# Are Submarines a required capability in a modern Navy??



## Navy_Blue

Are Submarines a required capability in a modern Navy??

Before we get out off topic in another thread I figured I would throw this out to you all.  

It was discussed in the AOR thread that our Subs may or may not be replaced as they see their service lives come to an end.  It was suggested that the Submarine community doesn’t sell their usefulness to the public well enough to be noticed.  I would say our media doesn’t care about the subs enough unless they are blacked out stuck at sea or costing the tax payers more money than they think they are worth.  To the Canadian press our navy is not news unless its bad news and with the subs it’s even worse.

To my knowledge most if not all navies keep there Submarine operations and methods very secretive.  If you were in Halifax you might notice that there is one Sub in the Water and if you asked what was under the white tent you would be told another is there.  A keen person might start counting and consider that Victoria is in the ditch out west totaling 3 hulls.  That means at this time one is missing.  Unless you are part of that community or have a clearance to know you will never really be told what the 4th hull is up too.  They will give you brief details but you will never really know.  You could account time for training but they have been truly in operational situations in the past few years and have been very useful.  

Just because you can’t read about them in the Trident doesn’t mean they are not serving our navy just as effectively as the Skimmers are in the Gulf, or off Africa.  They get do it all with little or no recognition, tax free perks or Foreign Service pay. 

I would still say you would be cutting off a very important piece of the entire CF if you didn’t plan to replace the subs at some point in the future.


----------



## romeokilo

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> _Are Submarines a required capability in a modern Navy??_





> *I would still say you would be cutting off a very important piece of the entire CF if you didn’t plan to replace the subs at some point in the future. *



I think you answered your question.


----------



## Galahad

Military vessels are inherently expensive, because they must fulfill so many requirements, and submarines even more so, add to that there are very few places that can build them, and they are very expensive to maintain, you have a big problem from the taxpayers point of view.

I would think they are a very important asset for the navy to be taken seriously, though I must admit, I would not want to serve on them, I was on a tour of the Chicoutimi, and lets just say I'm about 12 inches too tall 

As an aside, maybe we should have bought some Type 214 submarines instead, perhaps they would have been cheaper in the long run...


----------



## TimBit

Galahad said:
			
		

> As an aside, maybe we should have bought some Type 214 submarines instead, perhaps they would have been cheaper in the long run...



Not only would they have been cheaper, but they have extended underwater capability, so they could have patrolled the Arctic, and we might even have pitched in on development and have had some knck backs for CDN industry.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

One thing that has been missed is how much our ASW capabilities have eroded since the O Boats were retired and the Victoria class has been semi introduced. I think the fixed and rotary wing types will also agree that there is a big difference between hunting an EMATT and an actual thinking sub.

Its a sobering reminder to get a picture of your ship taken through a submarine periscope how dangerous and useful a submarine is.


----------



## - m i l l e y -

Submarines provide many capabilities that surface ships cannot.  One major one being underwater surveillance and "covert" operations.  As EX-Dragoon pointed out 





> Its a sobering reminder to get a picture of your ship taken through a submarine periscope how dangerous and useful a submarine is.


 Surface ships cannot sneak up undetected on enemy ships and sink them, or secretly watch foreign ports from a distance.  Yes, there may be certain problems associated with the current submarines in use, however, one should not come to the conclusion that the submarine program should be scrapped all together.  A good multi-role, multi-capable submarine would provide great advantages to the Canadian Navy in ways surface ships cannot.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> Surface ships cannot sneak up undetected on enemy ships and sink them, or secretly watch foreign ports from a distance.


Want to make a bet on that?


----------



## - m i l l e y -

Obviously not as you have more experience with that than I do.  However, I believe that they still do not come close to having the same capabilities as subs do with respect to secrecy.


----------



## whitehorse

In framing the question the way you have then the answer is of course we need them. But let me ask the question in another way ... 

Given increasingly tight defence capital budgets and the nature of assymetric warfare (Alqaeda doesn't operate warships and therefore is invulnerable to submarines) what is the likelihood that we will need this capability? Remember we ahve never fired a submerged torpedo in anger against anyone in our history as a country. Moreover even if we have the capability would we use it or remain outside of the conflict involved? (e.g. - if China were to invade taiwan or if NKorea invade SKorea would we simply sit it out and therefore not use the capability?) Yes it is better to have the capability and not need it than vice versa but for the last 100 years we have chosen the nature of our involvement in our conflicts. Our geography allows for this.


