# Status on Victoria-class Submarines?



## Cdn Blackshirt

Are they all operational yet?

If not, what are the hurdles and timelines for them reaching this status?


Matthew.


----------



## PO2FinClk

Chicoutimi is some years away, many reasons why but funding is a primary factor.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

PO2FinClk said:
			
		

> Chicoutimi is some years away, many reasons why but funding is a primary factor.



What's your take on the ROI to bring the class up to operational status?  And approximately what kind of numbers are we talking about?  Another $100 million per vessel?


Matthew.


----------



## NCS_Eng

Wish I could find the slides from the last technical brief on the sub programme.

Long story short is that Victoria is well (2 years?) into a EDWP and hopefully should be done late this year or early next. She will go on to weapons trials and be the first Sub to be weapons certified. From then on she is pretty much "operational"

Corner Brook is just going into an EDWP which should be far shorter than Victoria's due to a whole bunch of lessons learned that I won't get into here.

Windsor will be our only training platform for a while.

Chicoutimi's fire repairs will be done at the same time as her next scheduled refit and canadianization(a money saving gesture) so she will be out of the game for a long while.


----------



## SeaDog

Actually it's WSR that just finished her running period and is in the lift, and COR that is the at-sea platform at the moment having come down in the fall.  Other than that, pretty much on the money, NCS Eng.  It was heady days back in November/December, when we had WSR and COR both at sea:  First time two Canadian subs had exercised in awhile.


----------



## FredDaHead

From what I remember about the briefing at MOC weekend (an RMC thing), all four Vics should be up and running around 2012, and their activation will overlap for a few years. The plan seems to be to have at a minimum two operational at any one time, with a third up as much as possible. I don't remember the ship-by-ship activation dates, but there will be a "buildup" leading up to a peak in the 2012 range; Chicoutimi will be (as far as I can remember) the last to be operational.


----------



## STONEY

Of Interest ; the Corner Brook has been on exercises in Northern European waters for the last several months including the difficult waters around Norway and taking part in a major NATO exercise playing for both the Blue & Red side at different times . She is not due back in Canada till July.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

shared iaw all the usual stuff

Sub quietly went on way 

HMCS Corner Brook joined exercises off Norwegian coast 

By CHRIS LAMBIE Staff Reporter 


The navy’s lone working submarine quietly slipped overseas this spring to conduct exercises off the coast of Norway.

HMCS Corner Brook is now undergoing a scheduled maintenance period in Faslane, Scotland, after spending six weeks in one of the world’s most challenging marine environments.

"It was a massive step forward from where we were a year ago," Rear Admiral Dean McFadden, the commander of Joint Task Force Atlantic, told The Chronicle Herald’s editorial board Tuesday.

"What we have validated is an operationally viable, capable boat that can deploy to the opposite end of the Earth if it needed to. If you go and operate off the Norwegian Leads, you can go anywhere you want."

The sub took part in an exercise dubbed Noble Mariner with warships from 17 NATO countries. 

The intent was to operate Corner Brook stealthily in shallow, coastal waters.

"Diesel-electric submarines become a real threat in that environment and a great many people have them," Rear Admiral McFadden said.

The sub was sent in ahead of the NATO fleet to do surreptitious coastal surveillance for the task force commander.

"So he would know what the ground would look like (and) what the water would look like before he got there," Rear Admiral McFadden said.

For a portion of the exercise, Corner Brook switched "to be not a good guy, but a bad guy," acting as an enemy sub trying to prevent NATO forces from getting close to shore.

"I’ve already received a message from the task force commander that commented that this is a very difficult boat to operate against," Rear Admiral McFadden said.

"In other words, it caused a great deal of problems for the NATO forces, trying to do what they wanted to do, knowing that a well-handled diesel-electric submarine was in the water ahead of them."

Further analysis will show whether the sub was actually able to sneak up on the warships undetected, he said.

"If I asked a submariner, ‘Yes they did.’ And if I asked the ships, ‘No, they didn’t.’ "

Before the exercise, the sub conducted training of its own "in very difficult waters" off Norway, Rear Admiral McFadden said. 

"You’re operating very close to the shore in very congested waters. So there’s lots of craft around and very significant tidal conditions. You put all those things together and it’s tough to operate a boat sneakily, which is what you want the boat to do. In other words, it does not give its presence away. And so that’s a difficult exam area to work in."

Corner Brook’s skipper, Lt.-Cmdr. James Clarke, missed a milestone because of the trip — his baby’s birth.

"Mother and child did well," the rear admiral said. "I sent my congratulations to the commanding officer while at sea."

