Denton

Czech_pivo said:


> I’d rather build 12 CSC’s and go with 9 subs instead.


We could probably get away with actually _keeping _15 CSCs. The publicity and cost of an SSN project would keep CSC off everyone's radar!


----------



## Maxman1

Speaking of, seeing as the Americans will be building a frigate named USS _Chesapeake_, there's a Shannon, Quebec, so we could name one of them after the HMS _Shannon_ while keeping the naming convention for frigates.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile back in the US









						Metallurgist Admits She Falsified Test Results for Steel Used in Navy Submarines (Published 2021)
					

For more than 30 years, Elaine Thomas altered test results for more than 240 steel productions while working for a foundry that provides metal for U.S. Navy submarines.




					www.nytimes.com


----------



## Underway

LoboCanada said:


> Arguably, 6 has been floated as the minimal needed for 1 on patrol in the arctic (for under ice training), and one out in the Pacific with allies.
> 
> Another idea would be to buy 6 new SSNs from France to bolster its SNN industry for a discount. But do we really wanna be on that side of the disagreement with Australia/AUKUS?


In order to have 1 ship/boat at sea at all times, you need 3 ships/boats total.  1 in maintenance, 1 operational, 1 in "regeneration (working up to operational/training).

As Canada really has a two navy challenge (East and West Coast navies) that pretty much means 6 boats. In an ideal world there would be 9. (6 West and 3 East) but I don't even know if we have the people for the four we have.


----------



## Dale Denton

Underway said:


> In order to have 1 ship/boat at sea at all times, you need 3 ships/boats total.  1 in maintenance, 1 operational, 1 in "regeneration (working up to operational/training).
> 
> As Canada really has a two navy challenge (East and West Coast navies) that pretty much means 6 boats. In an ideal world there would be 9. (6 West and 3 East) but I don't even know if we have the people for the four we have.


My stated idea for a plan would allow for us to start with LA Classes and slowly add more to the fleet as we had enough of a stable crew roster to support the hulls. Work our way up the Blocks until we get to 6, in a decade or two, and by then we could find out if we want new US built Virginia Class or the UK's SSN (R). 

Perhaps use the time to build a domestic SSN maintenance capacity so in 2040 we'll have an up and running capability so we can do it cheaper at home.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> In order to have 1 ship/boat at sea at all times, you need 3 ships/boats total.  1 in maintenance, 1 operational, 1 in "regeneration (working up to operational/training).
> 
> As Canada really has a two navy challenge (East and West Coast navies) that pretty much means 6 boats. In an ideal world there would be 9. (6 West and 3 East) but I don't even know if we have the people for the four we have.


Thoughts on 12 CSC and 9 Subs.  Good, bad or doesn’t real make a difference.


----------



## stoker dave

Ok, there was a post some time ago that (for a number of valid reasons) dismissed the idea of nuclear powered submarines for Canada.  I am not sure why you guys are still thinking that is feasible. 

There is NO WAY that nuclear powered vessels will ever be acquired.  They are too expensive.  They require substantial infrastructure.  They require a 'concept of operations' entirely unknown in the current Naval culture.  They are unacceptable to Canadian society.  

I have some experience and knowledge of the nuclear industry.   The requirements for training, support, waste management, oversight, procedural compliance and implementation are FAR beyond what any of you can even comprehend.   

Here is an example.   A trivial example.   Let's consider how to change oil in pump where the oil is radioactive (yes, that happens).   What are you going to do with that oil?  You need procedures to safely remove and handle the oil.  You need to transport it to a liquid waste processing facility (you did think about building one of those, right?).  You need to convert that oil to a solid.  You now need to find a way to dispose of that waste (you did think about building a waste disposal facility, right?).  You need to transport the oil to that facility, probably on public roads.   Did you ask everyone that lives along the transportation route if that is ok?   This is just one tiny part of the operations and the obstacles are huge.  

No one will want a radioactive waste processing facility built near them.  No one will want a radioactive waste disposal facility built near them.  No one wants truckloads of radioactive waste sharing the roads with cars, school buses and trucks.  

So, please, give up on this idea of SSNs for Canada.  It is not feasible, practical, workable or realistic.   

I agree that the technology is probably the right solution.  But this will never be a viable program.


----------



## Czech_pivo

stoker dave said:


> Ok, there was a post some time ago that (for a number of valid reasons) dismissed the idea of nuclear powered submarines for Canada.  I am not sure why you guys are still thinking that is feasible.
> 
> There is NO WAY that nuclear powered vessels will ever be acquired.  They are too expensive.  They require substantial infrastructure.  They require a 'concept of operations' entirely unknown in the current Naval culture.  They are unacceptable to Canadian society.
> 
> I have some experience and knowledge of the nuclear industry.   The requirements for training, support, waste management, oversight, procedural compliance and implementation are FAR beyond what any of you can even comprehend.
> 
> Here is an example.   A trivial example.   Let's consider how to change oil in pump where the oil is radioactive (yes, that happens).   What are you going to do with that oil?  You need procedures to safely remove and handle the oil.  You need to transport it to a liquid waste processing facility (you did think about building one of those, right?).  You need to convert that oil to a solid.  You now need to find a way to dispose of that waste (you did think about building a waste disposal facility, right?).  You need to transport the oil to that facility, probably on public roads.   Did you ask everyone that lives along the transportation route if that is ok?   This is just one tiny part of the operations and the obstacles are huge.
> 
> No one will want a radioactive waste processing facility built near them.  No one will want a radioactive waste disposal facility built near them.  No one wants truckloads of radioactive waste sharing the roads with cars, school buses and trucks.
> 
> So, please, give up on this idea of SSNs for Canada.  It is not feasible, practical, workable or realistic.
> 
> I agree that the technology is probably the right solution.  But this will never be a viable program.


Ok, I’ll bite.
Doesn’t some of this infrastructure exist in one form or another in Ontario due to the fact it operates The Bruce and Darlington nuclear generating stations?
They must have some nuclear waste disposal and processing facilities in the province  and the ‘mind set’ of working day in and day out with nuclear fuel rods and such. Can’t any of this be utilized? They must transfer spent fuel rods via truck across Ontario roads now.

On the other hand, I unfortunately do agree that the mountain might be too high to get over and convince the CDN public that SSN’s would be good for Canada, unless of course for major issue/event makes it easier.


----------



## GR66

stoker dave said:


> Ok, there was a post some time ago that (for a number of valid reasons) dismissed the idea of nuclear powered submarines for Canada.  I am not sure why you guys are still thinking that is feasible.
> 
> There is NO WAY that nuclear powered vessels will ever be acquired.  They are too expensive.  They require substantial infrastructure.  They require a 'concept of operations' entirely unknown in the current Naval culture.  They are unacceptable to Canadian society.
> 
> I have some experience and knowledge of the nuclear industry.   The requirements for training, support, waste management, oversight, procedural compliance and implementation are FAR beyond what any of you can even comprehend.
> 
> Here is an example.   A trivial example.   Let's consider how to change oil in pump where the oil is radioactive (yes, that happens).   What are you going to do with that oil?  You need procedures to safely remove and handle the oil.  You need to transport it to a liquid waste processing facility (you did think about building one of those, right?).  You need to convert that oil to a solid.  You now need to find a way to dispose of that waste (you did think about building a waste disposal facility, right?).  You need to transport the oil to that facility, probably on public roads.   Did you ask everyone that lives along the transportation route if that is ok?   This is just one tiny part of the operations and the obstacles are huge.
> 
> No one will want a radioactive waste processing facility built near them.  No one will want a radioactive waste disposal facility built near them.  No one wants truckloads of radioactive waste sharing the roads with cars, school buses and trucks.
> 
> So, please, give up on this idea of SSNs for Canada.  It is not feasible, practical, workable or realistic.
> 
> I agree that the technology is probably the right solution.  But this will never be a viable program.


I suggested previously that the only way I could possibly see Canada obtaining SSNs would be to purchase US Boats and home port them at existing US submarine bases.  Maintenance and support could be contracted out to the USN.  That eliminates the issue of maintenance facilities, staffing and training and to some extent the political hot potato of basing nuclear subs at home but that is offset by the fact that we could be seen as being beholden the the US government.

UN Naval Base Kitsap is only 100km as the crow flies from CFB Esquimalt.  The East Coast is a little less convenient...Naval Submarine Base New London in Groton, CT is just under 800km from CFB Halifax.  

I'm sure that mature leaders on both sides could come up with a workable agreement that would greatly benefit both of our countries.  I'm just not sure that such mature leaders currently exist (at least on our side of the border anyway).


----------



## CBH99

Czech_pivo said:


> Thoughts on 12 CSC and 9 Subs.  Good, bad or doesn’t real make a difference.


Ideally, good.  Strategically it would make a huge difference.   

12 CSC can be the heavies - and in this case, with far more teeth than the current Halifax class.  The Kingston’s can continue doing a great job at their current taskings, and the AOPS can supplement/replace the Kingston’s use in some roles.  (Mostly anyway.  I’m thinking Operation Nanook, etc.)

9 submarines is 5 more than we have now, which means that ‘theoretically’ thats 5 additional boats available for NATO operations and to support US operations, including NorthCom.  (With the understanding that 2-3 would be available for operations at any given time.)

In a shooting war, they’d be exceptionally welcome.  And crewing tends to be less than a surface combatant.  

The downside is - it is a more expensive plan, and we’d have to fix recruiting/retention.


15 CSC gives the surface fleet a healthy filling out, and with substantially more dangerous ships than current.  It also gives us a robust Aegis capability, and brings us into the fold with a real BMD capability.  (Again, NorthCom will be happy.)


My extremely unqualified opinion?  Option 2 will remain the course, as the plan is already well underway and industry has invested a great deal to make the plan happen.   

It also is the option that allows Canada to be seen on the world stage, literally.  The media, DND social media, port calls, operating in NATO fleets, etc - are all brownie points for Canada.  

Submarines, while obviously effective war machines, don’t give the country any real PR unless it’s the odd media special.  


0.02 🤷🏼‍♂️


----------



## KevinB

stoker dave said:


> Ok, there was a post some time ago that (for a number of valid reasons) dismissed the idea of nuclear powered submarines for Canada.  I am not sure why you guys are still thinking that is feasible.
> 
> There is NO WAY that nuclear powered vessels will ever be acquired.  They are too expensive.  They require substantial infrastructure.  They require a 'concept of operations' entirely unknown in the current Naval culture.  They are unacceptable to Canadian society.


They also just happen to be the best option for Canada regardless of the above.
   You can't take a SSK into the Polar Ice 
 Canada has three Ocean borders - the largest ocean borders in the World.




stoker dave said:


> I have some experience and knowledge of the nuclear industry.   The requirements for training, support, waste management, oversight, procedural compliance and implementation are FAR beyond what any of you can even comprehend.


Get over yourself.  You act like everyone is in kindergarten. 
   No one has suggested it would just be grab the key and go for spin.
Just like the Australians there would need to be a significant training period before any sub was ready to be crewed 100% by Canadians, maintained by Canadians.

The biggest obstacle in ALL reality is will the USG allow the RCN to play with SSN's - given your fearless Leader Kim Jong Trudeau - I don't think it would be in our best interests at this time.



stoker dave said:


> Here is an example.   A trivial example.   Let's consider how to change oil in pump where the oil is radioactive (yes, that happens).


Are you familiar at all with the reactor system in the USN?
   Because if your Oil Pump has radioactive oil in it - you have a LOT bigger issues than how to clean the oil and replace the pump...



stoker dave said:


> What are you going to do with that oil?  You need procedures to safely remove and handle the oil.  You need to transport it to a liquid waste processing facility (you did think about building one of those, right?).  You need to convert that oil to a solid.  You now need to find a way to dispose of that waste (you did think about building a waste disposal facility, right?).  You need to transport the oil to that facility, probably on public roads.   Did you ask everyone that lives along the transportation route if that is ok?   This is just one tiny part of the operations and the obstacles are huge.


I don't think you really know as much about moving Nuclear material as you think you do.
   Asking or telling people about it (or the routes you take) is not done (at least down here) it is just moved with little fanfare and a decent amount of security.

But the point remains that everyone knows it wouldn't be a simple task - there are requirements for Naval trades that the RCN currently doesn't have - there are security, storage, maintenance and support issues that Canada has no precedence for.
    All of that takes time - BUT - it wouldn't be impossible - and if you factor in the Victorias are not scheduled for retirement immediately - it provides a transition window for these things to be dealt with.



stoker dave said:


> No one will want a radioactive waste processing facility built near them.  No one will want a radioactive waste disposal facility built near them.  No one wants truckloads of radioactive waste sharing the roads with cars, school buses and trucks.
> 
> So, please, give up on this idea of SSNs for Canada.  It is not feasible, practical, workable or realistic.


 Canada already takes Nuclear material from overseas for disposal - granted I doubt that makes a lot of headlines - but there is also the waste from the CANDU's 


stoker dave said:


> I agree that the technology is probably the right solution.  But this will never be a viable program.


You are giving up on something you admit is the best option, before you even start.
  Frankly that pisses me off.

   No one is suggesting this would be an easy thing.
But IF the RCN actually did their homework - and engaged the public - it wouldn't nearly be as hard a sell as you think.


----------



## KevinB

CBH99 said:


> In a shooting war, they’d be exceptionally welcome.  And crewing tends to be less than a surface combatant.
> 
> The downside is - it is a more expensive plan, and we’d have to fix recruiting/retention.


Nuke boats major upfront costs are the not the platform but the support infrastructure (if it already doesn't exist).
   Other than that - they are cheaper to run over the life time of the boat than D/E boats.

Also they are significantly more environmentally friendly - as they aren't burning diesel, and don't have extremely nasty battery banks that are an absolute horror to dispose of.

The newest US Cores for SSN's are designed to last over 25 years before refueling...


I'd also like to point out with over 210 different N vessels and over 500 reactor cores -> the USN has never had a reactor incident 


			https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/45608main_NNBE_Progress_Report2_7-15-03.pdf


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> Ok, I’ll bite.
> Doesn’t some of this infrastructure exist in one form or another in Ontario due to the fact it operates The Bruce and Darlington nuclear generating stations?
> They must have some nuclear waste disposal and processing facilities in the province  and the ‘mind set’ of working day in and day out with nuclear fuel rods and such. Can’t any of this be utilized? They must transfer spent fuel rods via truck across Ontario roads now.
> 
> On the other hand, I unfortunately do agree that the mountain might be too high to get over and convince the CDN public that SSN’s would be good for Canada, unless of course for major issue/event makes it easier.



NB has nuclear power as well.  Currently, all nuclear waste from reactors must be stored on-site due to Federal rules.  There are attempts to turn a mine in northern Ontario into a storage facility. Not sure where those are going.  If you want to get rid of nuclear waste from a nuclear submarine likely there would be a deal made with the US to decommission or refuel the boats instead of Canada doing it ourselves.  Same thing for any waste.



KevinB said:


> They also just happen to be the best option for Canada regardless of the above.
> You can't take a SSK into the Polar Ice
> Canada has three Ocean borders - the largest ocean borders in the World.



It's not the best option for Canada. It's _an_ option for Canada.  @stoker dave didn't say anything that wasn't incorrect.  Weird things get contaminated with radiation in reactors.  Disposal of said items is a pain in the ass.  NIMBYs lose their **** when a wind turbine goes up, imagine when multiple nuclear boats are permanently parked off of downtown Halifax.  Or Victoria.

As for "three" Ocean borders:
So what?  This is just jingoism mainly stirred up by conservatives to try and get classic right nationalism going in Canada instead of our weird left wing nationalism.  Most of those ocean borders are impassible for more than half the year.  The reason governments never paid attention to the third ocean was that _it doesn't need attention. _No population, no economic worth, impossible or dangerous to travel. It will never be properly developed because of the intersection of environmentalism, first nations rights and harsh weather.  

Russia doesn't give a crap about the Canadian arctic any more than we do. They care about their own, as a melting arctic is another threat vector to Russia. 

TL/DR: No one really cares about the arctic when the idea of nuclear power scares people in Halifax and Victoria.


----------



## CBH99

KevinB said:


> Nuke boats major upfront costs are the not the platform but the support infrastructure (if it already doesn't exist).
> Other than that - they are cheaper to run over the life time of the boat than D/E boats.
> 
> Also they are significantly more environmentally friendly - as they aren't burning diesel, and don't have extremely nasty battery banks that are an absolute horror to dispose of.
> 
> The newest US Cores for SSN's are designed to last over 25 years before refueling...
> 
> 
> I'd also like to point out with over 210 different N vessels and over 500 reactor cores -> the USN has never had a reactor incident
> 
> 
> https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/45608main_NNBE_Progress_Report2_7-15-03.pdf


Totally understand and agree with everything you said.   

The initial sticker shock would almost immediately have the idea rejected by the Canadian public, even if it does represent a savings in the long run.  

And facts don’t matter all that much when it comes to the boats running exceptionally clean for decades.  Most Canadians will automatically reject the idea based on sheer ignorance & misguided concern the moment they hear the word ‘nuclear.’

We also have a media that chooses to pander rather than inform, sensationalize rather than just report the facts, and calls on the some of the dumbest & least knowledgeable people as their ‘experts.’

Nuclear boats are a great idea if the RCN can develop the safety and protocol culture required to operate them safely.  Training our members with the USN is the best way to do that, so when the boats are ready, so are the crews.  

Logically, everything about going with nuclear boats makes sense.  But facts, logic, and common sense unfortunately take a distant back seat to whatever nonsense the media is spouting to scare people.  


0.02


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> NB has nuclear power as well.  Currently, all nuclear waste from reactors must be stored on-site due to Federal rules.  There are attempts to turn a mine in northern Ontario into a storage facility. Not sure where those are going.  If you want to get rid of nuclear waste from a nuclear submarine likely there would be a deal made with the US to decommission or refuel the boats instead of Canada doing it ourselves.  Same thing for any waste.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the best option for Canada. It's _an_ option for Canada.  @stoker dave didn't say anything that wasn't incorrect.  Weird things get contaminated with radiation in reactors.  Disposal of said items is a pain in the ass.  NIMBYs lose their **** when a wind turbine goes up, imagine when multiple nuclear boats are permanently parked off of downtown Halifax.  Or Victoria.


Best operational option - will you accept that?
   Additionally the safety record on USN Nuclear fleets is exponentially better than the RCN has with DE SSK's...



   It gives legs for the subsurface fleet IF the RCN was tasked to go into the Asian area.
It also allows 365 subsurface patrol in the Arctic.


Underway said:


> As for "three" Ocean borders:
> So what?  This is just jingoism mainly stirred up by conservatives to try and get classic right nationalism going in Canada instead of our weird left wing nationalism.  Most of those ocean borders are impassible for more than half the year.  The reason governments never paid attention to the third ocean was that _it doesn't need attention._


 Impassable to surface non Ice Breaking craft - but fully navigable by sub surface.



Underway said:


> No population, no economic worth, impossible or dangerous to travel. It will never be properly developed because of the intersection of environmentalism, first nations rights and harsh weather.
> 
> Russia doesn't give a crap about the Canadian arctic any more than we do. They care about their own, as a melting arctic is another threat vector to Russia.
> 
> TL/DR: No one really cares about the arctic when the idea of nuclear power scares people in Halifax and Victoria.


Russian doesn't until it is in best interests (real or imagined) - as well as other folks who may want to stir the pot - or use it to get closer for a strike - Hudson's Bay could be used as a launch site and breach just before launch.
Unlikely yes - but still I don't see what use SSK's offer Canada other than fills the check mark of having a Sub...


----------



## Czech_pivo

On another note -
Canadian navy aims to have 3 submarines at sea by end of 2021​As the article, from June 2021 describes, the RCN had the intent to have 3 of 4 of the Vic's out of port and doing what they were built for by the end of this year.  Anyone have any thoughts or insight if this is going to even happen?

I did find this one line interesting and pertinent to our current line of discussions - " A new Lockheed Martin sonar system is being installed fleet-wide and could open the door to undersea missions in the Far North."