Therefore we are in a position make choices about we want versus what we might need in some future conventional conflict. Having submarines represents a serious capability, so would having an aircraft carrier or cruise missiles or ICBMs. The question should be what is the likelihhod we will want this capability in the future and would we use it if we had it?  Submarines are lethal machines but not very useful at MIO (satellites and UAVs are cheaper at detecting vessels trying to do blockade running). 

The other issue is money. As I have stated in other parts of this blog we wont be getting a lot soon therefore we should choose wisely and accept the fact that we wont get all we want. I for one think that given our ongoing committment to the war on terror we should stick with multi-purpose combat capable FFH and DDH because they offer the most flexibility in an uncertain world. Moreover long standing public opinion would appear to supprt this.

Its a sobering reminder to get a picture of your ship taken through a submarine periscope how dangerous and useful a submarine is

It sure is and I was shown one of an MCDV in a periscope. However driving your submarine through an undetected mine field is somewhat more uncomfortable.  - We all need one another.

As far as the idea that without submarine we are not really a navy I find this idea somewhat arrogant. Our participation in WWII and Korea was at a time whe the RCN had no submarines. We were certainly a real navy then. Moreover our naval committment to the current conflict has been without the use of submarines. Therefore I dare ask do we really need them?


----------



## - m i l l e y -

Whitehorse, you have made some very strong and thought provoking points that definately make you think about the original question difinately.  First off, being from Halifax, like most others, I routinely see our submarines dockside awaiting the drydocks for repair/upgrade; this does bag the question "is it worth it?".  At the time being our submarines remain quite "useless" while our surfaces ships do all the work.  As you have pointed out with the lack of funding and the assymetric warfare, maybe it is safe to say that our money would be better spent elsewhere (within the Navy that is of course).


----------



## Sailorwest

What is the purpose of having submarines in Canadas Navy. My somewhat naive impression is that they are primarily there to provide allied antisubmarine surface and air forces something to train against. I would not deny that the subs in the past have been used in more significant operational roles doing covert surveillance but my full knowledge of that is limited to what might have been made public. The question comes down to whether it is an appropriate use of limited resources (financial and maintenance) in keeping a submarine capability whose primary function is to provide ASW training opportunities or would it be preferable to have JSS, AOPV, or new AOR capability? I think for a lot of folks, who are not in the submarine community, those other capabilities are probably more tangible  and meaningful to the role of the Canadian Navy. No offence intended to the sub community but I just don't see subs as significantly more valuable in achieving that goal  to justify the cost.


----------



## Navy_Blue

We are not just there to let the Yanks have someone to train with.  Torps will not be too far in the future and I think Harpoon not long after.  

As far as the cost we spend a lot of money to keep one sub running and the others progressing to a point they hopfully will run in the future.  At the point we do get them all Canadianized and more modern equipment is fitted I think they will prove worth the effort and cost.  

For Skimmers sneaking up on people I have two words...Deceptive lighting  ;D  It works very well.


----------



## aesop081

Sailorwest said:
			
		

> What is the purpose of having submarines in Canadas Navy. My somewhat naive impression is that they are primarily there to provide allied antisubmarine surface and air forces something to train against.



Thats what impression everyone was under WRT to the Oberons. Read the 2008 issue of the Maritime Warfare Bulletin for details.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> For Skimmers sneaking up on people I have two words...Deceptive lighting  ;D  It works very well.



It does work wonders....  But that deceptive lighting is useless once the sun appears on the horizon!


----------



## Journeyman

whitehorse said:
			
		

> ...for the last 100 years we have chosen the nature of our involvement in our conflicts. Our geography allows for this.