Corner Brook has been in Faslane for about 10 days. That’s the same spot the navy towed HMCS Chicoutimi after the Oct. 5, 2004, electrical fire off the coast of Ireland that killed Lt. Chris Saunders of Halifax.

Corner Brook will be undergoing maintenance for about another week and a half. 

"When we finish the maintenance period in Faslane, based upon how I’m hearing it’s going, we will have validated the ability to maintain it, from an engineering logistics perspective, in a . . . foreign naval facility," Rear Admiral McFadden said.

"That was part of the plan of sending her in the first place. I always intended to put her into Faslane."

The sub is slated to return to Halifax in early July.

( clambie@herald.ca)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

gravyboat,

We are climbing out of a bit of a hole here.  Comparing our situation to Chile's is a bit like comparing Apples to Crowbars- they did not just go though a very painful and politically screwed up re-equipment program.


----------



## cameron

Just a question Freddy G, if they should all be up and running by 2012, how long is their service life expected to be?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Well warships and subs are generally kept for 30 years (yeah I know there are exceptions especially in our navy) so you will probably see them in service until 2020-2025.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

gravyboat said:
			
		

> Funny, that's nothing new for countries like Chile.



Chile also went for new built Type 209s and are getting Scorpenes.


----------



## cameron

Thanks Ex-Dragoon, BTW in a recent post I had suggested that Canada consider purchasing Scorpenes.


----------



## CrazyCanuck

Here's a comparison on the specs between the Scorpene and our Victoria's for anybody who is interested

Scorpene
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/scorpene/specs.html

Victoria
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ssk_victoria/specs.html


----------



## NavyGunnerRTD

NCS_Eng said:
			
		

> Long story short is that Victoria is well (2 years?) into a EDWP and hopefully should be done late this year or early next.



Thats hilarious......and yes I am quite involved in the project. I will not provide timelines but end of this year or early next is VERY unlikely.


----------



## NCS_Eng

NavyGunnerRTD said:
			
		

> Thats hilarious......and yes I am quite involved in the project. I will not provide timelines but end of this year or early next is VERY unlikely.



I'm not surprised. The information that was provided to me was from the class desk in Ottawa, so I'm sure there was a disconnect with reality somewhere.

Depending on how able you are to comment, whats your unofficial view of the work left to be done?


----------



## NavyGunnerRTD

NCS_Eng said:
			
		

> I'm not surprised. The information that was provided to me was from the class desk in Ottawa, so I'm sure there was a disconnect with reality somewhere.
> 
> Depending on how able you are to comment, whats your unofficial view of the work left to be done?



 : The class desk seems to live in a beautiful little world where rum flows like water and cigars grow on trees  : 

 ;D ;D

The reality is that there is a LOT left to accomplish before these boats go back to sea. I do not work the production side so cannot comment on workload but when it comes to procurement etc. There is still a huge lead-time to replace bad stock. A team is preparing to go to the UK to look at buying some residual assets for the current and future EDWP's.


----------



## prom

so all told how many billions will have been pumped into them by the time they are all operational?


----------



## a_majoor

Boater said:
			
		

> Here's a comparison on the specs between the Scorpene and our Victoria's for anybody who is interested
> 
> Scorpene
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/scorpene/specs.html
> 
> Victoria
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ssk_victoria/specs.html



From what I understand the reason for getting the Upholders was their range is greater than most other diesel electric boats (8000nm vs 6400 for the Scorpene), which is quite critical given our long coast lines and the great distances needed to go when deploying "overseas". Since the Upholder is essentially a nuclear sub without the reactor, this made a great deal of sense in theory, and if the boats had been purchased and brought into service in a timely manner, I don't think we would be having this conversation.

Letting them sit in dry dock for such an extended time while waffling over the deal is what caused the initial problems, not any intrinsic flaws in the design.


----------



## geo

If they were in drydock it wouldn't have been so much a problem
I believe one of the subs (Chicoutimi ?) had it's ballast tanks filled with seawater...


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

geo said:
			
		

> If they were in drydock it wouldn't have been so much a problem
> I believe one of the subs (Chicoutimi ?) had it's ballast tanks filled with seawater...



They were in the water. From the folks that know what they are talking about down in the Sub Sqn I am told that this is a great boat. we're having to spend more in bringing them up to snuff than originally thought but they have a great capability. In a recent ex one of them got very close to the HVU (a carrier) undetected....


----------



## Cronicbny

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> They were in the water. From the folks that know what they are talking about down in the Sub Sqn I am told that this is a great boat. we're having to spend more in bringing them up to snuff than originally thought but they have a great capability. In a recent ex one of them got very close to the HVU (a carrier) undetected....