						Canadian navy aims to have 3 submarines at sea by end of 2021
					

For the first time in seven years, the Canadian navy expects to have three of its four submarines operating simultaneously by the end of 2021.




					vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca


----------



## QV

Czech_pivo said:


> On another note -
> Canadian navy aims to have 3 submarines at sea by end of 2021​As the article, from June 2021 describes, the RCN had the intent to have 3 of 4 of the Vic's out of port and doing what they were built for by the end of this year.  Anyone have any thoughts or insight if this is going to even happen?
> 
> I did find this one line interesting and pertinent to our current line of discussions - " A new Lockheed Martin sonar system is being installed fleet-wide and could open the door to undersea missions in the Far North."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian navy aims to have 3 submarines at sea by end of 2021
> 
> 
> For the first time in seven years, the Canadian navy expects to have three of its four submarines operating simultaneously by the end of 2021.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca


Isn't it impossible to have 3 of 4 at sea for anything but a very temporary period?


----------



## KevinB

QV said:


> Isn't it impossible to have 3 of 4 at sea for anything but a very temporary period?


They all had some pretty significant refits - in talking to a some of the USN SSN guys - most of the short time is for the crew - not necessarily the boat - and for some of them shore time isn't much different as they still need reactor watch etc.
The only time they really need to be inactive in in dry dock refit periods - that usually aren't very often (unless runs into something - like the Virginia that hit the underwater mountain near Taiwan last month -- and now the Capt is suffering career going career going career stops...)

I'll default to the Navy guys on what is actually needed from a general maintenance issue, but look at the WW2 Diesel boat sortie rates -- some of them where active a crazy percentage of their lives.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Found this piece of information. Is valid for 2021 up to Feb 2021, so the 2021 numbers are under reported. 

Its looks like our 'best value for money' (in terms of days at sea) was in the 2012-2018 time period.

*Calendar Year - Sea Days*


Submarine20082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021Footnote3Sub TotalHMCS VICTORIA0002815715572190000915455HMCS WINDSOR0000121094917412212115000593HMCS CHICOUTIMI0000004583715137000323HMCS CORNER BROOK9311279750000000000359*Total*931127910316926416627612916315209151730


----------



## Czech_pivo

QV said:


> Isn't it impossible to have 3 of 4 at sea for anything but a very temporary period?


See my latest post on this below, turns out that in 2014 and 2015 we had 3 boats in the water.


----------



## stoker dave

I would divide the total annual cost of the submarine program by the number of sea-days to come up with a cost per sea-day....

But that number would be terrifying.


----------



## Good2Golf

stoker dave said:


> I would divide the total annual cost of the submarine program by the number of sea-days to come up with a cost per sea-day....
> 
> But that number would be terrifying.


You should see the historical hourly flying rate of the Space Shuttle…


----------



## JMCanada

Taiwan's friends aid stealthy submarine project as China threat rises
					

Taiwan has secretively recruited expertise and parts from at least 7 countries to build submarines to deter a Chinese invasion. Project codename: Sea Prosperity




					www.reuters.com
				




We have not taken into account the Taiwanese submarine for the Canadian Patrol Sub. Project. (just kidding, it does not seem to be easy for them to export their boats).


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Czech_pivo said:


> Found this piece of information. Is valid for 2021 up to Feb 2021, so the 2021 numbers are under reported.
> 
> Its looks like our 'best value for money' (in terms of days at sea) was in the 2012-2018 time period.
> 
> *Calendar Year - Sea Days*
> 
> 
> Submarine20082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021Footnote3Sub TotalHMCS VICTORIA0002815715572190000915455HMCS WINDSOR0000121094917412212115000593HMCS CHICOUTIMI0000004583715137000323HMCS CORNER BROOK9311279750000000000359*Total*931127910316926416627612916315209151730



The CAF needs to consider more than just this, of course (best value for money , days at sea).  "Effect" should be a factor that is heavily weighted.

I watched something similar during IMPACT;  the HQ folks concentrated on 'green numbers'.  "We intended to launch 30 missions and launched 29".  They had little consideration for mission effect during those VUL times;  I was sitting behind a couple of ATF-I HQ Maj's on the DFAC bus late one afternoon and listening to this "what an awesome % of mission success!!!" back-clapping discussion.  I decided to join in briefly and ask them "so, how is a mission successful if it was undercast and there was no re-tasking.  Or...if you are actually onto something, and you get re-tasked...to somewhere that is undercast...".  I explained who I was and what I did and told them their analysis was "overly sterile" or something like that.

They didn't appreciate some old Sgt interrupting their conversation, I didn't like them over-pressurizing their egos...I don't remember seeing either of their faces on a PAX brief either so...

VUL time/sea time needs to also be measured with a large dose of mission effect considerations.  In the case of our subs, I'm not convinced that would actually ADD much to the value of those sea days but...I'm a little cynical.

I also accept 101% that type of info is hard to, impossible even, discuss in this thread.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Eye In The Sky said:


> The CAF needs to consider more than just this, of course (best value for money , days at sea).  "Effect" should be a factor that is heavily weighted.
> 
> I watched something similar during IMPACT;  the HQ folks concentrated on 'green numbers'.  "We intended to launch 30 missions and launched 29".  They had little consideration for mission effect during those VUL times;  I was sitting behind a couple of ATF-I HQ Maj's on the DFAC bus late one afternoon and listening to this "what an awesome % of mission success!!!" back-clapping discussion.  I decided to join in briefly and ask them "so, how is a mission successful if it was undercast and there was no re-tasking.  Or...if you are actually onto something, and you get re-tasked...to somewhere that is undercast...".  I explained who I was and what I did and told them their analysis was "overly sterile" or something like that.
> 
> They didn't appreciate some old Sgt interrupting their conversation, I didn't like them over-pressurizing their egos...I don't remember seeing either of their faces on a PAX brief either so...
> 
> VUL time/sea time needs to also be measured with a large dose of mission effect considerations.  In the case of our subs, I'm not convinced that would actually ADD much to the value of those sea days but...I'm a little cynical.
> 
> I also accept 101% that type of info is hard to, impossible even, discuss in this thread.


For certain the chart that I posted provides a simple, non-disputable, factual piece of data, but its only 1 piece of data.  

Its useful up to the end of 2018 and then it becomes useless since in 2019 and 2020 in essence all 4 subs were not at sea (yes, Vic was for 9 days, but that doesn't matter).  I imagine that it must be extremely difficult to maintain any sense of operational tempo, improve/enhance skills and pass along lessons learned when none of the crews were out executing their trade during these 2 years. It must impact morale, retention and recruitment in a negative manner.  

The chart only contains information starting in 2008.  It would be of interest to see what the data shows in the years prior to 2008. 

One thing that the charts clearly displays to me is the need to have greater than 4 subs in our fleet. The replacements for the Victoria's should in the neighbourhood of 8-10 boats so that we don't go 2 full years with never having a boat out on patrol, earning its keep, so to speak.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Czech_pivo said:


> For certain the chart that I posted provides a simple, non-disputable, factual piece of data, but its only 1 piece of data.



For sure...I hesitated to post my reply at first as I thought it was "just being cranky/obstinate".



Czech_pivo said:


> Its useful up to the end of 2018 and then it becomes useless since in 2019 and 2020 in essence all 4 subs were not at sea (yes, Vic was for 9 days, but that doesn't matter).  I imagine that it must be extremely difficult to maintain any sense of operational tempo, improve/enhance skills and pass along lessons learned when none of the crews were out executing their trade during these 2 years. It must impact morale, retention and recruitment in a negative manner.
> 
> The chart only contains information starting in 2008.  It would be of interest to see what the data shows in the years prior to 2008.
> 
> One thing that the charts clearly displays to me is the need to have greater than 4 subs in our fleet. The replacements for the Victoria's should in the neighbourhood of 8-10 boats so that we don't go 2 full years with never having a boat out on patrol, earning its keep, so to speak.



Assuming submariners are similar to aircrew here...

To me, there is a huge different between being "qualified", "current" and "proficient".  Qualified is pretty straight forward, pass the trg, awardded the qual.  Current...aircrew have many Currencies we maintain;  monthly, quarterly, semi-annual, annual.  Example would be wet ditch (annual for my fleet), bombbay arm/de-arm (semi-annual), etc.  I can be qual'd, and current but also at the peak of proficient.  Coming off a deployment, flying lots and lots of hours monthly...ya, you're pretty proficient (usually).  

Sims help but...nothing is the same as the real thing.  So...I imagine the subs at sea ratio plays havoc on getting/maintaining quals, currencies and proficiency.  You have limited assets to do all your FG, FE and FD activities...it must get frustrating.


----------



## KevinB

Czech_pivo said:


> For certain the chart that I posted provides a simple, non-disputable, factual piece of data, but its only 1 piece of data.
> 
> Its useful up to the end of 2018 and then it becomes useless since in 2019 and 2020 in essence all 4 subs were not at sea (yes, Vic was for 9 days, but that doesn't matter).  I imagine that it must be extremely difficult to maintain any sense of operational tempo, improve/enhance skills and pass along lessons learned when none of the crews were out executing their trade during these 2 years. It must impact morale, retention and recruitment in a negative manner.
> 
> The chart only contains information starting in 2008.  It would be of interest to see what the data shows in the years prior to 2008.
> 
> One thing that the charts clearly displays to me is the need to have greater than 4 subs in our fleet. The replacements for the Victoria's should in the neighbourhood of 8-10 boats so that we don't go 2 full years with never having a boat out on patrol, earning its keep, so to speak.


I fully agree with you on 8-10 boats (or 9-12) but how much of 19-21 have been due to COVID, (both not getting maintenance done on time, or crew not able to crew due to restrictions?


----------



## FJAG

So this thread and the one about robots got me wondering.

Just how deep does a boat have to go before gaining some of the advantages that a submarine has. Can one have two classes of subs - the deeper diving traditional types and a shallow diving weapons platform that effectively replaces surface vessels with a stealthier system that can unleash antiship or cruise missiles from maybe a dozen metres below water? Cheaper to build and easier to crew.

🍻


----------



## suffolkowner

FJAG said:


> So this thread and the one about robots got me wondering.
> 
> Just how deep does a boat have to go before gaining some of the advantages that a submarine has. Can one have two classes of subs - the deeper diving traditional types and a shallow diving weapons platform that effectively replaces surface vessels with a stealthier system that can unleash antiship or cruise missiles from maybe a dozen metres below water? Cheaper to build and easier to crew.
> 
> 🍻


There was a concept a few years back of a hybrid surface/submarine ship.






						SMX 25 - 2010
					






					www.globalsecurity.org
				




 I think the UUWV will expand to fill a bunch of these niches. Interesting question though.

How deep does the vessel have to be to avoid easy detection compared to a surface ship?
How deep does it have to be to avoid surface turbulence?
What bearing does the thermocline(thermohaline?) have?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

suffolkowner said:


> There was a concept a few years back of a hybrid surface/submarine ship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SMX 25 - 2010
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.globalsecurity.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think the UUWV will expand to fill a bunch of these niches. Interesting question though.
> 
> How deep does the vessel have to be to avoid easy detection compared to a surface ship?
> How deep does it have to be to avoid surface turbulence?
> What bearing does the thermocline(thermohaline?) have?


If you cannot get deep enough to get below the layer, you are pretty much screwed. You will be seen from the air and/or your noise will travel forever and/or you cannot evade active sonar.

Speaking of noise, submarines are designed from the ground up to be extremely quiet. I doubt a hybrid surface ship/submarine could be that quiet.

As a further point about noise, the deeper you can get, the faster you can go before your propellers begin to cavitate.


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:


> If you cannot get deep enough to get below the layer, you are pretty much screwed. You will be seen from the air and/or your noise will travel forever and/or you cannot evade active sonar.
> 
> Speaking of noise, submarines are designed from the ground up to be extremely quiet. I doubt a hybrid surface ship/submarine could be that quiet.
> 
> As a further point about noise, the deeper you can get, the faster you can go before your propellers begin to cavitate.



On the other hand are you more, or less, hard to find than a surface vessel?  And are you more or less susceptible to wave action?  A submersible may make a poor submarine while still making a fair frigate.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill said:


> On the other hand are you more, or less, hard to find than a surface vessel?  And are you more or less susceptible to wave action?  A submersible may make a poor submarine while still making a fair frigate.


You have get pretty deep (below 100’) to avoid wave action. That is three atmospheres of pressure to withstand.

In short, you get all of the construction penalties (and expense) of a submarine build, with not many of the advantages.


----------



## GR66

To my mind the real advantage of a semi-submersible wouldn't be to try and be both a surface ship and a submarine (and not as good as either), but rather to be a surface ship that can (briefly) dive just under the surface in order to avoid missile attack.

Once a large (and expensive) surface warship is detected it is vulnerable to a attack from a swarm of much cheaper missiles and only has a limited number of its own missiles to defend itself.  If instead, when it detects an incoming attack it were able to dive just below the surface in order to avoid the incoming missiles it would be able to perhaps devote more of its VLS cells to offensive missiles to take out enemy targets instead of self-defence missiles.  

If the ship is only designed to shallow dive just below the surface rather than act as a true submarine, then it wouldn't require a pressure hull and all the machinery required for sustained sub-surface operations which would make it cheaper to build.


----------



## Czech_pivo

KevinB said:


> I fully agree with you on 8-10 boats (or 9-12) but how much of 19-21 have been due to COVID, (both not getting maintenance done on time, or crew not able to crew due to restrictions?


I’ll answer this question with 2 question. How much was C19 affected the US/UK/French subs operational tempo over the same time period? How much has C19 affected the operational tempo of the Halifax’s?


----------



## KevinB

Czech_pivo said:


> I’ll answer this question with 2 question. How much was C19 affected the US/UK/French subs operational tempo over the same time period? How much has C19 affected the operational tempo of the Halifax’s?


The US Mil isolated strategic crews - keeping them in a 14-21 day quarantine before letting them embark from the start.
   Longer patrol durations in the nuke boats as well allow for zero contact during patrols.

Not sure on other nations SSK's or Surface Combatants.


----------



## OldSolduer

SeaKingTacco said:


> If you cannot get deep enough to get below the layer, you are pretty much screwed. You will be seen from the air and/or your noise will travel forever and/or you cannot evade active sonar.
> 
> Speaking of noise, submarines are designed from the ground up to be extremely quiet. I doubt a hybrid surface ship/submarine could be that quiet.
> 
> As a further point about noise, the deeper you can get, the faster you can go before your propellers begin to cavitate.


Just like a Tom Clancy novel,

Sorry to sidetrack but if you have not read The Hunt For Red October it really is a good basic teacher of how subs operate.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Maybe a fly shyte out of pepper point;  but to me a 'semi-submersible' doesn't actually ever completely dive.  Thinking OP CARIBBE and the 'drug subs', called SPSSs (self propelled semi-submersibles), they aren't true sub-marine.  They are a reasonably challenging ctc, though.    

It's a small but important distinction.  A shallow-diver might have some use in littoral/brown-water ops, but these would have limited on-station times and sitting here, I can't quite work out a tender solution that seems reasonable to support something that does more than SOF or close-ELINT or something.

Thermocline's aren't the only camouflage a submerged boat can use....in deep or shallow waters.  Just something to keep in mind...






						Self-Propelled Semi-Submersible (SPSS) watercraft
					

The Qassam rocket was first launched into Israeli territory on March 5, 2002, by the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas. Production on the rocket began in September 2001, following the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada.




					www.globalsecurity.org


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eye In The Sky said:


> Maybe a fly shyte out of pepper point;  but to me a 'semi-submersible' doesn't actually ever completely dive.  Thinking OP CARIBBE and the 'drug subs', called SPSSs (self propelled semi-submersibles), they aren't true sub-marine.  They are a reasonably challenging ctc, though.
> 
> It's a small but important distinction.  A shallow-diver might have some use in littoral/brown-water ops, but these would have limited on-station times and sitting here, I can't quite work out a tender solution that seems reasonable to support something that does more than SOF or close-ELINT or something.
> 
> Thermocline's aren't the only camouflage a submerged boat can use....in deep or shallow waters.  Just something to keep in mind...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self-Propelled Semi-Submersible (SPSS) watercraft
> 
> 
> The Qassam rocket was first launched into Israeli territory on March 5, 2002, by the Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades, the military wing of Hamas. Production on the rocket began in September 2001, following the outbreak of the Al-Aqsa Intifada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.globalsecurity.org


Oh, I know. I was just working off the first thing that came to mind.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

My post was more to the "a semi than can dive briefly" concept....and to those who don't think about 'the layer' _and_...sea mounts, eddies, wrecks, dirty water, etc in the browner water spaces.  Sorry if I worded it as a poke at your post, it was meant as an "in addition to"...because, realistically, I don't think Canada will ever be a true blue-water operator in the sub-surface battlespace.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Little concern or opposition to this, built just east of the largest metropolitan area in Canada (and one of the top 5 in NA) but adding nuclear powered subs to the RCN and all hell breaks loose.

"New high-tech nuclear reactors will soon be built near Toronto"









						New high-tech nuclear reactor will soon be built near Toronto
					

Few words hold as much weight as 'nuclear,' and while news of a new reactor planned just 30 kilometres east of Toronto might have some Googling whe...




					www.blogto.com


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:


> Little concern or opposition to this, built just east of the largest metropolitan area in Canada (and one of the top 5 in NA) but adding nuclear powered subs to the RCN and all hell breaks loose.
> 
> "New high-tech nuclear reactors will soon be built near Toronto"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New high-tech nuclear reactor will soon be built near Toronto
> 
> 
> Few words hold as much weight as 'nuclear,' and while news of a new reactor planned just 30 kilometres east of Toronto might have some Googling whe...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.blogto.com


The difference is that there has been a nuclear reactor there for decades - the article is to build another reactor close to it.  So, the infrastructure is there.  

The big issue for SSNs for the RCN is that we don't have the infrastructure, which is very expensive.  Also, maintenance/standards for an SSN fleet is very different than for a civilian energy reactor.


----------



## Underway

There are lots of politics involved with this. As much as some Ontarians (but not most) want to ignore it nuclear power keeps the lights on.  Ontario power gen is very low carbon emissions (~50% nuclear, less than 7% fossil fuel). We know where the power comes from.

The general public pushback happens when
1) Nuclear power is mobile
2) Nuclear power is in a new place than where it wasn't before
3) Nuclear power on a submarine ties it to nuclear weapon proliferation in many peoples minds
4) There are no votes in spending money on the military and nuclear subs are expensive as hell.

Before anyone rages about point three I would like to point to the large group of people who think vaccines don't help and Covid is a conspiracy People ignore reality if it fits into their confirmation bias or political stance.

All of those points are valid concerns and arguments against nuclear submarines.  Most don't understand arguments for nuclear submarines, because in Canada's case they just really consist of "The Arctic" in the public discourse and little else.  That's not a strong pro for people who huddle along the US border.  Nuance is not something that sells defence projects.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> 4) There are no votes in spending money on the military and nuclear subs are expensive as hell.


For the military front, this (more than Point 3) is my sticking point.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> 3) Nuclear power on a submarine ties it to nuclear weapon proliferation in many peoples minds
> 4) There are no votes in spending money on the military and nuclear subs are expensive as hell.
> 
> Before anyone rages about point three I would like to point to the large group of people who think vaccines don't help and Covid is a conspiracy People ignore reality if it fits into their confirmation bias or political stance.
> 
> All of those points are valid concerns and arguments against nuclear submarines.  Most don't understand arguments for nuclear submarines, because in Canada's case they just really consist of "The Arctic" in the public discourse and little else.  That's not a strong pro for people who huddle along the US border.  Nuance is not something that sells defence projects.


If I was King, well I would just tell, not ask for opinions.

But it seems IF the RCN wanted to go down the Nuke boat route - they would need to get a very detailed and effective IO campaign going to educate the Canadian public on the advantages.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> If I was King, well I would just tell, not ask for opinions.
> 
> But it seems IF the RCN wanted to go down the Nuke boat route - they would need to get a very detailed and effective IO campaign going to educate the Canadian public on the advantages.


I see the failure point in your plan right there, because we do a terrible job of convincing people we need the military we have, much less what we need.