I would also cite our geography, but to say that maintaining sovereignty over the world's longest coastline demands a comprehensive naval capability....243,792 km of reasons for a balanced fleet, with submarines for those tasks not suitable to surface or naval aviation assets.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

And add to what JM has stated once our subs go then the USN and the RN will not be required to even to do a courtesy notice to us that they have subs transiting through our waters...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I would also point out that the standard calculation is that it takes 8 units (any combination of submarines, ships, helos and patrol aircraft) to detect, track and destroy an enemy submarine.  Therefore, having even one submarine in the water at a time requires another nation to bring 8 units of something to the fight and even then, there is an uncertainty principle.

So, if you want to bring it down to money, even a 500 million dollar conventional submarine with a crew of 50, takes something like 2-4 billion dollars in assets and up to 600 personnel to effectively counter.  Cost effective?  You be the judge...

Not to mention subs can do some covert stuff that skimmers cannot.  Just as skimmers can do stuff (like showing the flag) that submarines are not good at. I should note that the argument that our current fleet of submarines might be useful in an Arctic environment is not a particularly good one, given that their speeds and radius of operation is to slow/small, given the distances involved- not to mention the whole ice thing.  If we want to arctic ops with submarines, we have no choice but to go nuclear.  And we can all imagine how that project would go over.  Again.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Are Submarines a required capability in a modern Navy??



That would depend on what the government wants the navy to do. Without a credible policy statement (and we don't have one), the answer is "It depends."

The boats we have are basically good for clockwork mice, and maybe some ISR as long as there isn't too much traffic and combat is unlikely. With a combat system upgrade and new weapons, they'd be good for basically anything a submarine can be tasked for, as long as it's fairly local.


----------



## aesop081

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> With a combat system upgrade and new weapons,



Hopefuly, the Mk48 7AT goes ahead.


----------



## ltmaverick25

Didnt one of our submarines just receive a CDS commendation for the operations it conducted over the past year or so?  Assuming that I am not mistaken, I would interpret this as meaning that our submarines are indeed taking part in worthwhile and relevent operations.  We may not know about them all the time, but such is the nature of the silent service.

We need to maintain submarines for many reasons.  As we all know they have capabilities that surface ships do not, but they also allow for ASW training, which in my view is indeed a legitimate mandate when not conducting ops.  If we continue to allow our ASW abilities to erode then what use will our multi purpose surface ships be in the event of a conflict against submarines?   We need to maintain this corporate knowledge, but subs and ASW so that we can be prepared for whatever the future has in store for us.  To plan only for what is in front of us right now is a classic Canadian mistake.


----------



## aesop081

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Assuming that I am not mistaken,



You are correct.



> If we continue to allow our ASW abilities to erode



There's not much left to erode unfortunately.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Hopefuly, the Mk48 7AT goes ahead.



Mod 7 is the CBASS. Mod 6 is the AT, and Mod 5 is ADCAP.

Whichever version it is will end up being pretty expensive. None of the upgrades re-use much from mod 4's, so they're almost as expensive as a new build. Equipping the Victorias on the same scale as the Oberons would lead to a ~400 million dollar project.


----------



## aesop081

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Mod 7 is the CBASS. Mod 6 is the AT, and Mod 5 is ADCAP.



Ok. We were told 7AT by the staff at CFMWC 2 weeks ago. IIRC it was re-using the back half of the mod 4 and a new front end.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

That's basically the upgrade, but the expensive bits are in the front.


----------



## aesop081

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> but the expensive bits are in the front.



I had that much figured out.


----------



## whitehorse

"To plan only for what is in front of us right now is a classic Canadian mistake."

What alterrnative is there in the face of ever dwindling budgets and a real war on terror but to focus operational and capital budgets on a real world assessment of real threats.

Our Navy is small and getting smaller. Our vessels are old and getting older. Replacements have been discussed but so far no money has been allocated, no contracts signed. Collectively our economy is getting worse and worse ever increasing the above cycle.

Maintaining a cold war relic, no matter how effective against other cold war relics is not an option. We can either focus or die. In this case the best plan we can make is that no matter what happens in the future; frigates, destroyers and AORs offer the most flexible (and dare I say politically acceptable)response.

Further, public opinion is largely dead set against more submarines or for that matter spending more money on the ones we have. The public believes (rightly or wrongly) that the Upholders are a boondoggle. Are we prepared to go down the same path as we did 20 years ago where we sacrifieced the 'third batch' of FFHs for a promise of SSNs only to get neither? And remember the government that did this was actually seen as pragmatic for doing so.