IHS, I can't help but whole heartedly agree. Yes, it's a huge pain in the a$$. Yes, it's taking a long time. Yes, it's costing us a ton of cash. In the end, we will have (arguably) the most capable diesel submarine in the world... all that and we'll be firing MK48's! I think the capability (both of the sub itself and the outrageous benefits to training our own fleet in ASW) are priceless.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO

Cronicbny said:
			
		

> IHS, I can't help but whole heartedly agree. Yes, it's a huge pain in the a$$. Yes, it's taking a long time. Yes, it's costing us a ton of cash. In the end, we will have (arguably) the most capable diesel submarine in the world... all that and we'll be firing MK48's! I think the capability (both of the sub itself and the outrageous benefits to training our own fleet in ASW) are priceless.



Are you going to volunteer for subs?? I see you are at Venture now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Boater said:
			
		

> Here's a comparison on the specs between the Scorpene and our Victoria's for anybody who is interested
> 
> Scorpene
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/scorpene/specs.html
> 
> Victoria
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ssk_victoria/specs.html



Hard to tell, but the Victoria seems to offer a slight increase in range, patrol endurance, the 214's also seem to be close in spec's. In a perfect world we could have tagged onto the their assembly line and gotten some very modern subs, however that would have never happened due to the politic's of the time. The Victoria's were likley the best they could get all things considered. When people talk about why we bought 2nd hand subs, I respond that we always have done so. Hell even BC bought 2nd hand subs from Chile!


----------



## Cronicbny

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> Are you going to volunteer for subs?? I see you are at Venture now.



It's not out of the question. I'm still a SHAD though, and would like to spend some more time on the KINGSTON class before going over to the dark side.


----------



## Navalgazer

For those interested, Chicoutimi should be arriving at Victoria within the next few days. The following link shows her being transferred out of Halifax on board the Hern.

www.shipspotting.com/search.php?query=hmcs+chicoutimi&action=results


----------



## Sub Standard

For those that are interested Chicoutimi is firmly on the Ground in Esquimalt  (quite literally) for those interested in Pics the Times Colonist has a good Photo Gallery of the off load.

http://www.timescolonist.com/Photo+gallery+HMCS+Chicoutimi+arrives+refit+Esquimalt/1570366/story.html


----------



## gwp

Colin P said:
			
		

> When people talk about why we bought 2nd hand subs, I respond that we always have done so. Hell even BC bought 2nd hand subs from Chile!


Missinformation - CC1 and CC2 were brand new boats, built for Chile but Chile was not able to meet the payment so B.C. picked them up from the Seattle shipyard on the eve of the First World War. 

http://www.navalandmilitarymuseum.org/resource_pages/coastal_defence/subs.html


----------



## Sailorwest

Sub-normal said:
			
		

> For those that are interested Chicoutimi is firmly on the Ground in Esquimalt  (quite literally) for those interested in Pics the Times Colonist has a good Photo Gallery of the off load.
> 
> http://www.timescolonist.com/Photo+gallery+HMCS+Chicoutimi+arrives+refit+Esquimalt/1570366/story.html


That is kind of interesting. They placed CHICOUTIMI on the jetty instead of into the drydock. Will they need to bring back the Hern, once the refit/repairs are complete in order to get the boat into the water? I suppose VICTORIA is still in the Esquimalt drydock and Vic Ships was not prepared to tie up their drydock for two years.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Perhaps they are betting on a rise in sea level due to "Climate Change", it's an indication of how long they expect it to be in refit!    >


----------



## Sailorwest

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Perhaps they are betting on a rise in sea level due to "Climate Change", it's an indication of how long they expect it to be in refit!    >


I had never thought of that. I guess that would be representative of West Coast thinking.  ;D


----------



## Navalgazer

In 2012, when or if Chicoutimi is ready to get wet again, Vic Shipyards will most likely launch using a floating drydock, my guess would be from Vancouver Shipyards. PS sorry about my spelling mistake; the Hern is actually Tern.


----------



## seadragon

I am in 2nd term in the METTP at Marine Institute, CFNES St. John's.  A few of us are interested in becoming submariners and, due to crew requirements, we might have a chance of going directly to subs when we graduate in 2010.  Any opinions on this?  Any helpful hints for us aspiring submariners?  Are there plans for the subs to do long deplyments to Europe/Asia like the frigates do?


----------



## NavyShooter

Learn well, study hard, and be ready to spend a LOT of time learning how to be a submariner.  They are a special breed.  

Also, learn not to shower.