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> I see the failure point in your plan right there, because we do a terrible job of convincing people we need the military we have, much less what we need.


Oh don't get me wrong, I think the CAF needs to hire a Strategic Comms company to complete rebrand itself -- I'd also recommend hiring Strategic Planners - because I have not seen any real planning going on for decades.

I do think the RCN is probably the best suited to lead, as unlike the CA or RCAF, the Navy seems to understand there is a need for long term planning.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Canada did build subs at one time








						Submarines Built in Burrard Inlet
					

1 | P a g e Submarines Built in Burrard Inlet By David Shirlaw (Additional information contributed by Hillar Kalmar) During the First World War Canada had two submarines in commission, the Seattle-built HMCS CC-1 and CC-2 and eleven more...




					en.calameo.com


----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> I do think the RCN is probably the best suited to lead, as unlike the CA or RCAF, the Navy seems to understand there is a need for long term planning.


Navies are a series of 20-30 year plans.  That's just the reality.  China's current naval situation is a result of planning in the 1990s.  It's also why the US is pivoting only now because their 20-year plan changed on 911.  And is now changing again.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> Navies are a series of 20-30 year plans.  That's just the reality.  China's current naval situation is a result of planning in the 1990s.  It's also why the US is pivoting only now because their 20-year plan changed on 911.  And is now changing again.


 I'd argue that realistically most Elements should be 20-30 year plans too.
   I mean the RCAF could have a 40 year plan for fighters , and the CA have a 40 year plan on most of its equipment - and it would better off than it would today...

Short of an immediate revolution in warfare - a 20 year plan should work -- even if needs to be refreshed every five years (eg) to see if some of the longer items will still be relevant.


----------



## Kirkhill

Of all the plans discussed here I think the one with the most realistic potential is based on a small littoral AIP vessel.  The Arctic Archipelago is our primary concern and all we have to do is be able to work under the surface at the ice-edge to control access.  That would mean being able to go as high as Alert/Hans Island in season as well as being able to operate in Hudson Strait and the NWP.   4 "Pelagic" subs on patrol in conjunction with 8 XLUUVs and 4 AOPS would effectively control the NWP.

Pelagics, or littoral subs would also work for inshore control of shipping lanes into the Saint Lawrence and the Inside Passage on the West Coast.

If you went with the Kockums/Saab solution then you could buy a fleet of 8 to 12 Pelagics and 4 Extended Range units needing something like 500 submariners, at a guess?

If you focused on preserving a pristine, green arctic using non-nuclear technology you might have a better chance of making the sale to the Canadian public.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

OldSolduer said:


> Just like a Tom Clancy novel,
> 
> Sorry to sidetrack but if you have not read The Hunt For Red October it really is a good basic teacher of how subs operate.


Submarines are absolutely scary war machines.  Lets just say that without adequate aircraft coverage, Surface Forces are basically dead meat in short order against submarines.


----------



## Underway

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Submarines are absolutely scary war machines.  Lets just say that without adequate aircraft coverage, Surface Forces are basically dead meat in short order against submarines.


I think the game-changer here would be a reliable hard kill torp defense and detection system.  If one could stop a torpedo with the same Pkill as one can a missile then suddenly submarines are significantly less threatening.  They become just as dangerous as a few aircraft, which is to say much less dangerous.

When that comes out watch the strategic balance between submarines and surface ships change immediately in favour of the surface ships.  That wouldn't change a submarine's stealth, or intelligence gathering abilities, and certainly not its merchant killing potential.  But it would make surface fleets relatively resistant to a submarine attack.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> I think the game-changer here would be a reliable hard kill torp defense and detection system.  If one could stop a torpedo with the same Pkill as one can a missile then suddenly submarines are significantly less threatening.  They become just as dangerous as a few aircraft, which is to say much less dangerous.
> 
> When that comes out watch the strategic balance between submarines and surface ships change immediately in favour of the surface ships.  That wouldn't change a submarine's stealth, or intelligence gathering abilities, and certainly not its merchant killing potential.  But it would make surface fleets relatively resistant to a submarine attack.



Do you mean something like this Atlas Sea Spider System?






						SeaSpider | ATLAS ELEKTRONIK
					

World’s first dedicated Anti-Torpedo-Torpedo, designed without compromise to be an effective and affordable solution.




					www.atlas-elektronik.com
				




I'm assuming that the key word in your post is "reliable".









						German and Canadian Firms Developing SeaSpider Rocket-Powered Anti-Torpedo Torpedo
					

There is a growing demand for hard-kill anti-torpedo defenses to defeat newer torpedoes that are increasingly immune to existing countermeasures.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:


> Submarines are absolutely scary war machines.  Lets just say that without adequate aircraft coverage, Surface Forces are basically dead meat in short order against submarines.



So now we need “adequate” air coverage.  Would you settle for “sporadic”, and “sparingly armed”?  😁

If so…I can help with that…lol


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:


> Do you mean something like this Atlas Sea Spider System?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SeaSpider | ATLAS ELEKTRONIK
> 
> 
> World’s first dedicated Anti-Torpedo-Torpedo, designed without compromise to be an effective and affordable solution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.atlas-elektronik.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm assuming that the key word in your post is "reliable".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> German and Canadian Firms Developing SeaSpider Rocket-Powered Anti-Torpedo Torpedo
> 
> 
> There is a growing demand for hard-kill anti-torpedo defenses to defeat newer torpedoes that are increasingly immune to existing countermeasures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com


Reliable is the keyword.  You are correct.

There are more than a few challenges.  Getting accurate tracking/fixing on an underwater contact is really really difficult.  If a submarine shoots a torp at you AND you detect it (not always the case) you generally only get a bearing of the torpedo.  Because the speed of sound changes underwater depending on salinity, pressure, temperature you never really know how far away it is.  

A good hard kill system would shoot a Anti Torp Torp down that bearing and use active sonar to home in on the enemy torp.  Then it would have to hit it or explode close enough to damage it.  That's not easy either.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> Reliable is the keyword.  You are correct.
> 
> There are more than a few challenges.  Getting accurate tracking/fixing on an underwater contact is really really difficult.  If a submarine shoots a torp at you AND you detect it (not always the case) you generally only get a bearing of the torpedo.  Because the speed of sound changes underwater depending on salinity, pressure, temperature you never really know how far away it is.
> 
> A good hard kill system would shoot a Anti Torp Torp down that bearing and use active sonar to home in on the enemy torp.  Then it would have to hit it or explode close enough to damage it.  That's not easy either.



So you need something like an underwater proximity fuze?


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:


> So you need something like an underwater proximity fuze?


They exist (magnetic, pressure, for example).  It's that an underwater explosion has to rely on the explosive pressure wave to damage a torpedo, not submunitions.  This isn't as reliable to damage them as say old submarines, which have air inside of them.

You could knock it off course and make it use more fuel or damage its control surfaces/propulsion and that would be a kill.  Still not the easiest. Or just get really close when your ATT blows up.

The US gave up on their system for a few reasons, one was false detection rates.  Atlas Electronik solution is interesting as it uses the ships current ASW sensors to help with targeting, as well as using rocket propulsion to get the ATT out quickly towards the incoming enemy torp.

I don't know too much about it other than the nerdy publicly available info.


----------



## calculus

Seems like a trend...









						South Korea's First Nuclear Submarine Looks Closer - Naval News
					

Nuclear submarines offer significant advantages over non-nuclear ones. South Korea as been looking to acquire them for many years and now has the industry to do it.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## Underway

calculus said:


> Seems like a trend...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Korea's First Nuclear Submarine Looks Closer - Naval News
> 
> 
> Nuclear submarines offer significant advantages over non-nuclear ones. South Korea as been looking to acquire them for many years and now has the industry to do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com


Well the old cold war "non-proliferation" environment is dead so great powers that are non-nuclear no longer feel constrained by those rules.

As a side note I recently read that the Aussie nuke boat deal wasn't really about the boats, but about locking in US and UK help in conflict with China.  Makes sense.


----------



## calculus

Might these not be an option for us as well?









						South Koreans offer Aussies new subs in 7 years to close Collins gap - Breaking Defense
					

As conversations at the Thursday dinner with the Korean ambassador, Jeong-sik Kang, and several senior Korean defense officials made crystal clear, any one defense program is less important to the Koreans than is building a broader and deeper defense relationship with Australia.




					breakingdefense.com


----------



## RDBZ

Underway said:


> Well the old cold war "non-proliferation" environment is dead so great powers that are non-nuclear no longer feel constrained by those rules.
> 
> *As a side note I recently read that the Aussie nuke boat deal wasn't really about the boats, but about locking in US and UK help in conflict with China.  Makes sense.*


It was about the boats.  Australia was already "locked in" the US alliance pretty deeply.


----------



## Spencer100

calculus said:


> Might these not be an option for us as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> South Koreans offer Aussies new subs in 7 years to close Collins gap - Breaking Defense
> 
> 
> As conversations at the Thursday dinner with the Korean ambassador, Jeong-sik Kang, and several senior Korean defense officials made crystal clear, any one defense program is less important to the Koreans than is building a broader and deeper defense relationship with Australia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> breakingdefense.com


South Korea on a defence equipment salethon.  Get your new tanks, subs, ships and aircraft here.  They also se the only county able to build all you need at prices you can afford lol


----------



## rmc_wannabe

Spencer100 said:


> South Korea on a defence equipment salethon.  Get your new tanks, subs, ships and aircraft here.  They also se the only county able to build all you need at prices you can afford lol


But really though. 

The South Korean manufacturing industry is booming. Samsung, KIA, Hyundai; would not surprise me at all that their defense companies are churning out cost effective hardware as well.

They seem to also have the same kind of philosophy as Sweden: our neighbours are crazy, we don't have the time or money to screw around with R&D and production, let's get this right the first time. 

If it weren't for the fanatical "defence spending is a stimulus package" ideals baked into every procurement we attempt, we might be able to capitalize like Poland has.


----------



## Spencer100

rmc_wannabe said:


> But really though.
> 
> The South Korean manufacturing industry is booming. Samsung, KIA, Hyundai; would not surprise me at all that their defense companies are churning out cost effective hardware as well.
> 
> They seem to also have the same kind of philosophy as Sweden: our neighbours are crazy, we don't have the time or money to screw around with R&D and production, let's get this right the first time.
> 
> If it weren't for the fanatical "defence spending is a stimulus package" ideals baked into every procurement we attempt, we might be able to capitalize like Poland has.


Even Poland is looking to onshore production after the first builds.

My view is "defence as a stimulus" can work but the way we do it is not the best.  GD in London is great example.  That works.  I think the problem lays with making an huge international Defence firm team with tiny Canada Inc.  Then markups and added costs get out of hand.  Let the large companies pitch direct and then see about what Canada Inc. do to help.  Over on the NSS Irving being able to pick the design and what huge international defence company inc to choose was backwards.  Plus stop the boom bust cycle.


----------



## Underway

It's not defense as a stimulus that is driving this "onshoring" entirely.  The return of great power competition has a vote.  The most sovereign of capabilities is a country's military and if you buy or get your equipment from somewhere else then you are vulnerable to supply chain shocks and interdiction.  Ukraine conflict is driving this home.

All countries should have some domestic military production.  This is why Colt Canada exists, why we maintain our own ammunition manufacturing even at a low level, why NSS was started (build/repair our own ships), why GDLS will always get contracts (build/repair our own armoured vehicles) etc....


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> It's not defense as a stimulus that is driving this "onshoring" entirely.  The return of great power competition has a vote.  The most sovereign of capabilities is a country's military and if you buy or get your equipment from somewhere else then you are vulnerable to supply chain shocks and interdiction.  Ukraine conflict is driving this home.
> 
> All countries should have some domestic military production.  This is why Colt Canada exists, why we maintain our own ammunition manufacturing even at a low level, why NSS was started (build/repair our own ships), why GDLS will always get contracts (build/repair our own armoured vehicles) etc....



Domestic defense production is great when you actually get the defense products.  

But the problem lays more with government than it does industry.  If we were serious about putting hulls in the water and not vote buying... Err I mean job creation then we would have gone off shore to fill the gaps while our industry can tool and spool for the long term.

Side question, where is our ammo production?  I was under the impression we don't produce ammo.


----------



## Underway

GD-OTS Canada, IMT Corp, Magellan Aerospace and Colt Canada all are domestic producers and suppliers of ammunition in Canada.

Canada has an Munitions Supply Program (MSP) in place since the 1980's.  We are gun shy (pun intended) since WW1 about supply problems regarding ammunition for our own military (ie UK screwed us).   Our domestic ammo production is a bit overpayed to ensure that they have an excess production capacity in case of a conflict.  However they are internationally competitive in the ammo selling market and our ammo goes all over the place.  Our expertise is such that just before the war (Jan timeframe) Ukraine was asking Canada to assist them in developing their own domestic ammunition production system, like ours.

Here's a pretty good article from the G&M on the industry. Not sure if it's behind a paywall....

Ammonopoly: General Dynamics’ sweet deal to supply Canada’s ammunition


----------



## NavyShooter

It was put (a long while ago) that the NSS project is a jobs project, from which ships are a byproduct. 

The priority was never about getting combat capable ships and auxiliaries.  It's always been about the jobs - the pork-barrel politics that is Canada.

If we were to build a yard to assemble submarines...that would be a level of pork that no-one has seen since the Sponsorship Scandal.


----------



## YZT580

Halifax Tar said:


> Domestic defense production is great when you actually get the defense products.
> 
> But the problem lays more with government than it does industry.  If we were serious about putting hulls in the water and not vote buying... Err I mean job creation then we would have gone off shore to fill the gaps while our industry can tool and spool for the long term.
> 
> Side question, where is our ammo production?  I was under the impression we don't produce ammo.


So you buy the first products off-shore.  That means you are paying to establish an assembly process somewhere else for the first tranche and then paying again to do the same thing on-shore.  Or maybe you keep the run going off-shore to equip the fleet but then you are never going to develop your own capabilities.  Better not to have closed the industry down in the first place.  Having done that, bite the bullet and re-build it right which means establishing a multi-party acquisition process that isn't voter dependent or at least limits the politics


----------



## FSTO

YZT580 said:


> So you buy the first products off-shore.  That means you are paying to establish an assembly process somewhere else for the first tranche and then paying again to do the same thing on-shore.  Or maybe you keep the run going off-shore to equip the fleet but then you are never going to develop your own capabilities.  Better not to have closed the industry down in the first place.  Having done that, bite the bullet and re-build it right which means establishing a multi-party acquisition process that isn't voter dependent or at least limits the politics


I think I need to just post this in every naval thread about why our warship construction industry is in the state it is.

After WWII we had a fairly mature shipbuilding capability although I'm unsure if any of the Tribals being built in Halifax actually saw action. Then from 1953 to 1972 there was a continual build of RCN ships and we grew from the DDE's to refitted DDE to DDH (Fraser) to DDH from the keel up (Annapolis and Nipigon) to the Tribals with their twin helo's and SAM missiles. We also tossed in 3 AORs (1 refit and 2 purpose built). By 72 we had rid ourselves of the Nav Architect community, the will to build upon previous experience, and a government hell bent on gutting the CAF (willingly or unwillingly). We come to 1985 and we realize that we've wrung the last bit usefulness from the steamers and made the decision to replace them. Did the government actually look at building offshore? I'm not sure but the result was to pour oodles of money and sweat into resurrecting a warship building capability that by 1996 was pumping out frigates at a good rate and with the knowledge that EOL of the TRUMPs and AORs was rapidly approaching. So instead of having the yard pivot to next requirements the decision was made to shut the whole thing down again. And now we find ourselves in the early teens and the entire government fleet is on the verge of falling apart and rightly the PM forced (?) the GoC to come up with the NSS to address the rust out issue of the fleets of the GoC. Any person who had an ounce of experience with government programs knew that there will be cost overruns because that is just the way things work. The NSS is a MASSIVE program, much more complex than the child care or I'd even argue the Medicare system but if we power through there will be a decent payoff in the end.
The one problem is see in the future is that we've built a whole group of ships in one go and they are not staggered enough and we'll be in the same situation again in 30/40 years. I'm hoping that we decide not to do mid life refits, or do them at year 12 and get rid of them at year 25, instead of refit at year 22 and them sinking on their own at year 45.


----------



## Dana381

NavyShooter said:


> It was put (a long while ago) that the NSS project is a jobs project, from which ships are a byproduct.
> 
> The priority was never about getting combat capable ships and auxiliaries.  It's always been about the jobs - the pork-barrel politics that is Canada.
> 
> If we were to build a yard to assemble submarines...that would be a level of pork that no-one has seen since the Sponsorship Scandal.



Jobs and the capability, my memory of the news reports of the time were to rebuild our ability to build ships at home. The NSS was supposed to be a slow process so that it never had to stop. Instead of building ships as fast as possible then having none to build for 20 years. The plan was to have continuous domestic shipbuilding (and the related jobs) for ever. It was never about the fastest way to get hulls in the water.


----------



## OldSolduer

If we depended on Canadian yards to build subs …I don’t think the final product would meet the requirements. I’m cynical and honestly I don’t know much about sub building.


----------



## Rainbow1910

While I am aware that it is going to be awhile until Canada seriously starts looking into a specific design of submarine to procure, I thought it would be an interesting to have some discussion and look at what is currently/going to be on the market to see what is suitable. I will preface this by saying that I think Canada needs a relatively high endurance conventionally powered submarine, something not especially commonly offered on the export market. Other key factors I think are risk mitigation with a mature partner who can build these boats outside of Canada, I do not see domestic production as something realistic. I won't be mentioning Spain as their submarine program has seen many flaws, missteps and issues. The UK and US would both be ideal options for building Canada conventionally powered submarines but as both powers have been out of the process for many decades, they are also off the table. In no particular order:

Germany
I think out of everybody listed here, the Germans have the most constant experience in designing and exporting modern conventional submarines. That being said, they are mainly smaller types and that experience doesn’t necessarily transfer over to a successful large high endurance diesel submarine on a 1:1 basis. The Type 216 was a German design concept pitched to Australia which might be acceptable for Canada but from what I can see, it’s nothing but a concept at this point. Norway and Germany are both partnering for the Type 212CD variant which is large and features a novel "stealth" hull shape, that is another option.

Sweden
Sweden seems like another reasonable contender with their A26 design but I do have my reservations. Their competency alongside the Australians for their past Collins class throws up some red flags while the A26 variant for Sweden itself and it’s construction has been languishing for sometime. Their experience building submarines recently has gaps and while they promise a lot on paper which looks like, I am getting some Gripen E vibes for over promising and underperforming. I am skeptical of the A26 although it might be one of the best options on paper, it is a completely untested shot in the dark.

Japan
One of the stronger contenders due to the fact their submarines are excellent on paper however, Japan itself as an exporter is a major hurdle. They have effectively no experience in exporting such large, complex and expensive pieces of military hardware especially when you have demanding nations like Canada which will likely asking for huge modifications to the original design. It’s quite the substantial leap of faith and I’m not sure Japan can pull it off effectively. I’ve heard the Japanese submarines had accommodation issues for larger western sailors alongside not really enough range for Australian sensibilities but take those with a grain of salt. Their boats themselves such as Soryuu and Taigei seem advanced and very capable but partnering with them could turn into a nightmare.

France
Although France has a soured reputation after the Attack class debacle, they are a proven exporter of basically any piece of military hardware especially submarines. Building in France could seemingly avoid many of the Attack class pitfalls and between the conventional Barracuda design and the proven Scorpène class, France has options suitable to Canada they can offer in their current or modified state. One of the major upsides I see with France is that they have experience in modifying export designs to integrate foreign tech, which is a risk mitigater potentially. There is some questions to be had due to the insane complexity and risky nature of the conventional Barracuda and the Scorpene is a very old design at its core but France is an option it seems for a mature partner.

South Korea
Seemingly the new player on the block, South Korea is starting to export smaller submarines into Asia while also working on larger domestic boats for their own Navy. There isn't the pedigree of long term export experience for submarines however, South Korea has a reputation of being reasonable and quick to build ships for foreign customers. They have already attempted to export their larger boat design to India which seems to be doing well in that competition. They seem to be the black horse in my opinion with the KSS-III/DSME-3000 design.