Of what avail having the Mod 7 CBASS, the Mod 6 AT, or Mod 5 ADCAP if we are politically unwilling to use them? Firing a torpedo at a blip on a screen is a non-starter for a country unwilling to fire a visually aimed gun at a identified somali pirate.


----------



## Galahad

Our submarines are currently not even capable of firing the torpedoes we have. British subs, and British fire control systems won't work with American torpedoes.


----------



## aesop081

Galahad said:
			
		

> Our submarines are currently not even capable of firing the torpedoes we have. British subs, and British fire control systems won't work with American torpedoes.



You know, when i dont know what i'm talking about, i STFU.


----------



## dapaterson

Galahad said:
			
		

> Our submarines are currently not even capable of firing the torpedoes we have. British subs, and British fire control systems won't work with American torpedoes.



Yeah, who'd ever follow a STANAG?  Or work with COLOG in mind?

Or wander well outside their lanes...


----------



## Navalgazer

Adm Robertson confirmed today, that the boats have never fired a torpedo and that he is expecting in the summer or fall of 2010 to have torpedo certification for all 3 active boats.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

I'm pretty sure Victoria went on weapons certs before she went into the "Refit without end". In any case, she'd have to recert once she comes out of refit.


----------



## Galahad

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> You know, when i dont know what i'm talking about, i STFU.



So do I, but I actually do know this, hence why I said it. I was on a tour of HMCS Chicoutimi about 4 months ago, and the sailor who was giving us the tour of the ship told us that.



			
				Navalgazer said:
			
		

> Adm Robertson confirmed today, that the boats have never fired a torpedo and that he is expecting in the summer or fall of 2010 to have torpedo certification for all 3 active boats.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Galahad said:
			
		

> So do I, but I actually do know this, hence why I said it. I was on a tour of HMCS Chicoutimi about 4 months ago, and the sailor who was giving us the tour of the ship told us that.



I overheard a sailor (Officer) during tours down in Portland tell some folks that we had several ships in the Gulf.  The Americans who were touring the ship were surprised to find out that Canada had "Warships" and were impressed by its size (HMCS Vancouver 1999).  At the time we did not have one ship in the Gulf, although one was on its way, but to mention that we had several there, was misleading. 

There were also those sailors who would tell folks that the VDS on the Iroquois was some sort of escape submarine for the CO.


----------



## Lard of the Dance

All that being said, if we do have an active Navy then yes, we should have subs to have an all encompassing Naval force. Unfortunatley, those who decided on the last purchase did so with the attitude of a 17 year old buying his first car. HOTWHEELS!


----------



## aesop081

Galahad said:
			
		

> So do I, but I actually do know this, hence why I said it. I was on a tour of HMCS Chicoutimi about 4 months ago, and the sailor who was giving us the tour of the ship told us that.



And i was recently on course at the CF Maritime Warfafre Center and breifed on this by the 4-ringer head of the Underwater warfare department. You sure you want to compare ?

:


----------



## Galahad

No, I do not question your wisdom. I was simply saying that I didn't just make that up, that's all.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> There were also those sailors who would tell folks that the VDS on the Iroquois was some sort of escape submarine for the CO.



And the mortar well held a retractable 5"/54. And we only had a Sea Thing when the Apache was unavailable.

Galahad is right though....just not completely right. The original equipment on the Victorias couldn't work with the torpedoes we have. That equipment was replaced during "Canadianisation".


----------



## Galahad

Fair enough, he could have just been talking specifically about HMCS Chicoutimi. When we were there, there wasn't _any_ equipment in it, Canadian or British, just a couple crates in the center of the control room.


----------



## aesop081

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> That equipment was replaced during "Canadianisation".



Replaced with the FCS from the OBERON class. That system, as i am told, was more modern than what was in the UPHOLDER class when we got them.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

You were told wrong...the British system was slightly better. The problem was that the British systems weren't compatible with the existing store of torpedoes, so they were ripped out and SFCS was kludged into place.

SFCS was the losing bidder for a USN SSBN torpedo FCS in the mid-70's. The British systems were state-of-the-art in the mid-80's.