Note, I am not a submariner, but have many that I count as friends.  (Until they start counting me as a "Skimmer puke target".)

NS


----------



## seadragon

Thanks for the info Navyshooter.  Are there any current submariners that can enlighten me with more info?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

I'm not current but here's my $0.02:

The technician trades normally have a LOT of responsibility at a junior rank on boats, because there are very few people in their trades on the boats. On top of that, they spend most of their time qualifying, rather than actually working in their trades.

That means they have to be at their absolute best when they hit the boat, and there's no room for the normal tech learning curve when getting out of school. The only guys I saw going straight from NCSTTP or METTP to the boat ended up getting a rep for being screw-ups when they really weren't any worse than everybody else was when they first hit the fleet.

My advice is to go to a ship for a couple of years and then go boats, if thats possible. Not only will you do better once you get to the boats, you'll know how bad the other half is and how lucky you are.


----------



## seadragon

Thank you very much for the info, that seemed to be the best path to me.  One of my classmates wants to go directly in.  We are both learing what we can before we leave the school and join the fleet.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Excerpt from major round-up piece at _Defense Industry Daily_:

Sub Fleet Creating Canadian Controversies
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sub-support-contract-creating-canadian-controversy-04563/



> ...
> *Updates and Related News*
> 
> *Feb 23/11: A CBC News* access to information request reveals that Canada spent C$ 45 million to repairs to HMCS Windsor alone in 2010, almost 3x the C$ 17 million budget.
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/02/23/ns-submarine-windsor-refit-cost.html
> The refit which started in 2007 and was supposed to be done in 2009, bow looks like 2013 at the earliest. As any urban sweller knows, that’s a real challenge. The documents also show that HMCS Victoria has only been at sea for 100 days since its 2000 delivery. CBC adds that:
> 
> _“It appears that every system on the British-built submarine has major problems, according to the documents, including bad welds in the hull, broken torpedo tubes, a faulty rudder and tiles on the side of the sub that continually fall off…. Because [HMCS Windsor] has been in drydock in Halifax for so long, it has become a bird sanctuary. The navy spent thousands of dollars just trying to keep the pigeons from roosting in the vessel.”_
> 
> *Dec 23/10*: Canada’s DND confirms to Post Media that HMCS Victoria’s delivery date following its C$ 195 million refit in Esquimalt, BC has been delayed again, to mid-2011:
> 
> _“According to the Defence Department, the Victoria is the first of the submarines of its class to undergo such a retrofit and that parts, infrastructure and technical expertise initially were lacking…. The valuable lessons learned from HMCS Victoria have proven useful and are being applied to other vessels in the class.”_
> 
> That would put the submarine in dry dock for about 6 years, and make its re-entry into service about 2 years late. *Montreal Gazette*...
> http://www.canada.com/news/More+delays+HMCS+Victoria+retrofit/4021222/story.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Dive certs on those boats should expire over the next 10 years as well.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Dive certs on those boats should expire over the next 10 years as well.



Well, that's interesting!

I wonder if the Bozos (sorry, I mean "the powers that be") in Ottawa understand:

1) What losing your dive cert means for submarines (you can't "extend" it through a life-extension program forever - like they do surface ships);
2) The amount of time required to build a new submarine; and, 
3) the logical connection that should exist between these two facts.

If so, we are almost already late.


----------



## medicineman

Makes you wonder why we didn't try to buy in with the RAN's build to order plan for new boats.

MM


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Dive certs on those boats should expire over the next 10 years as well.


Reference?


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, that's interesting!
> 
> I wonder if the Bozos (sorry, I mean "the powers that be") in Ottawa understand:
> 
> 1) What losing your dive cert means for submarines (you can't "extend" it through a life-extension program forever - like they do surface ships);
> 2) The amount of time required to build a new submarine; and,
> 3) the logical connection that should exist between these two facts.
> 
> If so, we are almost already late.


While your posts are usually spot-on, respectfully you're totally wrong on point 1 and ergo point 3.  As an example, the Type 206A are being extended past 40+ years with some fairly minor refits.

I appreciate that your service was in the reserves but do you really think that experienced regular force sailors suddenly become "bozos" upon receipt of a posting signal to MSHQ?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The dive cert is based on a certain definition of SUBSAFE. If that definition changes (ie changing standards for safe operation) the dive cert can be extended. The Upholders original dive cert expires in the early 2020's after 30 years from their original build dates. That dates from the original Upholder class briefings from the late 90's.