If there is anything I missed or anything you'd like to add, feel free!


----------



## Navy_Pete

OldSolduer said:


> If we depended on Canadian yards to build subs …I don’t think the final product would meet the requirements. I’m cynical and honestly I don’t know much about sub building.


Subs are on par with building space shuttles; it's massively complicated and very specialized. We can fix ours up to a point, but we have zero capability to build one, and there was a massive learning curve just to do repairs.

NSS to build surface ships makes sense, as we already build commercial ships and have facilities/ equipment. Subs are way more complicated, and would need to build infrastructure to do critical things like make the pressure hull.

My $0.02 is we should buy and off the shelf design (without changes) and have them built at a foreign yard, and then focus on the maintenance side of things for 'Canadian content' and job development. Would be a bit of a transition period but that would make sense, and actually completely allowed under the 'Build in Canada' policy because the facilities don't exist in Canada, which is one of the exemption criteria.


----------



## dapaterson

Step 1: Set up a yard in a politically volatile riding and get massive subsidies to do so.

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit!


----------



## OldSolduer

dapaterson said:


> Step 1: Set up a yard in a politically volatile riding and get massive subsidies to do so.
> 
> Step 2: ???
> 
> Step 3: Profit!


Oh you cynic you


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> Step 1: Set up a yard in a politically volatile riding and get massive subsidies to do so.
> 
> Step 2: ???
> 
> Step 3: Profit!


Plot twist; the yard is on a landlocked body of water, so can also subsidize heavy transport and fit in one or more assembly yards!  All KICs, all the time! #IRBsforall #SewerTubeConvoy2060 #PorkBarrelingisThinkingSmall


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I support the NSS for surface ships, but not for subs, neither the US or UK have conventional powered sub designs. The only ones with experience in larger non-nuke subs are the Dutch and the Japanese. Both are in the process of replacing their subs, we should be tagging along and observing the process if possible.


----------



## dapaterson

Navy_Pete said:


> Plot twist; the yard is on a landlocked body of water, so can also subsidize heavy transport and fit in one or more assembly yards!  All KICs, all the time! #IRBsforall #SewerTubeConvoy2060 #PorkBarrelingisThinkingSmall


You're hired


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> I support the NSS for surface ships, but not for subs, neither the US or UK have conventional powered sub designs. The only ones with experience in larger non-nuke subs are the Dutch and the Japanese. Both are in the process of replacing their subs, we should be tagging along and observing the process if possible.


Would be a bit strange history wise, but German has some subs meant for export, and I think has things like AIP or fuel cell technology.

The nice thing generally there would be a standard model, used by a number of other countries is a larger user base to work with on things and hopefully makes things like obsolescence easier with more people working on it. And if we develop some kind of fix for something using some kind of Canadian technology gives whatever company that came up with it some easy export opportunities.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:


> Would be a bit strange history wise, but German has some subs meant for export, and I think has things like AIP or fuel cell technology.
> 
> The nice thing generally there would be a standard model, used by a number of other countries is a larger user base to work with on things and hopefully makes things like obsolescence easier with more people working on it. And if we develop some kind of fix for something using some kind of Canadian technology gives whatever company that came up with it some easy export opportunities.


The German export sub and their ship building has not been without trouble, Subs were rejected and had to go back to the yard for repairs, frigates with a list and for awhile the entire German sub fleet tied to the dock due to lack of spare parts. The Japanese are currently planning to replace their Sōryū class with newer subs, perhaps we can lease them while we dither.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Well, for sure, but I think gives a bit of insight into how difficult building subs are if German engineers are struggling.

I would just be happy if we didn't end up with another batch of one offs no one else in the world is using that do the job safely.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin Parkinson said:


> The German export sub and their ship building has not been without trouble, Subs were rejected and had to go back to the yard for repairs, frigates with a list and for awhile the entire German sub fleet tied to the dock due to lack of spare parts. The Japanese are currently planning to replace their Sōryū class with newer subs, perhaps we can lease them while we dither.


The Japanese subs would be pristine…


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:


> The Japanese subs would be pristine…


Very much so, but getting the fishy smell out of them would be hard.


----------



## GK .Dundas

That and translating...well everything. And as well they use a completely different weapons system and weapons.
Mind you it would be within our range of behaviour so to speak.
We've certainly got a history of it.


----------



## JMCanada

Can a new conventional submarine smooth Australia’s transition to a nuclear-powered fleet? | The Strategist

Why not joining the Australians and purchase together?
IMHO the submarine propulsion should have AIP powered by Ballard's fuell-cells and French DCNS diesel reformer (called FC2G) to produce Hydrogen for the FC. It should also include US combat systems.
German storage of hydrogen as metal hydrides would struggle to power an oceanic SS beyond 3 weeks at 4 knots.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

The Summer issue of the Starshell (official magazine of the Naval Association of Canada) is dedicated to Submarine issues affecting Canada. Here is the magazines table of contents: 


Submarines in Canada: A Tortuous History Captain(N) [Ret'd] Norman Jolin
Canada's Future Submarine Force: Strategic Requirements Dr. Jeff Collins
Canadian Political Leadership and the Next Canadian Submarine Dr.Rob Huebert
Canada's Critical Submarine Requirements Commodore [Ret'd] Jamie Clark
The Modern Threat Environment and Canada's Future Submarine Rear Admiral Chris Robinson
The Under-Ice Environment as a Strategic Space Dr.Adam Lajeunesse & Tim Choi
Submarine Procurement: Widening the Aperture of Options Vice Admiral [Ret'd] Robert Davidson

The complete magazine can be here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

JMCanada said:


> Can a new conventional submarine smooth Australia’s transition to a nuclear-powered fleet? | The Strategist
> 
> Why not joining the Australians and purchase together?
> IMHO the submarine propulsion should have AIP powered by Ballard's fuell-cells and French DCNS diesel reformer (called FC2G) to produce Hydrogen for the FC. It should also include US combat systems.
> German storage of hydrogen as metal hydrides would struggle to power an oceanic SS beyond 3 weeks at 4 knots.


Oddly enough the Japanese might be moving away from AIP

From wiki:

_The eleventh Sōryū-class submarine (Ōryū) is the first Japanese submarine in the fleet to mount lithium-ion batteries. The JS Ōryū was given a budget of ¥64.3 billion (equivalent to ¥65.55 billion or US$601.3 million in 2019)[8] under the 2015 Japanese Defense Budget.[9]

Lithium-ion batteries have almost double the electric storage capacity of traditional lead-acid batteries, and by not only replacing them in the existing battery storage areas but adding to the already large battery capacity by also filling the huge space (several hundred tons displacement) inside the hull previously occupied by the AIP Stirling engines and their fuel tanks with these new batteries, the amount of (more powerful) batteries carried overall is massive. This has improved the underwater endurance significantly and is felt will be an advantage over the slow recharge capability of the AIP system.

In any event, JMSDF believes that lithium-ion is the way forward and intends to 'trial' this new system and compare it to the previous AIP system for operational effectiveness._


----------



## CBH99

Colin Parkinson said:


> The German export sub and their ship building has not been without trouble, Subs were rejected and had to go back to the yard for repairs, frigates with a list and for awhile the entire German sub fleet tied to the dock due to lack of spare parts. The Japanese are currently planning to replace their Sōryū class with newer subs, perhaps we can lease them while we dither.


That's genius actually.  Kind of like the 'used Aussie F-18 play, but it'll make sense & the Canadian Forces get what they actually want...

And sell the idea by letting the government know they can kick the can down the road for another party to deal with.  Subs are expensive after all.

"But in the meantime, why don't we lease some of these used ones?" 🤨


----------



## CBH99

Navy_Pete said:


> Well, for sure, but I think gives a bit of insight into how difficult building subs are if German engineers are struggling.
> 
> I would just be happy if we didn't end up with another batch of one offs no one else in the world is using that do the job safely.


Ummmmm... you mean off the shelf, not an orphan fleet, not heavily modified, and used by our allies?

Yeah we don't do that here...


----------



## JMCanada

Colin Parkinson said:


> Oddly enough the Japanese might be moving away from AIP
> (...)
> 
> _In any event, JMSDF believes that lithium-ion is the way forward and intends to 'trial' this new system and compare it to the previous AIP system for operational effectiveness._



Well, that's all true, but here's the dilemma between Power (kW) and Energy (kWh).

Batteries can provide a bulk of power at any moment (some MW), to propel the boat at max. speed. But their energy storage capacity is lower compared to the AIP. For instance, the S-80 submarine batteries are in the range of 10-12 MWh, while their AIP capacity would provide something in the range of 70-90 MWh. However AIP, as being implemented in submarines, can only provide limited power, typically in the range of 200-300 kW.

With LiFP batteries (that's the safest Li-ion technology for submarines) the energy can be doubled (grossly speaking). Let's take then 20-24 MW for the S-80 case, with similar dimensions to those of the Soryu. The Stirling engines do also take up a lot of space compared to the fuell cells (FC), and the oxygen requirements are also about double of that required for the fuel cells for the same energy, that is, Stirling efficiency in the use of O2 is about half of the FC. Therefore the Oryu may have reached (and this is just speculation) some 40-50 MWh by using both Lithium batteries and the space previously devoted to the Stirling engines and O2 storage filled with more Li-batteries. Still about half the energy it could get with an AIP.

The point is in the concept of operations. For Japan (and S_Korea as well) I guess the batteries make more sense. Not being far from their "own waters", the submarines may stay 1-2 weeks on station and still keep power and energy enough to quickly go back to their controlled waters and then surface or use the snorkel to replenish the batteries.

For Canada, and also for Australia, I guess, it might be better to have larger amounts of energy stored, that is longer permanence on station or capability to transit longer distances in-and-out of the "operations theatre", or even transit under the Arctic ice.

... but that is only my armchair opinion.


----------



## Good2Golf

JMC, spot on - the P vs E perspective is an important lens to look at requirements.  Not sure if Canada would consider AIP as a necessity if trying to do a budget ice-‘capable’ boat, but if that’s ruled out for any number of valid reasons, then it would be interesting to see how the longer ‘slow and silent’ of AIP vs ‘faster at the price of a bit more noise’ calculus would go, re an SSK(G?) Canadian mission set.


----------



## FSTO

We'll get what we get. If that.

As outlined in the Starshell:
Canadian leaders are unlikely to be drawn into any meaningful understanding of the dynamics of the modern underwater warfare environment.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> The Japanese subs would be pristine…


The head room though...   

Spoke to a few British sailors on the Tide Class when the QE came to Halifax. they were built by Korean yards.  One of the disadvantages was that they used Korean average heights for everything.  There were a number of spaces where British sailors felt a little... claustrophobic.


----------



## Weinie

Underway said:


> The head room though...
> 
> Spoke to a few British sailors on the Tide Class when the QE came to Halifax. they were built by Korean yards.  One of the disadvantages was that they used Korean average heights for everything.  There were a number of spaces where British sailors felt a little... claustrophobic.


I would be fine.


----------



## dapaterson

Weinie said:


> I would be fine.


Well, as long as we get you a step stool.


----------



## Rainbow1910

Underway said:


> The head room though...
> 
> Spoke to a few British sailors on the Tide Class when the QE came to Halifax. they were built by Korean yards.  One of the disadvantages was that they used Korean average heights for everything.  There were a number of spaces where British sailors felt a little... claustrophobic.


I've heard the same thing levied by the Australians towards Japanese submarines a few years ago. 



CBH99 said:


> "But in the meantime, why don't we lease some of these used ones?" 🤨


I think another leased/used submarine procurement would be off the table, the Victoria's has completely poisoned that idea politically.


----------



## Weinie

dapaterson said:


> Well, as long as we get you a step stool.


I don't change the bulbs on a sub, Kareem.


----------



## FSTO

Rainbow1910 said:


> I think another leased/used submarine procurement would be off the table, the Victoria's has completely poisoned that idea politically.


Our political masters have the corporate memory of a flea. Do not under-estimate their ability to repeat bad mistakes.


----------



## Spencer100

FSTO said:


> Our political masters have the corporate memory of a flea. Do not under-estimate their ability to repeat bad mistakes.


I do believe the government does have a plan. Do nothing until absolutely they have to because of world events and/or if not justified at the time divest without replacement.   This would be a win in their books.


----------



## OldSolduer

Rainbow1910 said:


> I think another leased/used submarine procurement would be off the table, the Victoria's has completely poisoned that idea politically.


Yeah right. Who bought used F18s? 

Your Honour I rest my case.....


----------



## GR66

Personally I'm very much in favour of submarines for the RCN.  I've suggested previously that we should go nuclear - even if we need to home port the subs in the US alongside their own in Grotton, CT and Kitsap, WA in order to be able to provide the required technical support.

The maritime domain that we need our subs to cover is absolutely massive.  Russian sub-launched cruise missiles have a range of 2,500km for the SS-N-30A land attack version so they have a huge area far from our littorals we'd need to cover.  Covering even the entrances to the NW Passage is a huge distance for our subs to travel and any deployment to an Asian crisis is very major undertaking.

Australia has already determined that the only way they can cover the distances they need to deploy is with nuclear propulsion.  I don't think that the situation is any different for Canada.  Presumably in any actual war situation our subs will need to make their transits to their operating areas submerged and at low speed in order to remain undetected by the enemy.  How long will that take?  What trade-offs will need to be made between the need to get on station as quickly as possible and remaining stealthy?  

Then there's the question of quantity.  With our current fleet of 4 x subs (3 in the Atlantic and 1 in the Pacific) even if we assume that all four are available to deploy then what kind of area could we cover?  If we have one sub covering the Eastern end of the NW Passage would the other two be enough to maintain that coverage considering the time required to transit to and from station, resupply requirements, etc.?   And that's just to patrol one location on one coast.  

While a sub might be the best ASW weapon available I think realistically that since subs are slow and obviously can only be in one place at a time that you need a minimum number available for them to be worth the cost.  I'm not sure exactly what that number is but I'm pretty certain that the number is likely more than 3 per coast.  Nuclear subs with their better submerged transit speed and basically unlimited endurance would have a lower minimum number requirement.

My (uneducated) guess is that the Mulroney-era plan for 10-12 SSNs (giving 5 or 6 per coast) is likely about right for a minimum requirement.  That would allow two or three subs to deploy to station fairly rapidly and be sustained by the remaining subs.  Still doesn't provide a great amount of coverage, but would create a great amount of uncertainty for any enemy.  Nuclear subs would also have the transit speed to be able to keep up with any Surface Task Group we might want to deploy. 

I'm guessing that to get a similar level of sustainable coverage from a conventional submarine fleet you'd likely need 8-10 subs per coast.  And I'm also guessing that with conventional subs it would be very hard to deploy in support of a Task Group in a distant theatre.

My gut tells me that unless you get to that critical mass in terms of numbers to be an effective force then maybe you'd be better off spending that money on a larger quantity of individually less capable assets.  For example, how many P-8's can you buy for the price of 4 x SSKs?  Which option would ultimately give you more ASW bang for your buck?

I'm definitely pro-submarine, but I'm just saying that our thinking regarding our submarine fleet needs to go beyond "submarines are good, our four submarines are old, and we need to buy new ones".


----------



## Rainbow1910

GR66 said:


> Australia has already determined that the only way they can cover the distances they need to deploy is with nuclear propulsion.  I don't think that the situation is any different for Canada.  Presumably in any actual war situation our subs will need to make their transits to their operating areas submerged and at low speed in order to remain undetected by the enemy.  How long will that take?  What trade-offs will need to be made between the need to get on station as quickly as possible and remaining stealthy?


While you are correct in saying nuclear submarines are the best option for a Canada wishes to properly defend itself and flex power into the Arctic, I do not think operating a fleet of nuclear attack submarines is remotely plausible. Australia being brought into the ring of western nuclear attack sub operators is largely due to the fact that the country can be used as a very effective submarine base by the US in the event of conflict with China, having extra nuclear boats in the area as well is another positive. It's something to also consider that Australia very much has the incentive for its government to heavily invest in these types of boats given it's large holdings in the area and most importantly, an increasingly aggressive Chinese government pushing further out into its territory. Canada and its government doesn't have this urgent requirement, we are not directly at risk such as Australia by a powerful regional player. We are tucked away safely in North American with the current world superpower as a neighbor, a neighbor invested in maintaining the status quo of our combined defense. 

Nuclear submarines for Canada would require domestic and international cooperation through multiple governments and incredible amounts of investment into countless aspects of the RCN. It would effectively result in a completely new future procurement and operational plan for the Navy going forward. There's also political issues with the US (and UK to a more minor degree) to deal with in regard to Arctic sovereignty as well as infrastructure, basing, training, physical procurement of vessels/parts and much more. It's effectively a pipedream that would require an unnaturally competent/united Canadian government to get such a procurement program through. At this point, the only realistic option I see for Canada is 6-8 modern and larger conventional boats.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The 15 nuke subs for Canada was also at the expense of most of the surface fleet. Surface Fleet can do a lot of things subs can't do and vis versa. It's very clear that 4 subs are not enough as 1-2 will always be in some sort of refit and another working up. Minimum 6 boats with 8 being a good number for us. That would allow 2 subs in deep refit, 2 working up and 2 operational (or 1 if we go 6) on each coast, assuming we can man them.
I think we can safely say that without a major geo-political event scaring the crap out of Ottawa, Canada is not getting nuclear subs in the next buy.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I’d go as far as changing the last line in the above post to say “Canada is not getting subs in the next but”.

Canadians just don’t care and neither does our government.  We’ll continue to have rather token ASW and sub-surface forces.  For the record I include my own fleet in that “rather token” statement.


----------



## OldSolduer

Eye In The Sky said:


> I’d go as far as changing the last line in the above post to say “Canada is not getting subs in the next but”.
> 
> Canadians just don’t care and neither does our government.  We’ll continue to have rather token ASW and sub-surface forces.  For the record I include my own fleet in that “rather token” statement.


Especially this current Liberal government. I think if the young tard had his way he'd fire the CAF.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I think I'd have to agree;  Canadians....care from 09 - 12 Nov and when they see the Snowbirds at an airshow.

Anyone would be hard pressed to convince me otherwise.  I recently heard an Exchange Officer from one of our Allies say "your government really does not like you"..._you_ being 'the Canadian military'.  I don't even believe we are really all that respected amongst our Allies anymore as a force.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Colin Parkinson said:


> The 15 nuke subs for Canada was also at the expense of most of the surface fleet. Surface Fleet can do a lot of things subs can't do and vis versa. It's very clear that 4 subs are not enough as 1-2 will always be in some sort of refit and another working up. Minimum 6 boats with 8 being a good number for us. That would allow 2 subs in deep refit, 2 working up and 2 operational (or 1 if we go 6) on each coast, assuming we can man them.
> I think we can safely say that without a major geo-political event scaring the crap out of Ottawa, Canada is not getting nuclear subs in the next buy.


As I recall it was the Navy that cancelled the third tranche of 6 City class frigate because of sheer spectacular capability that SSNs offered..
The ability of warships to transit from Halifax to Esquimalt in a week to ten days as opposed to many weeks . Is very appealing, very appealing.
Furthermore I believe the figure usually mentioned in those heady days was 10-12 .


----------



## Halifax Tar

Rainbow1910 said:


> While you are correct in saying nuclear submarines are the best option for a Canada wishes to properly defend itself and flex power into the Arctic, I do not think operating a fleet of nuclear attack submarines is remotely plausible. Australia being brought into the ring of western nuclear attack sub operators is largely due to the fact that the country can be used as a very effective submarine base by the US in the event of conflict with China, having extra nuclear boats in the area as well is another positive. It's something to also consider that Australia very much has the incentive for its government to heavily invest in these types of boats given it's large holdings in the area and most importantly, an increasingly aggressive Chinese government pushing further out into its territory. Canada and its government doesn't have this urgent requirement, we are not directly at risk such as Australia by a powerful regional player. We are tucked away safely in North American with the current world superpower as a neighbor, a neighbor invested in maintaining the status quo of our combined defense.