----------



## a_majoor

Lard of the Dance said:
			
		

> All that being said, if we do have an active Navy then yes, we should have subs to have an all encompassing Naval force. Unfortunatley, those who decided on the last purchase did so with the attitude of a 17 year old buying his first car. HOTWHEELS!



Several factors drove the purchase of the Upholders, including availability and price, but for Canada one key factor often overlooked by critics is the Upholder class was designed essentially as a nuclear boat without the reactor and has a much greater range (in theory) than most other conventional submarines; an important consideration given the length of our coasts and the distance from most probable deployments.

Sadly, things didn't work out the way everyone had hoped, so we have to look at the "least worst" choices, including giving up the capability, spending huge sums on the existing boats, buying someone else's boats or designing something for ourselves.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Several factors drove the purchase of the Upholders, including availability and price, but for Canada one key factor often overlooked by critics is the Upholder class was designed essentially as a nuclear boat without the reactor and has a much greater range (in theory) than most other conventional submarines; an important consideration given the length of our coasts and the distance from most probable deployments.



The Upholders were designed as something like a nuclear boat, but that was more to do with the sensors and combat systems not the range. They're actually pretty short-ranged, especially compared to the Oberons. Once we stripped out DCC, we pretty much lost the combat system superiority as well.


----------



## Lard of the Dance

Thucydides;
  
I agree with you about the reasons behind the purchase of these 4 vessels, but haste and cost were also factors, I believe. Equal, or even better technology could have been pursued. As much as I would love to see the Brits take back their used garbage, our officials made the decision the accept them.


----------



## a_majoor

The availability of the subs (they were laid up by the RN) and cost (a "swap" of subs for access to Canadian training facilities) were motivating factors to be sure. Drunknsubmrnr has set me straight on the range thing (although I am pretty sure range was mentioned as a factor, I'll have to go back and try to find where I got that from), and at the time they were considered "top of the line".

In other threads, the main issues that caused the issues we face today were the then Liberal government dithering over closing the deal, and allowing the subs to deteriorate in drydock for several years before we could actually take hiold of them. No doubt a lot of "corporate knowledge" was also lost as experienced people retired or moved on to other positions.

As for what else was available at the time, I am not sure what would have been equal or superior to an "Upholder". Today we could probably get a better boat, but then again we now have two more decades of technology and experience to guide us.


----------



## Larkvall

If I remember correctly, when they purchased the subs the idea was to equip them with fuel cells (from Ballard Power) in order to extend their range. This would have given them the ability to patrol under the arctic ice.


----------



## Galahad

Fuel cells? Man, we should have bought 214's instead...


----------



## STONEY

And do you have the slightest idea what the patrol endurance and combat radius is of a 214 as compared to a Victoria is.  The 214 is used around coastal Europe and Med not long range open ocean thats why the Aussies had to get there boats designed elsewhere.  What is needed is a boat that can transit in the 1000's of miles to station and then patrol for a respectable time on station and then return ,and frankly the 214 although a fantastic boat just wasn't designed or ever intended to  do this. 

Cheers


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

At the time the Upholders were built, the British were trying to sell us (and the RAN) a stretched long range version. It actually had a pretty good shot at CASAP until the SSN plan shut that down.

The Upholders themselves were designed to sprint to SPA in the GIUK gap from the UK, spend 4+ weeks on patrol, and sprint back. That works out to a SPA distance of about 1000 nm, or being able to patrol "somewhere" off St John's from Halifax. Pushing farther out from St John's will tend to eat into patrol time in a big way.


----------



## Antoine

I have done a quick search, looking at the NAVY web site of different countries, I have found also a list of NAVY ships and submarines by country. By comparing the proportion of submarines versus total fleet, it gives an idea about who has answered yes to your question.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp

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

However, I have zero military experience, so I am not pretending anything here. The list gives a quick idea, but it is not a deep analysis of the situation as I didn't check the accuracy of the sources. I can't say about the efficiency of each submarine type.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Antoine said:
			
		

> I have done a quick search, looking at the NAVY web site of different countries, I have found also a list of NAVY ships and submarines by country. By comparing the proportion of submarines versus total fleet, it gives an idea about who has answered yes to your question.
> 
> http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp
> 
> http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp
> 
> However, I have zero military experience, so I am not pretending anything here. The list gives a quick idea, but it is not a deep analysis of the situation as I didn't check the accuracy of the sources. I can't say about the efficiency of each submarine type.