The question is on whether changing the standards for SUBSAFE is a good idea.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> The dive cert is based on a certain definition of SUBSAFE. If that definition changes (ie changing standards for safe operation) the dive cert can be extended. The Upholders original dive cert expires in the early 2020's after 30 years from their original build dates. That dates from the original Upholder class briefings from the late 90's.
> 
> The question is on whether changing the standards for SUBSAFE is a good idea.


LOL!  I was there for the SCLE briefings and that was never briefed.  It wasn't true then and isn't now.  Here is an official CF reference that states the Victoria Class "are expected to operate into the 2030s" - either provide a verifiable reference for your claims or stay in your lane.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

You were at the main *and* JR briefings? Somehow I doubt that.

The question on dive certs was asked at the JR's briefing specifically because the boats were bought used. There was a general statement given in reply that the boats dive certs expired in the early 2020's. IIRC the reply was given by one of the GTO's, not the skimmer 3-ringer.

The Upholders were bought by SCLE, not CASAP. They were intended at the time to be a stop-gap measure with compromises in quality and quantity, until we could get boats that would meet requirements. 

That plan has apparently changed. Fair enough, I doubt that the usage matched the original dive cert predictions. I'm sure that the current SUBSAFE program took that into account with the dive cert extension.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Drunksubmariner is correct: It is the SUBSAFE generated figure that ultimately counts, not the wishes of those writing backgrounders for the DND website, as informed as they may be.

SUBSAFE is a complex set of formulas that takes into account all sorts of factor (expected number of dives, duration, depth, etc.) to derive a point were engineers cannot give a guarantee that the chances of the hull crushing in are below a set figure (one chance in "x" or something). I have never heard of a British diesel submarine that exceeded 30 years of certification and generally, the Brits do not use them for more than 25 years. 

I do not know if the German or the Thai Navy (which according to the blog article Lex P. cites as source, knows nothing of submarine operations and wants the 206A boats to learn) use the Dive Certification based on SUBSAFE system, but the Brits, the American, the Australians and we in Canada do. By the way, some of the German Type 206 went through an extremely complex and extensive refit after 25 years of service, to get only a ten year extension of life. The mods were so extreme that they re classed them as 206A. When the ten years extension expired, the German stopped using them and parked them alongside the wall. Its up to the German's conscience to decide if they will sell them to some country that may put a lesser value on the life of its sailors.

An interesting comparison is provided by the Australian Collins class: The first one came in service in 1996 and is expected to retire in 2025 (basically - thirty years). The Australian government started the replacement program in 2008, as they expect the full process of design/selection/biding/construction/operational certification to take 17 years. This is the source of my calculation that we are almost already late for the replacement of our Victoria class (and the Australian government has proven more effective than Canada at getting ships in the water lately). Hence, by the way, my reference to "Bozos in Ottawa" which relates to our political masters (and possibly some senior civil servant advising them - poorly IMHO) proven incapability to manage a modern fleet - not to the uniformed sailors up there.

On a more personal note L.P., while a reservist, I started as a D.Mech. and in the mid 70's spent many weeks of training in that capacity onboard  OKANAGAN (not long enough to get my dolphins unfortunately). Later, as a MARS officer, I shared for  many years a townhouse in Halifax with a succession of British Exchange Submarine Officers,  helping them with their constant training in all manners of boat emergencies, etc. Need I say that submarine developments, submarine warfare and similar topics filled many a discussion. I'm still in touch regularly with many of these friends and have kept up with development in the submarine world through them.  So I am not totally in my lane, but I am not quite out of it either here.


----------



## Lumber

Makes me wish I could skip my surface time altogether and prep for my NOPQ on a sub. By the time I'm D-Level qualified, there won't be a sub for me to serve on! 

Ok that's a little bit of an exaggeration, but still, this thread makes me worry that my "career" as a submariner will only be half lived. 

Any chance if I let them know I want to go subs that they will ensure I get the first available NOPQ instead of waiting up to 2 years for the backlog to clear?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

I can't speak for MARS, but that has been known to happen in technical trades. 

The reverse has happened too. If you're submarine-qualified, you may be held back from a career course if the submarine community needs you.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> You were at the main *and* JR briefings? Somehow I doubt that.


What JR briefings?  There were only crew briefings - not briefings by rank level.  The crew of a VCS is only 48 - why would you split it up for briefings anyways?


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> SUBSAFE is a complex set of formulas that takes into account all sorts of factor (expected number of dives, duration, depth, etc.)...


SUBSAFE is nothing of the sort.  Remainder of your post is just plain minsinformation.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Lumber said:
			
		

> Makes me wish I could skip my surface time altogether and prep for my NOPQ on a sub. By the time I'm D-Level qualified, there won't be a sub for me to serve on!