That sentiment is why we cant have nice things


----------



## KevinB

Rainbow1910 said:


> We are tucked away safely in North American with the current world superpower as a neighbor, a neighbor invested in maintaining the status quo of our combined defense.


Uhm, the neighbor is getting sick and tired at you freeloaders, and has been making noises for years that you need to carry your own weight, or we will start making things uncomfortable for you.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Uhm, the neighbor is getting sick and tired at you freeloaders, and has been making noises for years that you need to carry your own weight, or we will start making things uncomfortable for you.



Canada: (sadly, not the first time I’ve used this…)


…and the neighbour probably wouldn’t be as upset if they didn’t have to put up with Canada’s preachy, sanctimonious virtue-splaining on a regular basis.


----------



## OldSolduer

KevinB said:


> Uhm, the neighbor is getting sick and tired at you freeloaders, and has been making noises for years that you need to carry your own weight, or we will start making things uncomfortable for you.



All empires eventually come to an end and tear themselves apart from within,

The USA is no different.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Good2Golf said:


> Canada: (sadly, not the first time I’ve used this…)
> View attachment 72463
> 
> …and the neighbour probably wouldn’t be as upset if they didn’t have to put up with Canada’s preachy, sanctimonious virtue-splaining in a regular basis.


Jeffrey Simpson , a decade ago, whinging about the Harper government, as he was won't to do, too often, quoted Dean Acheson: "American statesman Dean Acheson once acidly quipped that Canadians discussing foreign affairs reminded him of listening to the "stern daughter of the voice of God." Canadians, he implied, were pious moralists, ready to give free and often unwanted advice, based on the assumption that Canadians possessed a rare insight into good and proper conduct." Acheson made his comments at the height of the Korean War - Canada opposed several elements of the US-led UN strategy, especially getting too far North, close to the Yalu River. In the same (recorded) chat for his memoirs (Present at the Creation) Acheson, himself  the son of an Ontario clergyman and a member of the Gooderham family - once mightily important in Canada - also said that Canada was: “a tribal society, naïve, terribly serious about the wrong things and not at all aware of their real problems.... Their best move would be to ask us to take them over; and our best move would be to say, ‘No.’”


----------



## Halifax Tar

Edward Campbell said:


> Jeffrey Simpson , a decade ago, whinging about the Harper government, as he was won't to do, too often, quoted Dean Acheson: "American statesman Dean Acheson once acidly quipped that Canadians discussing foreign affairs reminded him of listening to the "stern daughter of the voice of God." Canadians, he implied, were pious moralists, ready to give free and often unwanted advice, based on the assumption that Canadians possessed a rare insight into good and proper conduct." Acheson made his comments at the height of the Korean War - Canada opposed several elements of the US-led UN strategy, especially getting too far North, close to the Yalu River. In the same (recorded) chat for his memoirs (Present at the Creation) Acheson, himself  the son of an Ontario clergyman and a member of the Gooderham family - once mightily important in Canada - also said that Canada was: “a tribal society, naïve, terribly serious about the wrong things and not at all aware of their real problems.... Their best move would be to ask us to take them over; and our best move would be to say, ‘No.’”



Canada seems to be comfortable being the wimp hiding behind the big kid throwing insults.


----------



## FSTO

Edward Campbell said:


> Canada opposed several elements of the US-led UN strategy, especially getting too far North, close to the Yalu River


Well in hindsight they weren’t wrong about getting to close to the Yalu. It be interesting to be able to read the BN’s from that time.


----------



## GR66

Rainbow1910 said:


> While you are correct in saying nuclear submarines are the best option for a Canada wishes to properly defend itself and flex power into the Arctic, I do not think operating a fleet of nuclear attack submarines is remotely plausible.


I sadly agree that Canada getting SSN's is not really _plausible _due to a lack of political will.  I'd argue that it would be _possible _IF there was the political will to do so.


Rainbow1910 said:


> Australia being brought into the ring of western nuclear attack sub operators is largely due to the fact that the country can be used as a very effective submarine base by the US in the event of conflict with China, having extra nuclear boats in the area as well is another positive. It's something to also consider that Australia very much has the incentive for its government to heavily invest in these types of boats given it's large holdings in the area and most importantly, an increasingly aggressive Chinese government pushing further out into its territory. Canada and its government doesn't have this urgent requirement, we are not directly at risk such as Australia by a powerful regional player. We are tucked away safely in North American with the current world superpower as a neighbor, a neighbor invested in maintaining the status quo of our combined defense.


Others have already commented on this point and I'll just add my "ditto".


Rainbow1910 said:


> Nuclear submarines for Canada would require domestic and international cooperation through multiple governments and incredible amounts of investment into countless aspects of the RCN. It would effectively result in a completely new future procurement and operational plan for the Navy going forward. There's also political issues with the US (and UK to a more minor degree) to deal with in regard to Arctic sovereignty as well as infrastructure, basing, training, physical procurement of vessels/parts and much more. It's effectively a pipedream that would require an unnaturally competent/united Canadian government to get such a procurement program through.


Nothing that could not be overcome with the political will to do so, but as noted above I agree with you that that will simply does not currently exist.


Rainbow1910 said:


> At this point, the only realistic option I see for Canada is 6-8 modern and larger conventional boats.


I agree that this is the likely course of action due to both political and financial constraints.  However, this is where I hope some serious questions are asked before we proceed.  Even with the best case scenario of eight subs (doubling our current fleet) that still leaves us with just four subs per coast.  

Is that enough subs to be worth the cost in comparison to other capabilities?  How many of those four subs per coast can we realistically expect to be able to maintain on station during a conflict considering the vast distances we need to cover?  What is their detection range of enemy subs using passive sonar?  Obviously the actual distance is highly variable depending on a whole range of conditions (and of course classified), but from what I've been able to find online it's likely less than 10km against a modern submarine at patrolling speed (please correct me if I'm out to lunch on this as this is obviously totally outside my lane).  Relative to the size of our maritime domain that is basically nothing.  Of course we would have other assets (both Canadian and allied) narrowing down where we should be searching with our subs but conventional subs are limited on how far and fast they can go while remaining undetected themselves.

Clearly there are things that subs can do that no other platform can do and there are things that subs can do better than other platforms, but I'm just suggesting that smart people need to look at whether at a certain point the limited number of subs we're able (willing) to afford makes their comparative advantage over other options not worth their cost.  How many P-8s, Corvettes or USV/UUV's equipped with towed array sonars (or various combinations of these platforms) could we have for the same cost as those 6-8 conventional subs?  Which combination best meets our military needs?  Maybe the correct answer IS 6-8 conventional subs but sometimes I get the impression that we're just wanting replacement subs (and hopefully more than we currently have) because obviously subs are good and we want to have them - not because a critical analysis of our military requirements has determined that X number of conventional AIP subs best fulfills those requirements.


----------



## YZT580

GR66 said:


> I sadly agree that Canada getting SSN's is not really _plausible _due to a lack of political will.  I'd argue that it would be _possible _IF there was the political will to do so.
> 
> Others have already commented on this point and I'll just add my "ditto".
> 
> Nothing that could not be overcome with the political will to do so, but as noted above I agree with you that that will simply does not currently exist.
> 
> I agree that this is the likely course of action due to both political and financial constraints.  However, this is where I hope some serious questions are asked before we proceed.  Even with the best case scenario of eight subs (doubling our current fleet) that still leaves us with just four subs per coast.
> 
> Is that enough subs to be worth the cost in comparison to other capabilities?  How many of those four subs per coast can we realistically expect to be able to maintain on station during a conflict considering the vast distances we need to cover?  What is their detection range of enemy subs using passive sonar?  Obviously the actual distance is highly variable depending on a whole range of conditions (and of course classified), but from what I've been able to find online it's likely less than 10km against a modern submarine at patrolling speed (please correct me if I'm out to lunch on this as this is obviously totally outside my lane).  Relative to the size of our maritime domain that is basically nothing.  Of course we would have other assets (both Canadian and allied) narrowing down where we should be searching with our subs but conventional subs are limited on how far and fast they can go while remaining undetected themselves.
> 
> Clearly there are things that subs can do that no other platform can do and there are things that subs can do better than other platforms, but I'm just suggesting that smart people need to look at whether at a certain point the limited number of subs we're able (willing) to afford makes their comparative advantage over other options not worth their cost.  How many P-8s, Corvettes or USV/UUV's equipped with towed array sonars (or various combinations of these platforms) could we have for the same cost as those 6-8 conventional subs?  Which combination best meets our military needs?  Maybe the correct answer IS 6-8 conventional subs but sometimes I get the impression that we're just wanting replacement subs (and hopefully more than we currently have) because obviously subs are good and we want to have them - not because a critical analysis of our military requirements has determined that X number of conventional AIP subs best fulfills those requirements.


And in the meantime, a high priority should be to add, perhaps double the number of ASW aircraft that we have patrolling.  We originally had 33 Argus built.  Granted they were slow but they had the ability to remain on station for a very long time and could cover one entire coast of Canada on a single patrol.  In addition they were augmented by carrier based aircraft such as the tracker.  Now we have only what ten, fifteen aircraft to cover both coasts and a fleet of ASW helicopters that depend upon our naval assets to be affective.  There is no way that we can ensure that there are no subs within striking distance given  these assets.  To be affective deterrents our subs need to work in conjunction with a/c and, imho there should be at least one aircraft on each coast airborne and armed at all times whenever geo-politics get tense (like now).  Aircraft can be purchased and put into service in a reasonably short time when compared with the lead-in time for a sub purchase.  We need new subs, yes, and we need them soon but we need the a\c now; then argue about the best sub for the job.  (To clarify my position, I do not have a military background so I could be totally out to lunch but, then again, what if I am right?)


----------



## KevinB

IMHO, and admitting I am not a Naval type person.
   Given the GoC is unlikely (see snowball's chance in hell) to procure Nuclear Submarines, I would argue that Canada is best divesting its manned Submarines without replacement.

@GR66 points out above that the cost of the 6-8 SSK can be put towards a lot of things, and most importantly to me, the SSK cannot do what the RCN really needs in a Sub - the arctic under ice patrolling in a year round, season irrelevant nature.


----------



## NavyShooter

Canadians...actually...most folks in the world...don't know the difference between nuclear powered and nuclear armed.  To them, a nuc sub is bad.

If/When Canada buys new subs, we will honestly be lucky to keep our number at 4.  That was enough O-Boats (including the training hull) and we've 'maintained' capability with the Upholders, so why do we need more?

Realistically, 6-8 SSK's should be our minimum to enable maintenance rotations and some level of both operational and training activity.

In fact...we'll probably only buy 3 new ones, and reduce the sub fleet to operating on one coast.

That's the cynical sailor side of me speaking.


----------



## OldSolduer

NavyShooter said:


> That's the cynical sailor side of me speaking.


More like a "realistic" sailor.


----------



## Spencer100

YZT580 said:


> And in the meantime, a high priority should be to add, perhaps double the number of ASW aircraft that we have patrolling.  We originally had 33 Argus built.  Granted they were slow but they had the ability to remain on station for a very long time and could cover one entire coast of Canada on a single patrol.  In addition they were augmented by carrier based aircraft such as the tracker.  Now we have only what ten, fifteen aircraft to cover both coasts and a fleet of ASW helicopters that depend upon our naval assets to be affective.  There is no way that we can ensure that there are no subs within striking distance given  these assets.  To be affective deterrents our subs need to work in conjunction with a/c and, imho there should be at least one aircraft on each coast airborne and armed at all times whenever geo-politics get tense (like now).  Aircraft can be purchased and put into service in a reasonably short time when compared with the lead-in time for a sub purchase.  We need new subs, yes, and we need them soon but we need the a\c now; then argue about the best sub for the job.  (To clarify my position, I do not have a military background so I could be totally out to lunch but, then again, what if I am right?)


its the same thing in all these threads.  I think the DND should just change the cabinet briefs for approval to this is the very bare minimum we can just about get away with and defend against "help"  Which in end after all is said and done the real reason of the CAF.   that is my super cynical take.


----------



## GK .Dundas

I can remember reading that Canadian defence policy was at it's most basic level . Consisted of spending a sufficient sum that reassured the Americans and never spending too much as to make them nervous.
This policy dates back to the 70's ....the 1870's not the 1970's.


----------



## OldSolduer

GK .Dundas said:


> I can remember reading that Canadian defence policy was at it's most basic level . Consisted of spending a sufficient sum that reassured the Americans and never spending too much as to make them nervous.
> This policy dates back to the 70's ....the 1870's not the 1970's.


I don't think the US was nervous about Canada's defence spending in the 1970's.


----------



## Dana381

My opinion means absolutely nothing but I actually think Canada might just buy SSN's this time. The narrative on nuclear power has been changing lately with the environment so much on peoples minds. Even the Left is starting to realize that we can't mandate electric cars with the current grid system, it just can't handle it. Europe's natural gas woes during the Ukraine war have brought this to light. Add to this that every major power is trying to carve out their claim to the arctic and I think the GOC will be told by the Navy that SSN's are the only option. (for their under ice capability)

I expect public education programs on the safety of modern nuclear energy will start up soon as it is the viable only option. Maybe AECL will come out with a modern CANDU and we can be a world leader in something again. The last ones I remember we sold to China and loaned them the money to buy them as they could not afford them.


----------



## KevinB

OldSolduer said:


> I don't think the US was nervous about Canada's defence spending in the 1970's.


Just that it was so low.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

YZT580 said:


> And in the meantime, a high priority should be to add, perhaps double the number of ASW aircraft that we have patrolling.  We originally had 33 Argus built.  Granted they were slow but they had the ability to remain on station for a very long time and could cover one entire coast of Canada on a single patrol.  In addition they were augmented by carrier based aircraft such as the tracker.  Now we have only what ten, fifteen aircraft to cover both coasts and a fleet of ASW helicopters that depend upon our naval assets to be affective.  There is no way that we can ensure that there are no subs within striking distance given  these assets.  To be affective deterrents our subs need to work in conjunction with a/c and, imho there should be at least one aircraft on each coast airborne and armed at all times whenever geo-politics get tense (like now).  Aircraft can be purchased and put into service in a reasonably short time when compared with the lead-in time for a sub purchase.  We need new subs, yes, and we need them soon but we need the a\c now; then argue about the best sub for the job.  (To clarify my position, I do not have a military background so I could be totally out to lunch but, then again, what if I am right?)



14 MPAs total including those out for upgrades, TLIR, etc.  That is for 2 x operational Sqns, 1 trg Sqn and 1 force development Sqn.  That math doesn’t work out well, without factoring in age and serviceability issues.  

33 Argus’s were a notable fleet size;  they could reach and patrol areas the P-3s, etc could make a “flyover” presence at best (there was an area the Soviet diesel boats would use that only Argus could effectively patrol).  

You will never see one aircraft airborne 24/7 on each coast.  Ever.   The sheer amount of aircraft and crews are not something the CAF is budgeted and capable of.  

We will never see a fleet the size or as effective as the 107 was again in Canada.  I’ll be my pension on it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dana381 said:


> My opinion means absolutely nothing but I actually think Canada might just buy SSN's this time. The narrative on nuclear power has been changing lately with the environment so much on peoples minds. Even the Left is starting to realize that we can't mandate electric cars with the current grid system, it just can't handle it. Europe's natural gas woes during the Ukraine war have brought this to light. Add to this that every major power is trying to carve out their claim to the arctic and I think the GOC will be told by the Navy that SSN's are the only option. (for their under ice capability)
> 
> I expect public education programs on the safety of modern nuclear energy will start up soon as it is the viable only option. Maybe AECL will come out with a modern CANDU and we can be a world leader in something again. The last ones I remember we sold to China and loaned them the money to buy them as they could not afford them.



The cost and “idea” of SSNs would be the kill factor in the voting population.   People care about free wifi on public transit not defence capability.

We are peacekeepers after all and peacekeepers don’t need subs.  We need smiles and handshakes for feel-good photo ops.


----------



## YZT580

Eye In The Sky said:


> 14 MPAs total including those out for upgrades, TLIR, etc.  That is for 2 x operational Sqns, 1 trg Sqn and 1 force development Sqn.  That math doesn’t work out well, without factoring in age and serviceability issues.
> 
> 33 Argus’s were a notable fleet size;  they could reach and patrol areas the P-3s, etc could make a “flyover” presence at best (there was an area the Soviet diesel boats would use that only Argus could effectively patrol).
> 
> You will never see one aircraft airborne 24/7 on each coast.  Ever.   The sheer amount of aircraft and crews are not something the CAF is budgeted and capable of.
> 
> We will never see a fleet the size or as effective as the 107 was again in Canada.  I’ll be my pension on it.


didn't say we will I said we should.  Sadly, I agree with your comments.  It fits with the OW mentality.  Patrol 9 to 5 Monday to Friday, weekends on the ground and never on a stat. holiday


----------



## Eye In The Sky

YZT580 said:


> didn't say we will I said we should.  Sadly, I agree with your comments.  It fits with the OW mentality.  Patrol 9 to 5 Monday to Friday, weekends on the ground and never on a stat. holiday



Well it’s not exactly like the last part.   My operational tour (6 years) had me away from home over 3.5 years of that time,  not counting domestic ops (there are several that are routine ones for us).

CJOC didn’t worry too much about our weekends and holidays; I spent 2 New Years Eves in a row inside a DMSC outside Canada briefing for an op mission.

When not chopped to them, we still hold high ready crews 365 days a year.

The small force we have is pretty busy.

Adding MPAs would mean a split fleet.  Not ideal.  Doubling;  sure right after we build our next carrier.  😬


----------



## NavyShooter

I'm working on it EITS...


----------



## Navy_Pete

Political will aside, going nuclear would require a massive amount of investment in infrastructure, training and likely a new base somewhere for better security.

The nuke boat crews have a lot more training than what we do now, and (fitting in with the theme for the RCN) have a hard time putting together enough crews. Aside from the nuclear portion, we don't even have experience anymore with high pressure steam systems.

Until we seriously invest in recruiting, retention and training, I don't think it makes any sense to really talk about new capabilities. I think the navy needs to retire some of it's existing fleet to safely crew the existing fleet, let alone the remainder of the AOPs coming in.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

NavyShooter said:


> I'm working on it EITS...



That’s pretty sharp!!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I will give the Navy some credit, on this coast at least they seem to be doing a lot of PR and public interaction, which is getting a lot of positive comments from the public.


----------



## dimsum

Navy_Pete said:


> Political will aside, going nuclear would require a massive amount of investment in infrastructure, training and likely a new base somewhere for better security.
> 
> The nuke boat crews have a lot more training than what we do now, and (fitting in with the theme for the RCN) have a hard time putting together enough crews. Aside from the nuclear portion, we don't even have experience anymore with high pressure steam systems.
> 
> Until we seriously invest in recruiting, retention and training, I don't think it makes any sense to really talk about new capabilities. I think the navy needs to retire some of it's existing fleet to safely crew the existing fleet, let alone the remainder of the AOPs coming in.


Slight tangent:

That's why I'm really surprised that the Aussies went that route.  From contacts there, the RAN (and ADF in general) isn't exactly having great retention either - especially their sub fleet.


----------



## rmc_wannabe

dimsum said:


> Slight tangent:
> 
> That's why I'm really surprised that the Aussies went that route.  From contacts there, the RAN (and ADF in general) isn't exactly having great retention either - especially their sub fleet.


Chicken and Egg scenario I think. 

Like we see in our own forces, we burn people out using and maintaining equipment that is well past its sell by date. That causes people to leave, form very public opinions of how "this organization is shit... with crappy equipment....blah, blah, blah..." , and it drives away the recruiting pool.

As much as people like to think it's pay and policies that keep people walking through the doors, capabilites and equipment are just as much of a draw if not more.

If I were to apply for an IT job at a major company and they still using mainframes and Banyon Vines; doesn't matter what the corporate culture or compensation looks like, I know that technology is archaic and it will take me more effort maintaining it that it's personally worth. 

Where I think the RAN/ADF/GoA has it right is factoring the "if you build it, they will come" aspect of recruiting. The RCN/CAF/GoC will use it as a reason not to explore new tech or capabilities (I.e. "We don't have enough sailors to crew new subs. Very sad...") and act surprised when the recruits aren't pouring in to crew 45 year old vessels with zeal.