the links you provided while nice, but it just lists who has what, your post does not answer the question on "Are Submarines a required capability in a modern Navy"


----------



## Antoine

Ex-Dragoon, I feel a bit out of my lane to answer the question,  :-[  but I'll say the following:

From what I've read, yes, submarines are required to diversify our fleet. I think that diversity is one of the best tools to approach, analyse and solve a problem if all the diverse components are well coordinated, and the complementarity is optimized. That is not an easy task !
Submarines look like a good functional complement to the fleet, it gives a three dimensional view and capability to the fleet, I mean boats sail along the surface that gives you the two dimensional capability and forces, OK, I know that warships can launch rockets and torpedoes but still submarines add the third dimension down as much as aircrafts added the third up.

Now, a bit out topic but we will have soon a third coast which is the North that is going to have a huge geopolitical impact. Everyone knows that people want to sail through it. Also a lot of gas, oil and so on could be found there. Many submarines are going to be there, I don't want to start a paranoia crisis, but I'm not sure that those submarines are going to be friendly to us. So having submarines will help us to secure our north sea? I think so but here I am totally out of my lane !  

Many examples can be found about how efficient and deadly submarines can be. During the WWII, isn't true that some German submarines made up to St-Laurence river? Are submarines only efficient during cold war or world war types? I don't think so. Look at North Korea, they have high number of submarines in proportion to their fleet, why is that? What is in the back of their heads?

From the links I have put, I was concerned about countries of our size (population and economical) having a fleet that seems better equip than ours. Don't get me wrong, I am not talking about the quality of our NAVY where I am convinced that all members work hard and they are first class soldier, I am just talking about money thrown in equipments. 

So like I said, I would like that our NAVY being competitive on the water as much as under the water. I would like that our eyes and ears are first class sharps on the surface as well as below it and that we can take action in the 3-dimensional maritime space. Thus I believe that submarines are mandatory to secure sailors on the surface, to occupy the sea space and to keep our fleet competitive.

P.S. I have edit the present post to clarify some of my sentences.


----------



## starseed

The Upholder class was a bad compromise. There were studies done on the feasibility of Canada buying and operating Nuclear subs back in the 80s, the rationale of course being the ability to patrol the ice cap. Diesel-Electric subs can do it to some extent but since they combust oxygen to run, they have a finite ability to stay submerged  (I don't know exactly how long they can stay submerged, but I believe it's only a matter of days). Since the ice cap covers over 4million square kilometers, it's an issue. They could patrol the NW passage when it is open, which is important, but the NW passage isn't the only potentially important spot in the Arctic.

SSNs, ie Seawolf/Trafalgar, Astute Class -  are well beyond the forces budget, so while D-Es can't do some things that would be a big asset, one can look at it as better than nothing to at least have (edit: diesel electric) attack subs. One could also argue that since if we ever get into a shooting war with other modern submarines and/or surface ships, it'll probably be as part of a NATO battle group/allied carrier group, attack subs aren't really something Canada needs if they can't do the job needed with regard to enforcing arctic sovereignty.

Personally I feel with the Northwest Passage starting to open for nearly half of every year, having some way to patrol it is a worthwhile investment for the CF. The Upholders may not be at all ideal, but they are a requirement in my opinion.


----------



## a_majoor

The uber question is are submarines required in a modern navy?

The answer is quite clearly "yes", since subs are the only weapons platform which combine "invisibility" with long endurance. We know subs come in all shapes and sizes, but combining desired speed, endurance and weapons/sensor load out is mostly an engineering challenge.

Canada has rather unique needs which from an _engineering_ veiwpoint can only be resolved with SSN technology today, something we don't have the political will or financial resources to do. Even partial solutions using conventional or AIP technology would require essentially custom solutions, no other nevy really has the same set of circumstances we do. Since we don't really have the political will or resources to do that either, we must make due with what we have.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Why is "invisibility" a requirement?


----------



## a_majoor

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Why is "invisibility" a requirement?