FYI - MARS-SUB do the Submarine Warfare Director Course and not other D-levels.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Ok that's a little bit of an exaggeration, but still, this thread makes me worry that my "career" as a submariner will only be half lived.


Plenty of time left on the Victoria Class for a full career.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Any chance if I let them know I want to go subs that they will ensure I get the first available NOPQ instead of waiting up to 2 years for the backlog to clear?


The crew aboard the Victoria Class is too small to adequately prepare you for your NOPQ board in addition to their normal duties.  Patience is your only option I'm afraid.  PM me if you want specific details about serving in  submarines.


----------



## Stoker

VICTORIA-Class submarines and crews form a highly cost effective instrument for the defence of Canada. However, the price of this combat capability is the unusual and hazardous conditions under which submariners operate. To counter these associated risks, a Submarine Safety (SUBSAFE) Program has been established. The SUBSAFE Program is a risk-based Safety Management System with a SUBSAFE Board, an executive committee representing Maritime Command, the Materiel Group and the Human Resources-Military Group, specifically Occupational Health services, reporting to the Chief of Maritime Staff (CMS).

The SUBSAFE Board is designed to recommend harmonization of DND and CF interdependencies and on approval of CMS, act to ensure:

the SUBSAFE Vision, CANADA'S SUBMARINES: SAFE, SILENT, SUPERIOR, is accomplished;

the SUBSAFE Core Values: Service to Canada, Our people, Professionalism and Integrity are adhered to;

the SUBSAFE Guiding Principles are followed:

SUBSAFE GUIDING PRINCIPLES 

Officers, Managers and Supervisors are Responsible and Accountable for the Health and Safety of Personnel and Materiel 
Communicate and Respond to Feedback 
Delegate to the Most Functional Level 
Capitalize on Teamwork and Flexibility 
Conform to DND/CF, Canadian and Applicable International Regulations, Standards, Agreements and Best Practises 
Exercise Due Diligence 
Document Information and Manage Records
Prevent Incidents and Accidents and Promote Operational Effectiveness by applying Resources and Discipline to the Management System 
Train for Competence and Awareness 
Monitor, Measure and Trend Performance 
Generate Effective Resource Stewardship 
Maintain Procedures and Emergency Preparedness 
Identify Hazards and Balance Risks 
Seek out Innovation and Continuous Improvement 
Maintain and Review Objectives and Conduct Periodic Audits


and; the SUBSAFE Objectives are achieved:

SUBSAFE OBJECTIVES 

Submarine operations are to be conducted safely balancing risks against the goals of achieving the mission 
Submarines will be operationally and weapons certified 
Submarines will operate with a full, medically fit and trained crew 
Submarines will be materially certified
All personnel onboard the submarines will be aware of all known significant hazards and trained to react accordingly to counter the associated risks 
An efficient and effective SUBSAFE Program will be maintained 
In the absence of specific procedures, risk management and due diligence are to be exercised


Responsibility and accountability for the SUBSAFE Program is through the military chain of command and departmental lines of authority. All entities associated with the operation, maintenance or modification of the VICTORIA-Class Submarines are responsible for acting in accordance with the SUBSAFE Policy. Submarine commanding officers are the focal point for all safety matters onboard their vessels and immediate sphere of influence. Due diligence will be exercised and documented.

CMS, as the SUBSAFE Authority, is accountable to the CDS for the safety of submarine operations. ADM(Mat), as the Materiel Authority is accountable to the DM and CDS for materiel acquisition and support services and is responsible for materiel life-cycle. ADM(HR-Mil) is accountable to the CDS for human resource policies and DGHS is responsible for occupational health. Both ADM(Mat) and ADM(HR-Mil) are required to support CMS in order that CMS can execute his personnel and materiel responsibilities related to the safe operations of submarines. The Command Submarine Safety Office, as an independent, advisory and review body, reports directly to CMS on all submarine safety matters. The SUBSAFE Board, chaired by the Director General Maritime Personnel and Readiness, harmonizes activities and issues between these stakeholders. Following extended or significant work periods, the SUBSAFE Board will co-ordinate and oversee the activities culminating in CMS's authority for the submarine to proceed to sea, dive and conduct operations.

Prior to the commencement of an operating cycle and upon the recommendations of the SUBSAFE Board, CMS will delegate the day to day management of the SUBSAFE Program to the designated Formation Commander. Specific directions and guidance to the Formation Commanders will be issued by CMS through SUBSAFE Program directives.

The Canadian Navy is committed to the safe operations of submarines in Canada and the SUBSAFE Program provides an excellent framework within which to ensure the safety of our submariners and secure Canada's future for combat-capable submarines.