----------



## dimsum

rmc_wannabe said:


> Where I think the RAN/ADF/GoA has it right is factoring the "if you build it, they will come" aspect of recruiting. The RCN/CAF/GoC will use it as a reason not to explore new tech or capabilities (I.e. "We don't have enough sailors to crew new subs. Very sad...") and act surprised when the recruits aren't pouring in to crew 45 year old vessels with zeal.


I've mentioned it before, but I think it's less of the recruiting aspect than "we have bad neighbours and help is far away" aspect.

No matter how much the GoA might not want to pay for it (if it feels that way), location forces it to keep up a decent defence force.  They also effectively protect NZ as well.


----------



## GK .Dundas

dimsum said:


> I've mentioned it before, but I think it's less of the recruiting aspect than "we have bad neighbours and help is far away" aspect.
> 
> No matter how much the GoA might not want to pay for it (if it feels that way), location forces it to keep up a decent defence force.  They also effectively protect NZ as well.


You're actually seeing in miniature  the American - Canadian relationship played out between Australia and New Zealand.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dimsum said:


> Slight tangent:
> 
> That's why I'm really surprised that the Aussies went that route.  From contacts there, the RAN (and ADF in general) isn't exactly having great retention either - especially their sub fleet.


And that's with the bonus pay and higher rates that submarines get in the RAN. Curious to see where they will actually berth the nuclear subs, usually a challenge of finding somewhere far enough away for a security/safety cordon while being close enough to be able to set up a maintenance facility and other logistics requirements.

I'm sure we'd probably do something similar and outsource the training to another country instead of reinventing the wheel, but I can't see us parking them in either Halifax or Esquimalt. For that reason alone I can't see us going nuclear, but AIP, fuel cell or some other diesel alternatives might be an option if we want some under ice patrol options.

I think our window was there in the 80s during the cold war and before the massive property value spike and buildup around both naval bases, but the US shut us down, so can't see it happening.

I think western militaries everywhere are having retention issues though. The old jingoistic cry of 'defend the King and country' doesn't really work unless you have someone like Russia on your actual doorstop.

The US may be a bit of an outlier, but they still have pretty strong nationalistic leanings, and it's also a good way to get a college education paid for, when it's out of reach for a lot of people.


----------



## YZT580

Navy_Pete said:


> And that's with the bonus pay and higher rates that submarines get in the RAN. Curious to see where they will actually berth the nuclear subs, usually a challenge of finding somewhere far enough away for a security/safety cordon while being close enough to be able to set up a maintenance facility and other logistics requirements.
> 
> I'm sure we'd probably do something similar and outsource the training to another country instead of reinventing the wheel, but I can't see us parking them in either Halifax or Esquimalt. For that reason alone I can't see us going nuclear, but AIP, fuel cell or some other diesel alternatives might be an option if we want some under ice patrol options.
> 
> I think our window was there in the 80s during the cold war and before the massive property value spike and buildup around both naval bases, but the US shut us down, so can't see it happening.
> 
> I think western militaries everywhere are having retention issues though. The old jingoistic cry of 'defend the King and country' doesn't really work unless you have someone like Russia on your actual doorstop.
> 
> The US may be a bit of an outlier, but they still have pretty strong nationalistic leanings, and it's also a good way to get a college education paid for, when it's out of reach for a lot of people.


We have no shortage of available areas within which to construct a secure base.  Your problem would be getting people to actually move there


----------



## KevinB

YZT580 said:


> We have no shortage of available areas within which to construct a secure base.  Your problem would be getting people to actually move there


Look where we have secure bases - you can do it anywhere you want., IF there is a will.


----------



## Nvlgzr

Navy_Pete said:


> And that's with the bonus pay and higher rates that submarines get in the RAN. Curious to see where they will actually berth the nuclear subs, usually a challenge of finding somewhere far enough away for a security/safety cordon while being close enough to be able to set up a maintenance facility and other logistics requirements.
> 
> I'm sure we'd probably do something similar and outsource the training to another country instead of reinventing the wheel, but I can't see us parking them in either Halifax or Esquimalt. For that reason alone I can't see us going nuclear, …


i’m a newby and i’m curious as to what the security/ safety courdon concerns are other than if the (assume American reactor) sub was destroyed in harbour that there is concern about the uranium. As I assume Halifax and Esquimalt are already secure facilities.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Nvlgzr said:


> i’m a newby and i’m curious as to what the security/ safety courdon concerns are other than if the (assume American reactor) sub was destroyed in harbour that there is concern about the uranium. As I assume Halifax and Esquimalt are already secure facilities.


Just good sense to have a standoff distance from any housing and both bases are basically downtown. Also would need a lot of infrastructure and support to do some of the repairs that we don't have room for on the existing bases.

The bases are secure for what we have now, but usually there is a lot more security rings around where the nuclear sub boats are parked. Think the jetties in Esquimalt are a bit further in, but most of the jetties in Halifax are less than a few hundred feet from the road with a single fence in the way, and additional security around some buildings (all of which you can see walking by from the street).

I expect we'd probably want to have them birthed further away than you can hit a golf ball though, and probably a few more additional perimeter fences, armed guards etc, so somewhere more remote than the provincial capitols would make sense..


----------



## Nvlgzr

Navy_Pete said:


> Just good sense to have a standoff distance from any housing and both bases are basically downtown. Also would need a lot of infrastructure and support to do some of the repairs that we don't have room for on the existing bases.
> 
> The bases are secure for what we have now, but usually there is a lot more security rings around where the nuclear sub boats are parked. Think the jetties in Esquimalt are a bit further in, but most of the jetties in Halifax are less than a few hundred feet from the road with a single fence in the way, and additional security around some buildings (all of which you can see walking by from the street).
> 
> I expect we'd probably want to have them birthed further away than you can hit a golf ball though, and probably a few more additional perimeter fences, armed guards etc, so somewhere more remote than the provincial capitols would make sense..


Thank you. based on that I could maybe see FDU Pacific but Halifax & the Bedford basin (Ammunition depot) are out. I understand the additional buildings, skills and security clearances also required for operating and maintaining reactors and steam turbines.


----------



## NavyShooter

Some cities are also self declared "NUKE FREE" zones.  So, that's part of why nuke subs only tie up in Dartmouth at the Shearwater jetty.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:


> Look where we have secure bases - you can do it anywhere you want., IF there is a will.


Yeah, but you guys have ice cream in the DFACS.


----------



## DBNSG

Navy_Pete said:


> Just good sense to have a standoff distance from any housing and both bases are basically downtown. Also would need a lot of infrastructure and support to do some of the repairs that we don't have room for on the existing bases.
> 
> The bases are secure for what we have now, but usually there is a lot more security rings around where the nuclear sub boats are parked. Think the jetties in Esquimalt are a bit further in, but most of the jetties in Halifax are less than a few hundred feet from the road with a single fence in the way, and additional security around some buildings (all of which you can see walking by from the street).
> 
> I expect we'd probably want to have them birthed further away than you can hit a golf ball though, and probably a few more additional perimeter fences, armed guards etc, so somewhere more remote than the provincial capitols would make sense..


Woulda couda shouda but IF Canada had proceeded to buy the Nuke Subs back in the nineties I could have seen then based at Port Hawkesbury or on the mainland side in the Canso straight. Interesting waters and far from major population centers and 150 Nautical miles closer to the European shipping lanes.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

DBNSG said:


> Woulda couda shouda but IF Canada had proceeded to buy the Nuke Subs back in the nineties I could have seen then based at Port Hawkesbury or on the mainland side in the Canso straight. Interesting waters and far from major population centers and 150 Nautical miles closer to the European shipping lanes.



Others have mentioned keeping them at existing USN facilities; given their patrol and crew dynamics, wouldn’t that be cheaper and more efficient than constructing our own outside of our current facilities in Esq and Hfx?  

Crewing;  how would we, or would we even try, the Gold/Blue crew system like the USN has/had?


----------



## DBNSG

Eye In The Sky said:


> Others have mentioned keeping them at existing USN facilities; given their patrol and crew dynamics, wouldn’t that be cheaper and more efficient than constructing our own outside of our current facilities in Esq and Hfx?
> 
> Crewing;  how would we, or would we even try, the Gold/Blue crew system like the USN has/had?


I defer to your superior knowledge . 
 Perhaps a future adult Administration could offer to split crew the Four American boats in Portsmouth N.H. They seem to be the closest Squadron to Canadian waters in the East.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Yeah, but you guys have ice cream in the DFACS.


WHAT???? 

That is my main contribution for today. Ran out of crayons


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> WHAT????
> 
> That is my main contribution for today. Ran out of crayons


It is glorious.

Well, in some DFACs, at least.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> It is glorious.
> 
> Well, in some DFACs, at least.



Honourable Mention to the Krispy Cream donut section...


----------



## Good2Golf

Eye In The Sky said:


> Honourable Mention to the Krispy Cream donut section...


----------



## Underway

Some capability discussion here.

You buy a piece of military hardware for a capability.  Nuke boats are not bought for the capability of going under ice.  That's a misdirect frankly and is a common misunderstanding (in my humble opinion) of Cold War submarine strategies. Under ice is only essential if you want to get near Russian nuclear-armed missile submarines to stop their second strike capability. 

Russia keeps those submarines in their own waters, under ice, protected by a ring of their own attack subs and with their own air cover.  They were only there because it ensured Russia had the ability to strike NATO even if their own ground-based nuclear launchers were destroyed.  The US and UK tried to get close to them and shadow them all the time because... the Cold War.  If you could destroy Russian second strike capability then you had a chance to do a first strike yourself and not give them the chance to hit you back.

So that being said and the fact that there is thousands of miles of land between arctic waters and anything resembling proper economic or strategic targets no Russian submarine is going to use the Canadian arctic to attack Canada when they can do it just as easily from their own waters.  That makes it a NORAD problem, not a navy problem.

Secondly there is no economically viable shipping in the arctic that would be worth sinking in the winter when the ice is across the NWP.  When the ice clears up and the shipping comes there then normal military aircraft and ships can hunt submarines quite well.

The only advantage for under-ice capability I can see is to close off some areas of strategic mobility for the Russians using the Arctic to get into the Atlantic from a different direction (Pacific they have much easier access too).  But proper use of sensors and conventional submarines/aircraft can cut off those approaches quite easily.

So let's argue on their real merits.
Power, sensors, endurance, speed, size.  Does Canada want a submarine that can go into the Pacific with no basing and do some work on a long range patrol, unlimited endurance patrol?  Or a submarine that can do land attack?  Have the mobiity/speed to get places it needs to be rapidly (under ice is a valuable capability for going east to west coast quickly)?

When the ice argument falls away conventional boats don't look as bad frankly.  They can do quite a bit of the stuff we want in a submarine fleet.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> When the ice argument falls away conventional boats don't look as bad frankly.  They can do quite a bit of the stuff we want in a submarine fleet.


Can they winter transition from Atlantic to Pacific?


----------



## GR66

KevinB said:


> Can they winter transition from Atlantic to Pacific?


Or can they get to the South China Sea quick enough to be of use if things go pear shaped there?


----------



## DBNSG

GR66 said:


> Or can they get to the South China Sea quick enough to be of use if things go pear shaped there?


Sure, if there is a South Pacific Squadron of lets say three boats in Guam. Volunteers?


----------



## suffolkowner

GR66 said:


> Or can they get to the South China Sea quick enough to be of use if things go pear shaped there?


If things go pear shaped there will be lots of slack to pick up closer to home as well


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Underway said:


> Some capability discussion here.
> 
> You buy a piece of military hardware for a capability.  Nuke boats are not bought for the capability of going under ice.  That's a misdirect frankly and is a common misunderstanding (in my humble opinion) of Cold War submarine strategies. Under ice is only essential if you want to get near Russian nuclear-armed missile submarines to stop their second strike capability.



I think you’re focusing a little too much on “yesterday” and not “tomorrow”.   That CW mission didn’t necessarily stop with the CW and it might still be ongoing…



Underway said:


> Russia keeps those submarines in their own waters, under ice, protected by a ring of their own attack subs and with their own air cover.  They were only there because it ensured Russia had the ability to strike NATO even if their own ground-based nuclear launchers were destroyed.  The US and UK tried to get close to them and shadow them all the time because... the Cold War.  If you could destroy Russian second strike capability then you had a chance to do a first strike yourself and not give them the chance to hit you back.



I’m going to suggest strike capable RFN boats are going OOA, and more often the past several+ years.



Underway said:


> So that being said and the fact that there is thousands of miles of land between arctic waters and anything resembling proper economic or strategic targets no Russian submarine is going to use the Canadian arctic to attack Canada when they can do it just as easily from their own waters.  That makes it a NORAD problem, not a navy problem.



You don’t think arctic waters and the resources under them are economic or strategic targets?

Maritime approaches are a NORAD mission set…so the RCN can’t help with that?  



Underway said:


> Secondly there is no economically viable shipping in the arctic that would be worth sinking in the winter when the ice is across the NWP.  When the ice clears up and the shipping comes there then normal military aircraft and ships can hunt submarines quite well.
> 
> The only advantage for under-ice capability I can see is to close off some areas of strategic mobility for the Russians using the Arctic to get into the Atlantic from a different direction (Pacific they have much easier access too).  But proper use of sensors and conventional submarines/aircraft can cut off those approaches quite easily.
> 
> So let's argue on their real merits.
> Power, sensors, endurance, speed, size.  Does Canada want a submarine that can go into the Pacific with no basing and do some work on a long range patrol, unlimited endurance patrol?  Or a submarine that can do land attack?  Have the mobiity/speed to get places it needs to be rapidly (under ice is a valuable capability for going east to west coast quickly)?
> 
> When the ice argument falls away conventional boats don't look as bad frankly.  They can do quite a bit of the stuff we want in a submarine fleet.



Not looking as bad doesn’t = best asset for the size of op area we should be able to patrol under/on/above.

Long range patrol aircraft;  because we have good bases to patrol from up north?  I’d take the persistence of a sub surface asset any day over skimmers and MPAs for a handful of reasons. ONSTA ability and “no idea where it is” most of the time.  

We’re leaving our cupboard alittle to bare; when we decide we’ve made a mistake it will be too late to do anything about it.


----------



## JMCanada

The economic and manning sides of getting SSNs would be, along with the political will, the main constraints.

Look to the Australian programme, the nuclear boats are expected to cost at about 6 billion CAD each (can't remember where I read the number, but probably in a ASPI-the strategist article). For that cost the RCN could get 4 may be 5 european, AIP submarines.

SSNs require 100-135 men, while AIP submarines require about 30-40.


----------



## KevinB

JMCanada said:


> The economic and manning sides of getting SSNs would be, along with the political will, the main constraints.
> 
> Look to the Australian programme, the nuclear boats are expected to cost at about 6 billion CAD each (can't remember where I read the number, but probably in a ASPI-the strategist article). For that cost the RCN could get 4 may be 5 european, AIP submarines.
> 
> SSNs require 100-135 men, while AIP submarines require about 30-40.


A bit more than 2/3 of Canada's Ocean territory is ice covered during at least a 4 month portion of the year.

If you aren't going to look after it -- I know some folks who will...


----------



## JMCanada

Ok, fine, an AIP boat could also make an under-ice patrol. It is for the brains of the RCN to determine the requirements of speed and endurance. Grossly speaking if a SSK with one AIP module can dive at 4-6 knots for 2-3 weeks, it's mainly (but not only) a matter of adding more modules.

And those brains would have to select an appropiate balance between power and energy (or speed and endurance), which obviously is not needed for a nuclear boat.


----------



## KevinB

JMCanada said:


> Ok, fine, an AIP boat could also make an under-ice patrol. It is for the brains of the RCN to determine the requirements of speed and endurance. Grossly speaking if a SSK with one AIP module can dive at 4-6 knots for 2-3 weeks, it's mainly (but not only) a matter of adding more modules.
> 
> And those brains would have to select an appropiate balance between power and energy (or speed and endurance), which obviously is not needed for a nuclear boat.




2-3 weeks at 4-6 knots won't allow significant patrolling under the ice, (and adding more modules doesn't scale linearly for time or speed).

   Generally due to that SSK DE/AIP, boats are not constructed for ice breaching.
       I'm not sure anyone wants to run under the ice without a manner of emergency escape.


----------



## JMCanada

A reasonable Arctic patrol of 5.000 nm / 30 days or 6.500 nm / 40 days could be achieved at 7 knots. For it some 500-600 kW would be required. In terms of AIP modules this could be 2 power modules of 250-300 kW plus a third one for emergency.

In terms of energy there's no enough info. but guess that six "standard" (if you let me use that term) AIP energy modules (fuel & oxygen stored) would be sufficient to feed double the power (two power modules) and triple the endurance from two to six weeks, that is 42 days, more than 6.500 nm at 7 knots.

See CNR volume 16-2 (2020).


----------



## KevinB

JMCanada said:


> A reasonable Arctic patrol of 5.000 nm / 30 days or 6.500 nm / 40 days could be achieved at 7 knots. For it some 500-600 kW would be required. In terms of AIP modules this could be 2 power modules of 250-300 kW plus a third one for emergency.
> 
> In terms of energy there's no enough info. but guess that six "standard" (if you let me use that term) AIP energy modules (fuel & oxygen stored) would be sufficient to feed double the power (two power modules) and triple the endurance from two to six weeks, that is 42 days, more than 6.500 nm at 7 knots.
> 
> See CNR volume 16-2 (2020).


Q: Can you breach arctic ice with any current design? 
A: No 

If Canada wants a SSK for northern patrol - it’s going to be a new bespoke design. 
   Which while not impossible, will be immensely more expensive than any CoG would be willing to undertake. 

Realistic options are:
1) Divest the sub surface fleet, get rid of SS trades 
2) Divest the sub surface fleet, and send SS crews on Brit and US Nuke boats. 
3) Buy new AIP boats and live with constraints (winter work conditions limited by AOPS support) 
4) Buy insanely expensive Ice Breaching AIP bespoke fleet 
5) SSN buy in with Oz/UK/US. 

Frankly for Canada at this junction, I think #2 is probably best, as it could create a ground work for a nuclear navy at a later date.  
#4-5 are not practical at this point


----------



## GR66

JMCanada said:


> A reasonable Arctic patrol of 5.000 nm / 30 days or 6.500 nm / 40 days could be achieved at 7 knots. For it some 500-600 kW would be required. In terms of AIP modules this could be 2 power modules of 250-300 kW plus a third one for emergency.
> 
> In terms of energy there's no enough info. but guess that six "standard" (if you let me use that term) AIP energy modules (fuel & oxygen stored) would be sufficient to feed double the power (two power modules) and triple the endurance from two to six weeks, that is 42 days, more than 6.500 nm at 7 knots.
> 
> See CNR volume 16-2 (2020).


So a custom-built uniquely Canadian design AIP sub?


----------



## JMCanada

KevinB said:


> If Canada wants a SSK for northern patrol - it’s going to be a new bespoke design.


I agree...



KevinB said:


> Which while not impossible, will be immensely more expensive than any CoG would be willing to undertake.


I disagree... still could be cheaper than a nuclear submarine.



GR66 said:


> So a custom-built uniquely Canadian design AIP sub?


I'm not saying it's the best option, but it is an option to consider.

Added:
Non-orphane options would be, for instance, joining the Type 212CD or the next Dutch Walrus-replacement, if we discard the under-ice capability.


----------



## YZT580

KevinB said:


> Q: Can you breach arctic ice with any current design?
> A: No
> 
> If Canada wants a SSK for northern patrol - it’s going to be a new bespoke design.
> Which while not impossible, will be immensely more expensive than any CoG would be willing to undertake.
> 
> Realistic options are:
> 1) Divest the sub surface fleet, get rid of SS trades
> 2) Divest the sub surface fleet, and send SS crews on Brit and US Nuke boats.
> 3) Buy new AIP boats and live with constraints (winter work conditions limited by AOPS support)
> 4) Buy insanely expensive Ice Breaching AIP bespoke fleet
> 5) SSN buy in with Oz/UK/US.
> 
> Frankly for Canada at this junction, I think #2 is probably best, as it could create a ground work for a nuclear navy at a later date.
> #4-5 are not practical at this point


once you let it go you will never get it back.  Say what you will about Cretien's used boats we wouldn't have an underseas navy without them because no one was willing to spend the money at that time.  Would it be possible/practical to build a base mid-Arctic that would allow a current design to use as home base whilst on patrol?