It gives you the option of covert entry/exit and surprise for lots of different missions, something no surface ship, ground unit or aircraft can do for prolonged periods. As well, a submarine is a big enough platform to carry lots of firepower and sensors, once again something few other units can do.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Yes, those are things that submarines do. I still don't see why they are *requirements* vs "nice-to-haves".


----------



## a_majoor

At this point it is more like arguing about philosophy or theology; yes they are "nice to have", but also make it possible to have an entire range of capabilities that are not otherwise possible. Perhaps you might not notice not having these capabilites if no one else has them either, but once you are in a competative situation then extending existing capabilities and getting new capabilities which cause the enemy forces to become further extended is desirable as a minimum, and necessary to the smaller force as an equalizer. Being a very small force, we need all the equality we can get.....


----------



## gwp

Thucydides said:
			
		

> At this point it is more like arguing about philosophy or theology; yes they are "nice to have", but also make it possible to have an entire range of capabilities that are not otherwise possible. Perhaps you might not notice not having these capabilites if no one else has them either, but once you are in a competative situation then extending existing capabilities and getting new capabilities which cause the enemy forces to become further extended is desirable as a minimum, and necessary to the smaller force as an equalizer. Being a very small force, we need all the equality we can get.....



To provide some context for the *requirement* to have a balanced fleet of surface ships, submarines and aircraft. 

The three dimensions of sea control are surveillance, patrol and presence; and response.  Although just about every ship and aircraft can do at least one of these tasks, the best and most efficient means of exercising control over an area of ocean is to use a combination of systems.  

An aircraft can conduct surveillance over and under some 300,000 square nautical kilometres of water during a 10-hour patrol, and it takes about 5 aircraft to maintain continuous surveillance of that area.  While aircraft have excellent surveillance capacity, thier presence and response capabilities are limited by time, distance and fuel. 

A single submarine with a crew of 40 can cover some 125,000 square kilometres continuously over a 40-50 day patrol and has an excellent surveillance and presence capability with an ability to respond.  In combat situations, a submarine has even greater ability to respond to a threat to national security. 

Three or four frigates or destroyers combined into a task group with helicopters and a support ship, (with over a thousand crew) can remain on station for about 30 days and continuously cover an area of just under 200,000 square kilometres providing surveillance, presence and response at the same time but without the stealth of a submarine.

Consider Canada's West Coast.  The size of the Pacific Economic Exclusion Zone is about 460,000 square kilometres.  Keeping this under surveillance and with an adequate patrol and response capacity provides work enough for a squadron of 5 aircraft, a submarine and a surface task group.   On the other hand the Atlantic EEZ amounts to about 2.9 million square kilometres; five times that of the West Coast. 

Submarines are an economic force multiplier. 

Fixed sonobouys and space based surveillance have no patrol or response capability.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

You're mixing apples and oranges; A task group is a lot different outlay than a single submarine!

It looks like aircraft are a lot more efficient than either surface ships or submarines in terms of surveillance capabilities.

There isn't much a submarine can do to respond to a maritime situation other than keeping it under surveillance or vapourising it. I still don't see a submarine as a *requirement* Nice to have sure, but probably not as nice to have as fixed-wing naval aviation. Definitely not preferable to keeping the surface fleet going.


----------



## Navy_Blue

Wow +1 there gwp


----------



## FourSeven

^^knows nothing about military theory, but saw '20,000 leagues under the sea' once a long time ago and also read this entire thread^^

Looks to me like we should be working on getting our hands on a small aircraft carrier. Has Ottawa taken a serious look into this?


----------



## aesop081

FourSeven said:
			
		

> Looks to me like we should be working on getting our hands on a small aircraft carrier. Has Ottawa taken a serious look into this?



 :

Here we go again boys and girls.......


----------



## Steel Badger

Maybe if we build the carrier from ice-crete............

Where is that Majoor guy now


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

FourSeven said:
			
		

> ^^knows nothing about military theory, but saw '20,000 leagues under the sea' once a long time ago and also read this entire thread^^
> 
> Looks to me like we should be working on getting our hands on a small aircraft carrier. Has Ottawa taken a serious look into this?



Please search the naval forums...aircraft carriers have been discussed, time and time again.


----------