----------



## navypuke

Soon the west coast will have three subs and the east coast one. I wonder if that ticks off the east coast fleet with the sub facilities. It was kind of a curious thing to award the maintenance contract out here.


----------



## Stoker

navypuke said:
			
		

> Soon the west coast will have three subs and the east coast one. I wonder if that ticks off the east coast fleet with the sub facilities. It was kind of a curious thing to award the maintenance contract out here.



I don't think this is a case of east vs west, we're all one navy. That's where the maintenance contract was awarded, so be it. Time to move on.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

navypuke said:
			
		

> Soon the west coast will have three subs and the east coast one. I wonder if that ticks off the east coast fleet with the sub facilities. It was kind of a curious thing to award the maintenance contract out here.



Thats a new one any thing to back that up?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> What JR briefings?  There were only crew briefings - not briefings by rank level.  The crew of a VCS is only 48 - why would you split it up for briefings anyways?



I thought you said you were at the main SCLE briefings? Interesting....

FYI, there were a number of briefings held for the JR's and SR's, especially when the release rate started to approach 50% of MOG 5(UW) JR's. The one I mentioned was in the Roger with a couple of GTO's and the SCLE PM.


----------



## Sub Standard

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Thats a new one any thing to back that up?



Which part is new the one about the maintenance contract or 3 subs on the west coast?  VISSC has been around for a while now and Corner Brook will be the next boat into VISSC at Victoria shipyards therefore with VICTORIA and CHICOUTIMI already out here that will make 3 boats on the west coast.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Sub-normal said:
			
		

> Which part is new the one about the maintenance contract or 3 subs on the west coast?  VISSC has been around for a while now and Corner Brook will be the next boat into VISSC at Victoria shipyards therefore with VICTORIA and CHICOUTIMI already out here that will make 3 boats on the west coast.



Now will the 3 subs out there be a permament organizational change as navypuke indicates or is it for the scheduled refit with the sub returning back east upon completion.


----------



## Sub Standard

As far as we have been told she will stay and east coast asset/crew.  Although I've been lead to believe she will conduct her TRP and weapons cert on the west coast so for part of her reactivation and running she may have a partial west coast crew.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> I thought you said you were at the main SCLE briefings? Interesting....


I did and I was.



			
				drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> FYI, there were a number of briefings held for the JR's and SR's, especially when the release rate started to approach 50% of MOG 5(UW) JR's. The one I mentioned was in the Roger with a couple of GTO's and the SCLE PM.


There was never anything close to a 50% release rate in the Canadian submarine service, ever.  I suppose if a TA team lost a NET, and there only be 2 on the team, then you could claim a 50% attrition rate.  Lies, damn lies, and statistics I guess.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> I did and I was.



You also said "There were only crew briefings - not briefings by rank level.  The crew of a VCS is only 48 - why would you split it up for briefings anyways?"

If you were at the SCLE briefings you'd know that the entire submarine community was there, not just people assigned for crew at that time.

As it happened, there were other briefings as well, given to the SR's and JR's on "why we shouldn't slap in". That wasn't actually the title, but it was why they were giving the briefings.



> There was never anything close to a 50% release rate in the Canadian submarine service, ever.



Right. That's why there are still more than 50% of the original Oberon crews in the service. Even though they're pushing 70 now. 

Or maybe, just maybe, the actual release rate of the submarine service and every other service over time is 100%.  

At the time, the release rate was very high and looked to increase. We were told it was approaching 50% of qualified JR's. It was a concern to the people staying in because of the rather significant drop in training standards to train their replacements.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

I'm sure you guys have better things to discuss, other than who was where at what time. Get past it and move on.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## KJK

DID is reporting a Canadian request for 36 kits to convert Mk 48 Mod 4 heavy torpedos to Mod 7 Advanced Technology units. I knew these torpedos were expensive but $125 million for 36 kits plus spare parts!!!!    OMG!

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sub-support-contract-creating-canadian-controversy-04563/

KJK


----------



## Sub Standard

KJK said:
			
		

> DID is reporting a Canadian request for 36 kits to convert Mk 48 Mod 4 heavy torpedoes to Mod 7 Advanced Technology units. I knew these torpedo's were expensive but $125 million for 36 kits plus spare parts!!!!    OMG!
> 
> http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sub-support-contract-creating-canadian-controversy-04563/
> 
> KJK



It might seem expensive but it replaces pretty much all the insides of the torpedo (sensors, guidance fuel tanks signal processing) giving use pretty much a whole new torpedo with a massive jump in capabilities.