----------



## Dale Denton

KevinB said:


> Q: Can you breach arctic ice with any current design?
> A: No
> 
> If Canada wants a SSK for northern patrol - it’s going to be a new bespoke design.
> Which while not impossible, will be immensely more expensive than any CoG would be willing to undertake.
> 
> Realistic options are:
> 1) Divest the sub surface fleet, get rid of SS trades
> 2) Divest the sub surface fleet, and send SS crews on Brit and US Nuke boats.
> 3) Buy new AIP boats and live with constraints (winter work conditions limited by AOPS support)
> 4) Buy insanely expensive Ice Breaching AIP bespoke fleet
> 5) SSN buy in with Oz/UK/US.
> 
> Frankly for Canada at this junction, I think #2 is probably best, as it could create a ground work for a nuclear navy at a later date.
> #4-5 are not practical at this point



That's a decent summary of the options from this thread. Getting real here, no way we are getting SSNs, if we were, politically we'd have made those plans public and joined hands with Australia.

I think our defence dollars would be better spread across multiple arctic-capable platforms instead. 

Imagine spending $50B on a handful of SSNs, or spending that on a combination of P-8s, UAVs, XLUUVs, BV replacements, ice-strengthened AORs/supply vessels, more rotary AC or C-130s. What would be more militarily useful? Heck even just investing in infrastructure projects or expanding the Rangers in some way.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

KevinB said:


> Realistic options are:
> 1) Divest the sub surface fleet, get rid of SS trades
> 2) Divest the sub surface fleet, and send SS crews on Brit and US Nuke boats.
> 3) Buy new conventional or AIP boats and live with constraints (winter work conditions limited by AOPS support)
> 4) Buy insanely expensive Ice Breaching AIP bespoke fleet
> 5) SSN buy in with Oz/UK/US.



I would slightly modify Kevin's list as per the above.

And I believe that is the most likely option that Canada will pursue. Divesting the capability would be the death knell of both having a submarine warfare capability and maintaining fleet readiness in anti-submarine warfare, so I can't see that happening. 

We have always operated conventional submarines with no under ice capability, thus replacing the subs with the same neither increases nor decreases our submarine warfare capability. AIP boats are great for nations that have (1) short or even very short distances to go to their "patrol" area and, (2) are acting almost exclusively in a defensive/ localized deterent mode.

The reasons we keep talking about SSN's is because of their under ice capability and their capacity to hunt other nuclear boats in the open ocean. Would that be the case in the Canadian Arctic? No. most of our Arctic that could of "interest" to other nations is made up of one of the world's largest  archipelago and the attendant continental shelf. Pefect hunting ground for  conventional submarines, if it wasn't for the ice. But again here, the reason the Arctic is becoming more important is because _*it is getting more and more ice free and ice free for longer periods*_. At such times, it is perfectly possible to operate up there with conventional submarines. 

Outside those periods of ice free navigation, only nuclear submarines and extremely powerfull icebreakers can operate and, in view of both their availability (low numbers) and lack of onboard extra housing facilities, they do not represent a threat of invasion to the Archipelago - besides who would want to attempt "invasion" up there in winter? (And icebreakers could be dealt with by the RCAF anyway).


----------



## Spencer100

When you look at things here.  The more you want to say throw in the towel.

Get a summit with the US.  Tell them OK we are going to let you do it.  

First agree with the US that Canadians can join the US forces.  Reserve units will be returned to militia units and civil defence and aid to civil powers rolls.  Current Army equipment transfer to those units with the logistics, supply and techs to maintain and use them.  Tanks, artillery, etc retired.  Regular Army persons will transfer to those units, retire or be given a chance to sign up in the US forces.  The navy will go though the same process with an upgraded Canadian Coast guard.  Frigates and subs retired.  Upgraded Coast guard will be lightly arm for the constabulary mission.  IE AOPS retained.  Air Force SAR work and equipment retained and transfer to the Canadian militia command.  Some Helicopters retained also.  Fighters retired.  VVIP and other transport missions transfer to Transport Canada.  Patrol aircraft to the Coast Guard. 

CFB locations transferred and leased to the US Armed Forces. One condition they continue to fly both flags.  Recruiting centers transfer to the US. 

RMC turned to a Militia training center and civil university. Canadians will be able to attend the US military colleges. 

Army regiments can have a last parade as their colours are lowered.  In Ottawa a command transfer to USNORTHCOM.  

Canada sends the left over money of the DND budget to the US for the defence of Canada.  Maybe we get a deal from the US and there is a saving we can then roll more money into the programs the government likes.  

The militia and RCMP can supply whatever blue helmet jobs the UN needs. 

Advantages!

Now the Canadian pols can just worry about the stuff they like to do.  No messy international stuff just be a convening power.  Like setting the the table at international events and then closing the door.  

Its win for individuals looking for a job in the military as the US opens many more opportunities.  

Politian's get to focus on things they like they then can bash the US even more when things come up.  

The upgraded Militia and CCG will offer better full and part time jobs.  

Disadvantages

Canadians will see US forces more but they will not like that. But will also realize nothing is free and someone is going to defend the country.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Spencer100 said:


> When you look at things here.  The more you want to say throw in the towel.
> 
> Get a summit with the US.  Tell them OK we are going to let you do it.
> 
> First agree with the US that Canadians can join the US forces.  Reserve units will be returned to militia units and civil defence and aid to civil powers rolls.  Current Army equipment transfer to those units with the logistics, supply and techs to maintain and use them.  Tanks, artillery, etc retired.  Regular Army persons will transfer to those units, retire or be given a chance to sign up in the US forces.  The navy will go though the same process with an upgraded Canadian Coast guard.  Frigates and subs retired.  Upgraded Coast guard will be lightly arm for the constabulary mission.  IE AOPS retained.  Air Force SAR work and equipment retained and transfer to the Canadian militia command.  Some Helicopters retained also.  Fighters retired.  VVIP and other transport missions transfer to Transport Canada.  Patrol aircraft to the Coast Guard.
> 
> CFB locations transferred and leased to the US Armed Forces. One condition they continue to fly both flags.  Recruiting centers transfer to the US.
> 
> RMC turned to a Militia training center and civil university. Canadians will be able to attend the US military colleges.
> 
> Army regiments can have a last parade as their colours are lowered.  In Ottawa a command transfer to USNORTHCOM.
> 
> Canada sends the left over money of the DND budget to the US for the defence of Canada.  Maybe we get a deal from the US and there is a saving we can then roll more money into the programs the government likes.
> 
> The militia and RCMP can supply whatever blue helmet jobs the UN needs.
> 
> Advantages!
> 
> Now the Canadian pols can just worry about the stuff they like to do.  No messy international stuff just be a convening power.  Like setting the the table at international events and then closing the door.
> 
> Its win for individuals looking for a job in the military as the US opens many more opportunities.
> 
> Politian's get to focus on things they like they then can bash the US even more when things come up.
> 
> The upgraded Militia and CCG will offer better full and part time jobs.
> 
> Disadvantages
> 
> Canadians will see US forces more but they will not like that. But will also realize nothing is free and someone is going to defend the country.


----------



## Rainbow1910

JMCanada said:


> Non-orphane options would be, for instance, joining the Type 212CD or the next Dutch Walrus-replacement, if we discard the under-ice capability.


In my opinion, something along those lines seems like the best idea for Canada. Submarine procurements never seem to go our way so hedging our bets by limiting as much risk as possible should be key. Saab's A26 design has the potential to offer a capability of 18 vertically launched tomahawks alongside a multi-mission bay which allows the launching of divers and unmanned vehicles. I'm not sure the timeline would line up to allow us to piggyback on the Dutch as we seem to be waiting until the cows come home to get down to brass tacks on this program.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Eye In The Sky said:


> You don’t think arctic waters and the resources under them are economic or strategic targets?





Underway said:


> So that being said and the fact that there is thousands of miles of land between arctic waters and anything resembling proper economic or strategic targets no Russian submarine is going to use the Canadian arctic to attack Canada when they can do it just as easily from their own waters. That makes it a NORAD problem, not a navy problem.



I'm going to suggest that Russian subs may very well use CDN arctic waters to attack the economic resources of the US (which means us), those resources being the Alaska oil fields/Prudhoe Bay.


----------



## Spencer100

Czech_pivo said:


> I'm going to suggest that Russian subs may very well use CDN arctic waters to attack the economic resources of the US (which means us), those resources being the Alaska oil fields/Prudhoe Bay.


In a few years there won't be Russian subs able to leave ports on the current course of action of the Russian gov.  Now if you change that to PLAN subs I would say very much too.  They are claiming now to be near artic nation.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Czech_pivo said:


> I'm going to suggest that Russian subs may very well use CDN arctic waters to attack the economic resources of the US (which means us), those resources being the Alaska oil fields/Prudhoe Bay.




That would be one heck of a freakish detour of more than a thousand kilometers traded for no tactical gain whatsoever, in fact with a loss of tactical advantage as you would be forfeiting the protection afforded by being in reach of your own shore for most of the way and then having open oceans approaches, instead of trying to go through ennemy territory. Please people, when dealing with Arctic issues, put away your maps and atlases - use a globe. The distances and directions of places and countries up North are not what flat representations leads one to believe.

BTW, I know there is a lot of talk about the North-West passage as the Arctic becomes more and more ice free, but in practice, with receding ice, the fastest and easiest Northern route between Asia and Europe is the North-East passage - North of Russia - and politics be damned - if it is safe, Merchant mariner will take the fastest easiest route. I predict that the N.E.P will develop ahead of the N.W.P., especially considering that the fastest route between Asia and North America remains shipping to the West Coast ports and then train/truck from there. 

BTW also, if the Arctic becomes near entirely ice free, you won't even see merchant mariners use either of these passages as the fastest route is then straight across the middle of the Arctic ocean.


----------



## Czech_pivo

KevinB said:


> Q: Can you breach arctic ice with any current design?
> A: No
> 
> If Canada wants a SSK for northern patrol - it’s going to be a new bespoke design.
> Which while not impossible, will be immensely more expensive than any CoG would be willing to undertake.
> 
> Realistic options are:
> 1) Divest the sub surface fleet, get rid of SS trades
> 2) Divest the sub surface fleet, and send SS crews on Brit and US Nuke boats.
> 3) Buy new AIP boats and live with constraints (winter work conditions limited by AOPS support)
> 4) Buy insanely expensive Ice Breaching AIP bespoke fleet
> 5) SSN buy in with Oz/UK/US.
> 
> Frankly for Canada at this junction, I think #2 is probably best, as it could create a ground work for a nuclear navy at a later date.
> #4-5 are not practical at this point


Can't there be a '2b' option - much like HMS Uganda (minus the munity) and other such ships - 'owned' by the UK or US but partially, moving towards completely, crewed by CDN's, under a Canadian flag and berthed in Canada, with all operational costs paid by Canada.  The UK/US builds it, pays the cost build/arm it but its totally crewed by Canadians and all costs after the initial 'run up' are paid for by Canada.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Spencer100 said:


> In a few years there won't be Russian subs able to leave ports on the current course of action of the Russian gov.  Now if you change that to PLAN subs I would say very much too.  They are claiming now to be near artic nation.



You’re underestimating how modern the RFN subs are then IMO.  Borei class and Yasen…nothing to scoff about. Especially given our sub fleet.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Dale Denton said:


> That's a decent summary of the options from this thread. Getting real here, no way we are getting SSNs, if we were, politically we'd have made those plans public and joined hands with Australia.
> 
> I think our defence dollars would be better spread across multiple arctic-capable platforms instead.
> 
> Imagine spending $50B on a handful of SSNs, or spending that on a combination of P-8s, UAVs, XLUUVs, BV replacements, ice-strengthened AORs/supply vessels, more rotary AC or C-130s. What would be more militarily useful? Heck even just investing in infrastructure projects or expanding the Rangers in some way.



The best ASW platform is…a capable sub.

The strategic value of a truly capable sub, that had a land attack ability, ICBM type capability, anti ship capability (thinking Oscar II) etc is very undervalued.   WWII should have taught us the ability these systems have to choke a nation and/or it’s expeditionary forces.


----------



## Spencer100

Eye In The Sky said:


> You’re underestimating how modern the RFN subs are then IMO.  Borei class and Yasen…nothing to scoff about. Especially given our sub fleet.


No I was not meaning their subs were not capable. I am talking about their ability to keep them running without access to the global supply chains.  Example Semi-conductors and Computer chips.  Plus the Russian military will be having many competing issues and programs to restock their inventory of jets, tanks and ships.  All of those program with be looking for resources and money.  I doubt everything will be funded or able to be done.  But you are right that the subs maybe very high on the list.  Subs look to be the area Russian equipment is up to par.  But it has not been tested.     

Exanple. Watched more videos of ERA tiles just filled with rubber. Who knows if true.  I would suspect the market for Russian tanks is going to be much smaller now.  Is there parts or systems like that in the subs. Subs maybe harder to pull BS on because when it dives you are going to find out if corners were cut.


----------



## GR66

Realistically with all the other spending priorities I think we're quite probably looking at a Submarine REPLACEMENT project rather than a Submarine ENHANCEMENT project.  We have four subs currently.  Likely the project will be to replace them with four new subs.  I'd be pleasantly surprised if they went for six and would absolutely pass out from shock if they went for eight.

So based on those kind of numbers (lets say a maximum of four subs per coast - one coast only if we get four total and four per coast if we win the lottery and get eight) lets look at the pluses and minuses (I'm sure that I've missed many) of the options that @KevinB suggested:



KevinB said:


> Realistic options are:
> 1) Divest the sub surface fleet, get rid of SS trades


Plus

Cost of new subs can be used instead for other capabilities
Frees up PYs for other parts of the RCN
Eliminates a full training/sustainment stream from the Navy
Minus

We lose a whole major combat and surveillance capability that can't be fully replicated by other assets
Lose an ASW training platform for the surface/MH/MPA fleets



KevinB said:


> 2) Divest the sub surface fleet, and send SS crews on Brit and US Nuke boats.


Plus

Cost of new subs can be used instead for other capabilities
RCN gets experience in SSN operations
Maintains basic capability in Submarine Ops in case we purchase new subs in the future
Minus

A hard political sell to both nationalists and anti-nuc groups (and possibly to some Americans)
We would not have a say in how or where the boats operate.  US/British subs may undertake operations that are not in our national interest.
Even if the boats were fully Canadian crewed there would always be serious strings attached if they were physically owned by another nation.



KevinB said:


> 3) Buy new AIP boats and live with constraints (winter work conditions limited by AOPS support)


Plus

RCN more or less maintains our current capabilities with a newer platform. 
Minus

Cost of the submarines (and their infrastructure/support/PYs) could potentially have been used on other priorities (proper comparative cost-benefit analysis should be done).
Any conventional/AIP sub we get would face the same limitations we have currently re: Arctic operations but also in terms of expeditionary operations outside our home waters. 



KevinB said:


> 4) Buy insanely expensive Ice Breaching AIP bespoke fleet


Plus

RCN maintains our current capabilities with a newer platform plus gets the added ability to conduct under ice operations without the political baggage of introducing nuclear powered boats to the fleet. 
Minus

The cost of a custom design would be much higher than any other "Canadianized" version of an existing design. 
Cost of the submarines (and their infrastructure/support/PYs) could potentially have been used on other priorities (proper comparative cost-benefit analysis should be done).
While we would gain the capability of under ice operations, being conventionally powered the subs would still face difficulty performing distant expeditionary operations.



KevinB said:


> 5) SSN buy in with Oz/UK/US.


Plus

RCN gets the most capable submarines for the fleet with the capability for both under-ice and expeditionary operations. 
Minus

This option has the highest cost of all the options which could cut into other spending requirements or result in a smaller fleet of subs being procured compared to the other options.
There would be political objections from some quarters to the purchase of nuclear powered subs that would have to be overcome.
Cost of the submarines (and their infrastructure/support/PYs) could potentially have been used on other priorities (proper comparative cost-benefit analysis should be done).
Supporting nuclear subs would require either a massive infrastructure (and training) investment or a politically tricky foreign basing agreement.

In my dream world I would love for the RCN to get 8-12 SSNs but realistically (both politically and economically) I simply can't see that happening.  Similarly I don't see any government wanting to spend the political capital to pitch having Canadian submariners manning foreign submarines (beyond exchange-type arrangements).

So that really leaves divestment or conventional/AIP replacement as the realistic options (I think a bespoke design would be far too risky and far too expensive to even consider).

I think that a reasonable argument could be made for divestment.  Subs and their infrastructure/support are very expensive.  While submarines have great capabilities, the tiny size of our sub fleet (especially in relation to the vast maritime areas we need to defend) means that our ability to leverage that capability in an impactful way during a conflict is quite limited. 

For the cost of maintaining a (small) submarine fleet you could invest in other capabilities (MPAs, UUVs/USVs, undersea sensors, satellites, etc.) that could replace _some_ of the capabilities of the subs but in greater numbers which could provide greater overall coverage than the subs they would replace.  We could also invest in novel technologies that could possibly have the ability to make submerged submarines more easily detectable.

On the other hand as @Eye In The Sky has noted, subs have proved in both World Wars (and the Falklands) that they can have a major strategic impact on a conflict.

If I honestly thought that the CAF would come up with an forward looking plan to control our maritime domain with an integrated network of manned and unmanned surface and subsurface vessels, aircraft, UAVs, remote sensors, satellites, research in new technologies, etc. that could replace the subs and increase our overall domain awareness and ability to respond to incursions and that the government would properly fund those plans then I might fall on the side of divestment.

But since I don't believe that to be the case I'd say that the RCN should push for replacement of the Victoria-class with as many AIP-equipped replacement subs that they can get away with.


----------



## Maxman1

JMCanada said:


> Non-orphane options would be, for instance, joining the Type 212CD or the next Dutch Walrus-replacement, if we discard the under-ice capability.



Or there's the Shortfin Barracuda/Attack class, which France is currently offering to the Netherlands to replace the Walrus class, which is the same version that was selected (and later cancelled) by Australia. It will have an 18,000 nm range, 80 day endurance and be able to launch Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles from the torpedo tubes in addition to Mk 48s (the Barracuda/Suffren class carries Exocets, Storm Shadow cruise missiles and MICA anti-air missiles), with a crew of 60 and room for 15 commando troops.

The high cost was due to the plan to build them in Australia, which would require a transfer of technology and extensive infrastructure upgrades in Australian shipyards, something that would avoided if they were built in France by Naval Group.


----------



## JMCanada

Actually the next Dutch Walrus-replacement is still open among three contenders: French Barracuda, Swedish A26 and German Type 212 variant or Type 216 (not sure which one).


----------



## Maxman1

JMCanada said:


> Actually the next Dutch Walrus-replacement is still open among three contenders: French Barracuda, Swedish A26 and German Type 212 variant or Type 216 (not sure which one).



Yes, hence "currently offering" and not "selected".

ThyssenKrupp is planning to offer the Type 212CD, which has been ordered by both the German Navy and the Norwegian Navy.


----------



## suffolkowner

I would think the smartest thing would be to tag on to whatever the Dutch go with or if the Australians decide to go with an interim SSK capability however the type 212cd looks good too as long as its not a complete orphan fleet or powertrain

Forget Collins LOTE – buy new submarines from Korea instead - APDR 

South Korea is on a bit of a roll with respect to weapons sales


----------



## Spencer100

Is there a deal to be had?  Lol









						DSME Faces Financial Loss with Indonesian Submarine Project - Naval News
					

DSME is reportedly expected to face 90 billion KRW ($67 million USD) worth of financial loss. The South Korean shipbuilding company pre-ordered components for three Indonesian submarines that DSME won in 2019 while the contract has yet to take effect.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## YZT580

Spencer100 said:


> Is there a deal to be had?  Lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DSME Faces Financial Loss with Indonesian Submarine Project - Naval News
> 
> 
> DSME is reportedly expected to face 90 billion KRW ($67 million USD) worth of financial loss. The South Korean shipbuilding company pre-ordered components for three Indonesian submarines that DSME won in 2019 while the contract has yet to take effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com


I don't think a 67 mill savings would cover the cost of Canadianizing the design


----------



## Spencer100

YZT580 said:


> I don't think a 67 mill savings would cover the cost of Canadianizing the design


But you could get them in a a year or two.  

Plus I think the design uses US weapons and systems plus German tech.  Buy as is from DSME and get Davie to upgrade to Canadianize.  Win all around.  Quebec gets jobs jobs jobs!  And by time Davie at 2x cost to buy them get through upgrading in ten years the old subs will be totally done.  This is slap on the back thinking.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I suggest you re-read the article while paying attention.

There are no submarines to be had to canadianize or anything else. The loss is for long lead items - in this case three sets of electric propulsion motors - purchased by the yard before even starting on the submarines, a start they haven't done yet. 

Three sets of motors is not a sufficient deal for Canada (or anyone else) to acquire them and build whole submarines around them. Even Davie is not that good, though they may think they are .


----------



## Spencer100

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I suggest you re-read the article while paying attention.
> 
> There are no submarines to be had to canadianize or anything else. The loss is for long lead items - in this case three sets of electric propulsion motors - purchased by the yard before even starting on the submarines, a start they haven't done yet.
> 
> Three sets of motors is not a sufficient deal for Canada (or anyone else) to acquire them and build whole submarines around them. Even Davie is not that good, though they may think they are .


I know was just being "tongue in cheek"  

But in all seriousness would SK and DSME not be a player now for sub replacement?  The newest subs for the ROC Navy looked to moved past its German TK roots.  SK has landed some big defence deals lately.


----------



## JMCanada

Thanks to google translator can read this dutch article about S80. Seems like Navantia doing their job on PR. Anyway, it is quite detailed about the so called "BEST-AIP". Yet the first reformer has not yet been installed, but is about to be, on the third vessel which is under construction.









						Bouw Spaanse onderzeeboten vordert, primeur op gebied van voortstuwing nadert
					

Bezoek aan Cartagena



					marineschepen.nl


----------



## daftandbarmy

Nice tourist attraction 




Canadian navy submarine performs tests off Victoria​








						Canadian navy submarine performs tests off Victoria
					

An unusual sight at Victoria's Ogden Point on Tuesday morning was turning heads. Instead of cruise ships, onlookers were checking out a Royal Canadian Navy submarine.  HMCS Corner Brook is going through two days of testing, called "trim and incline trials" as part of a program called Sub-Safe...




					vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca


----------



## OldSolduer

Here is my take on the replacement of submarines in the RCN:

Once these wear out there will be no replacement.


----------



## Spencer100

OldSolduer said:


> Here is my take on the replacement of submarines in the RCN:
> 
> Once these wear out there will be no replacement.


I think that is the unsaid plan.  There really can't be any other conclusion at this time.


----------



## Rainbow1910

OldSolduer said:


> Here is my take on the replacement of submarines in the RCN:
> 
> Once these wear out there will be no replacement.


That very well could be an option although with the RCN doggedly holding onto submarine capability even throughout the bevy of issues suffered to the service and its boats as a whole, it seems to point towards some kind of will to carry on. It would have been far easier to scrap the service years ago, the Canadian government has done it multiple times previously. The government did announce last July I believe that they were establishing a Canadian patrol submarine project to provide the government with options and information towards a potential replacement, however that could easily go nowhere. 

It is going to be a very treacherous tight rope to walk as submarine procurement cannot work like our surface ship procurement. These replacement submarines are effectively going to be required to come largely from abroad as we've had issues even properly upkeeping our own boats domestically, let alone building modern and incredibly complex submarines in country. That kills the usual cover of "Canadian jobs" that politicians usually hide behind for these programs, add on that submarines are usually fairly expensive especially when you consider larger and longer ranged boats which we will need and you can get an idea of what kind of a mess is waiting for us. Even a modest submarine program for Canada could result in quite the considerable pile of cost overruns, delays and technical issues if we hand them in any way like we do most programs.

At the end of the day, the Canadian Government and RCN need to have a serious sit down to hash out the future and strategic goals of the submarine service before they do anything. If there is no long term plan for the service and they just plan to keep buying small classes of submarines to keep the service on life support for some grand plan that will never come, unplug the damn thing and divert the resources somewhere more useful. If they plan on actually properly utilizing, expanding and designating proper goals for the service within anybody's lifetime, put your money where your mouth is and properly support the force.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

OldSolduer said:


> Here is my take on the replacement of submarines in the RCN:
> 
> Once these wear out there will be no replacement.


Well I heard the current CRCN say something along the lines of: "We need to consider whether we really need subs?" When he was MARPAC Comd so who knows?

I do agree with you and have a feeling these lemons are the end of the line for Canada's silent service.


----------



## GR66

OldSolduer said:


> Here is my take on the replacement of submarines in the RCN:
> 
> Once these wear out there will be no replacement.


Oh, there WILL be replacements.  It will just be after the Victoria's are long retired and the last members with the corporate knowledge of how to run a submarine fleet are gone so we can start completely from scratch again!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Rainbow1910 said:


> That very well could be an option although with the RCN doggedly holding onto submarine capability even throughout the bevy of issues suffered to the service and its boats as a whole, it seems to point towards some kind of will to carry on. It would have been far easier to scrap the service years ago, the Canadian government has done it multiple times previously. The government did announce last July I believe that they were establishing a Canadian patrol submarine project to provide the government with options and information towards a potential replacement, however that could easily go nowhere.


----------



## OldSolduer

GR66 said:


> Oh, there WILL be replacements.  It will just be after the Victoria's are long retired and the last members with the corporate knowledge of how to run a submarine fleet are gone so we can start completely from scratch again!


Like the Chinook fleet?


----------



## dimsum

GR66 said:


> Oh, there WILL be replacements.  It will just be after the Victoria's are long retired and the last members with the corporate knowledge of how to run a submarine fleet are gone so we can start completely from scratch again!


_UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft fleet enters the chat_


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

dimsum said:


> _UK Maritime Patrol Aircraft fleet enters the chat_


An island nation requires Maritime Patrol Aircraft?  Who knew!? 🤣


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:


> An island nation requires Maritime Patrol Aircraft?  Who knew!? 🤣


Apparently not the UK govt for about 5-10 years.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

dimsum said:


> Apparently not the UK govt for about 5-10 years.



And, I thank them for the trips to Scotland during some of those years.


----------



## Czech_pivo

OldSolduer said:


> Like the Chinook fleet?


Or the Tribals?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

When people make fun of our subs, show them this








						South Korea submarines face defects amid North Korean missile launches
					

Seoul's "overwhelming conventional advantage" at sea is why North Korea focuses on "asymmetric capabilities" like special forces, one expert said.



					www.businessinsider.com


----------



## ArmyRick

Czech_pivo said:


> Or the Tribals?


Army dummy here. Whats a tribal?


----------



## Weinie

ArmyRick said:


> Army dummy here. Whats a tribal?


Tribal class destroyers, named after native tribes.......HMCS Huron, Algonquin, etc


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

And a misnomer when it relates to the DDH280's. They were the IROQUOIS class, never the TRIBAL. The TRIBAL were a WWII class of destroyers, the last active-service one in Canada being HMCS HAIDA, now in Hamilton and serving as Canada's ceremonial flagship.


----------



## Weinie

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> And a misnomer when it relates to the DDH280's. They were the IROQUOIS class, never the TRIBAL. The TRIBAL were a WWII class of destroyers, the last active-service one in Canada being HMCS HAIDA, now in Hamilton and serving as Canada's ceremonial flagship.


I believe she is the only one left, of the 27 that were built.


----------



## Maxman1

You'll also see them referred to as the 280s, because their hull numbers started at 280 on the lead ship, HMCS _Iroquois _(DDG 280).


----------



## Edward Campbell

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> And a misnomer when it relates to the DDH280's. They were the IROQUOIS class, never the TRIBAL. The TRIBAL were a WWII class of destroyers, the last active-service one in Canada being HMCS HAIDA, now in Hamilton and serving as Canada's ceremonial flagship.


True enough but we still named the upgrade project TRUMP - *TR*ibal Class *U*pdate and *M*odernization *P*roject.

It was, in the engineering world, called '*One No Trump*' when there were some serious worries about the ¼ of the project which, by the firm direction of the government-of-the-day, had to be awarded to a contractor in a province which differed from the one in which the prime contractor was based.


----------



## stoker dave

Edward Campbell said:


> True enough but we still named the upgrade project TRUMP - *TR*ibal Class *U*pdate and *M*odernization *P*roject.



I once heard (maybe a rumour, maybe an urban legend) that the original name for that project was "Tribal Class Upgrade Project":  T-CUP.   No one wanted to be part of project "tea cup" so an alternate name was developed.


----------



## Weinie

stoker dave said:


> I once heard (maybe a rumour, maybe an urban legend) that the original name for that project was "Tribal Class Upgrade Project":  T-CUP.   No one wanted to be part of project "tea cup" so an alternate name was developed.


Good thing then they didn't call it Destroyer Class Upgrade Project.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No. Because they were not "Tribal". Because Delex had already been used for the steamers, the original name was to be Destroyers Upgrade and Modernization Program. But DUMP didn't cut it.


----------



## suffolkowner

Netherlands’ Submarine Replacement Program: RFQ sent to 3 Shipbuilders - Naval News
					

The Dutch "Walrus-class submarine replacement program" reached a new milestone today: The ministry of defense (MoD) of the Netherlands submitted the request for quotation (RFQ) to the three competing shipyards.




					www.navalnews.com
				




posted in the other sub thread as well


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Canada to pay double on US torpedo deal first struck in 2014​








						EXCLUSIVE: Canada to pay double on US torpedo deal first struck in 2014
					

The Canadian government is prepared to pay the US Navy double the amount originally agreed upon in 2014 to acquire torpedo upgrade kits for its Victoria-class submarines.




					tnc.news
				




"The Canadian government is prepared to pay the US Navy double the amount originally agreed upon in 2014 to acquire torpedo upgrade kits for its Victoria-class submarines.

On Sept. 24, 2014 the US Congress was informed of a $41 million deal to sell 12 MK-48 Mod 7 Advanced Technology Torpedo Conversion Kits and related logistics to the Canadian military. "


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Fishbone Jones said:


> Canada to pay double on US torpedo deal first struck in 2014​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EXCLUSIVE: Canada to pay double on US torpedo deal first struck in 2014
> 
> 
> The Canadian government is prepared to pay the US Navy double the amount originally agreed upon in 2014 to acquire torpedo upgrade kits for its Victoria-class submarines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tnc.news
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Canadian government is prepared to pay the US Navy double the amount originally agreed upon in 2014 to acquire torpedo upgrade kits for its Victoria-class submarines.
> 
> On Sept. 24, 2014 the US Congress was informed of a $41 million deal to sell 12 MK-48 Mod 7 Advanced Technology Torpedo Conversion Kits and related logistics to the Canadian military. "


So this is a Canadian issue or a US issue, I can't tell from the article?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Not sure Colin. I do know who will be on the hook for it though.


----------



## Good2Golf

Fishbone Jones said:


> Not sure Colin. I do know who will be on the hook for it though.


Not the Canadian people. The Government will take on the costs so that we don’t have to.  😉


----------



## Underway

So people are suprised that 8 years later the price has gone up? The inflation on military equipment even before the current inflationary pressues is 10-15% per year.  Over 8 years that easily gets you past 100% inflation on the original contract.


----------



## Czech_pivo

I cannot speak to the cost increase yoy for 'military equipment, but what % of the total cost in building a warship is the actual 'military equipment'? 

The GoC uses the 'all in' approach to budgeting the overall cost for the entire 30+yr lifespan of a warship. I'm going to assume that the 'daily cost to operate' a warship includes such things as 'wages', 'pensions', maintenance', 'fuel', 'use of the wharf', 'ammo', 'refurbishing/upgrading', 'depreciation', 'non-lethal equipment', 'lethal equipment', etc, etc.

Now the wages, pensions, fuel, use of wharf, depreciation, food factors are certainly not going up 10-15% yoy - even in this current environment of moderate inflation.  The wages/total cost of labour for a crew of 200 over a 30yr time period might come in at around 1.5billion/ship (all in total wages might run about 18 million/yr in year 1 for a crew of 200).  

If we go with the number for the 15 CSC's as being 85$ billion over 30yrs, that works out to be a cost of 5.6 billion a ship.  If we go with the back of the napkin cost for total labour to crew the ship for 30yrs as being 1.5 billion, that works out to be a remaining amount of 3.9 billion/ship to design the ship, labour to build the ship, labour to refurbish the ship, labour to maintain the ship, fuel, ammo, cost to use a wharf, raw resources to create the ship, equip the ship with non-lethal equipment, equip the ship with lethal equipment, food, what else? That estimate of 1.5 billion for the total wages to crew the ship over 30yrs represents slightly over 25% (26.8%) of the total cost per ship over 30yrs. The remaining 74% of the total cost are all other costs over 30yrs. 

The cost of the labour to build the ship, labour to refurbish the ship, labour to maintain the ship, the fuel and the food are not going up 10-15% yoy. I'd argue that the cost to design the ship are not going up 10-15% yoy as well - as the majority of those costs are related to labour costs. 

So,  is it that the cost for the non-lethal and lethal equipment are going up 15-20+% yoy?  Because if the crewing costs and labour costs are only growing at around 3% yoy, food at say 5% yoy, fuel at 5-6% yoy, cost to use a wharf at 4-5% yoy, then all the remaining things 

raw resources to build the ship (steel, iron, copper, etc, etc)
non-lethal equipment (pipes, lighting, bedding, wifi, paint, chairs, tables, generators, fuel pumps, computers, software) and
lethal equipment (radars, torpedos, cannons, shells, missiles, etc, etc) all have to be going up by 15-20%+ yoy.

Is that really the case?  Is the cost of raw resources, non-lethal equipment (tables, bedding, mattresses, computers, fuel pumps, generators) and lethal equipment (radar, missiles, torpedos, main gun, shells) really going up in costs 15-20%+ yoy?


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> So people are suprised that 8 years later the price has gone up? The inflation on military equipment even before the current inflationary pressues is 10-15% per year.  Over 8 years that easily gets you past 100% inflation on the original contract.


Any KO who signs on to a more than 5% increase / year on a FFP contract probably should be terminated. 
   Down here until FY22, 3-4% had been standard.  
  Also most contracts if extended won’t just accept a ‘let’s keep going up’ price from the previous contract end.  I know several that went down, as in general the more you build gives an economy of scale and most companies are trying to trim fact in their productions.  

I’m baffled at anyone that would no do a firm fixed price contract for munitions or weapons, I can understand it for larger systems, but a torpedo is simply a consumable munition.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Good2Golf said:


> Not the Canadian people. The Government will take on the costs so that we don’t have to.  😉


----------



## Good2Golf

Canada doesn’t even get to sit at the kids table and play with Lego…









						Development of hypersonic weapons discussed at first Aukus meeting
					

Aukus is a defence pact between the three countries to help identify a nuclear-powered submarine for the Australian Navy,




					www.forces.net


----------



## Czech_pivo

KevinB said:


> Any KO who signs on to a more than 5% increase / year on a FFP contract probably should be terminated.
> Down here until FY22, 3-4% had been standard.
> Also most contracts if extended won’t just accept a ‘let’s keep going up’ price from the previous contract end.  I know several that went down, as in general the more you build gives an economy of scale and most companies are trying to trim fact in their productions.
> 
> I’m baffled at anyone that would no do a firm fixed price contract for munitions or weapons, I can understand it for larger systems, but a torpedo is simply a consumable munition.


Frankly it comes across as a concerted effort to sink the entire project.  I question the entire approach.  I'd love to have the bobble heads who keep revising these costs ever upwards to sit down with some private sector accountants/auditors and defend their numbers - in an open forum for the public to see, no closed doors, no redacted documents.


----------



## Spencer100

Czech_pivo said:


> Frankly it comes across as a concerted effort to sink the entire project.  I question the entire approach.  I'd love to have the bobble heads who keep revising these costs ever upwards to sit down with some private sector accountants/auditors and defend their numbers - in an open forum for the public to see, no closed doors, no redacted documents.


Of course it's a effort to sink the program.  There is a very strong element in Ottawa and Canada that would nothing better to see the country disarmed.  And others who would like to see different outcomes.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good2Golf said:


> Canada doesn’t even get to sit at the kids table and play with Lego…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Development of hypersonic weapons discussed at first Aukus meeting
> 
> 
> Aukus is a defence pact between the three countries to help identify a nuclear-powered submarine for the Australian Navy,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.forces.net


Dey don’t need no Cadillac submarines….

Or any at all - oh and the F35 thing? How’s that going?


----------



## dimsum

OldSolduer said:


> Or any at all - oh and the F35 thing? How’s that going?


It's still going.  Projects don't generally put out public info unless something has changed (positively or negatively).


----------



## calculus

dimsum said:


> It's still going.  Projects don't generally put out public info unless something has changed (positively or negatively).


Wasn't the F35 contract with LM supposed to be wrapped up by the end of 2022?


----------



## Good2Golf

Update from 3EYs:









						AUKUS Defense Ministerial Joint Statement
					

Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III hosted the Honourable Richard Marles MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defense, Australia, and the Right Honourable Ben Wallace, Secretary of State



					www.defense.gov


----------



## YZT580

Good2Golf said:


> Update from 3EYs:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AUKUS Defense Ministerial Joint Statement
> 
> 
> Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III hosted the Honourable Richard Marles MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Defense, Australia, and the Right Honourable Ben Wallace, Secretary of State
> 
> 
> 
> www.defense.gov


all very interesting but both the American and the British yards have a full schedule supplying boats for their own countries and building subs is a specialist task.  So where does an Australian build fit in over the next dozen years, before the current fleet times out


----------



## RDBZ

Subs have been built in Australia before, and interestingly enough the only fabrication defects encountered in the program were in early sections built overseas.

Since then, the combat management system was updated (changed over) to the USN's AN/BYG-1, with integration and installation work being completed locally.  The upcoming Collins mid life upgrade program will also be substantial.


----------



## Good2Golf

YZT580 said:


> all very interesting but both the American and the British yards have a full schedule supplying boats for their own countries and building subs is a specialist task.  So where does an Australian build fit in over the next dozen years, before the current fleet times out


I’m thinking that once 2EYs expanded to 3EYs, they resolved to figure that out.

Want to take a long term bet that they figure it out?


----------



## RDBZ

The only section that definitely won't / can't  be built in Aus is that containing the reactor.


----------



## CBH99

RDBZ said:


> Subs have been built in Australia before, and interestingly enough the only fabrication defects encountered in the program were in early sections built overseas.
> 
> Since then, the combat management system was updated (changed over) to the USN's AN/BYG-1, with integration and installation work being completed locally.  The upcoming Collins mid life upgrade program will also be substantial.


So Australian yards updated the CMS, doing both the installation & integration work.  

And the upcoming midlife refit will be substantial & done locally with Australian yards. B


Compare that to Canadian yards and there contribution to our own submarine fleet upgrading the CMS — did our yards do anything similar?


(With the extensive work just to get the submarines initially operational, and all of the upgrade/repair/refit work since then - I’d think our own yards have a decent amount of experience doing deep upkeep on submarines?)

(I’m not in any way advocating for the sub replacements to be built here btw.  Hell no.)


----------



## CBH99

calculus said:


> Wasn't the F35 contract with LM supposed to be wrapped up by the end of 2022?


Replacing the CF-18 was an ‘urgent priority’ when JT first got into office.  

When was that again?


----------



## Good2Golf

CBH99 said:


> Replacing the CF-18 was an ‘urgent priority’ when JT first got into office.
> 
> When was that again?


Political maskirovka…


----------