----------



## Acer Syrup

So do we get a return deposit on the MOD 4 conponents? Or can we sell them to some other navy?  ;D

So at $3.5 million a pop (or should I say the fact that we will only have 36 for awhile)... Do the subs have some sort of a training dummy to practice with?


----------



## KJK

I would think the Mod 4 parts are so old they belong in a museum.

KJK


----------



## GAP

Navy to upgrade torpedoes for troubled subs
CBC News Posted: Apr 8, 2011
Article Link

Canada's navy plans to spend about $120 million to upgrade 36 torpedoes, but they still won't work in its four submarines without further refits, CBC News has learned.

The navy has MK-48 American torpedoes in stock, but the four British-built submarines aren't capable of firing them.

Even after the weapons are converted, Canada would still have to spend millions more to refit the submarines to fire them.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay confirmed the plans on Friday but said no decision had been made about the procurement.

"Of course I know about it," MacKay said during a campaign stop with Conservative MP Gerald Keddy in Bridgewater, N.S.

"There's absolutely no decision taken at this point. The Department of National Defence is continuously looking at different procurements whether it be munitions, whether it be new equipment."
U.S. disclosed purchase

Canada's plan to upgrade the torpedoes was revealed by the U.S. Defence Security Co-operation Agency, which oversees arms sales to foreign countries. The agency said the equipment, parts, training and support would cost more than $120 million Cdn. It notified the U.S. Congress about the sale in mid-March.

Since Canada already has the torpedoes, it will have "no difficulty absorbing these additional conversion kits," the agency said in a new release.

Canadian Defence Department officials have yet to respond to questions from CBC News.
More on link


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

I don't know why CBC is reporting old news because this was mentioned when we first bought the subs. When they were still Upholder class they fired Sub-Harpoon and Spearfish torpedoes and were incapable of firing MK48s. Now that the Navy is getting around to start to rectify that it becomes a big scandal again. Well done News Media!


----------



## ModlrMike

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I don't know why CBC is reporting old news...



Because this quote is in the sidebar:



> 'I’m not surprised for a minute that they once again tried to hide and deny another misspending adventure'—Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc



Anything the CBC can do to make the Conservatives look bad. They don't even point out that it was the Liberals that bought the boats in the first place.


----------



## yoman

> *HMCS Victoria ready for action again *
> 
> By Katie DeRosa, Times Colonist April 22, 2011
> 
> After years of expensive refits and repairs to make it seaworthy, the Canadian Navy submarine stationed at CFB Esquimalt is out of the dry dock and in the water.
> 
> HMCS Victoria was pulled out of drydock and into Esquimalt Harbour on Sunday, navy spokeswoman Lt-Cmdr. Nathalie Garcia confirmed.
> 
> However, neither the Navy nor the Department of National Defence would comment Thursday on the plans for the submarine now that it is operational. Garcia said an official launch for the submarine will take place in the coming weeks, but did not have a specific date.
> 
> The navy's only other functional submarine is HMCS Corner Brook, set to arrive at CFB Esquimalt from CFB Halifax this summer.
> 
> The four second-hand submarines have been a lightning rod of controversy since the Canadian government purchased them from Britain for $891 million in 1998. The British Royal Navy launched the dieselpowered submarines in the late 1980s and took them out of service in 1994.
> 
> Since it was delivered in 2000, HMCS Victoria has spent most of its time in Canada in drydock undergoing $195 million in repairs.
> 
> Since arriving at CFB Esquimalt in 2003, there have been a series of launch dates for HMCS Victoria, which were ultimately delayed because of technical setbacks.
> 
> HMCS Victoria sailed for a few months in 2004 but was pulled from service after a fire on HMCS Chicoutimi, one of the four subs, killed a
> 
> crewman on its voyage from Britain. Chicoutimi, also housed at CFB Esquimalt, is not expected to sail again until 2012.
> 
> In the last 10 years, HMCS Victoria has spent more months undergoing repairs than days at sea - it has spent 115 days in service and 120 months in dry dock - with taxpayers picking up the hefty bill.
> 
> In 2007, the Victoria Shipyards and its partner companies were awarded a five-year, $370 million contract to maintain the Canadian military's four submarines, but the total contract could be worth $1.5 billion if extended over 15 years.
> 
> In an interview last May, the boat's commanding officer, Lt-Cmdr. Christopher Ellis, said HMCS Victoria was slated to sail February 2011. Because it has not been to sea for five years, Ellis said at the time that HMCS Victoria would spend its first eight to nine months at sea in safety trials and crew preparation.
> 
> Ellis said in May that HMCS Victoria was set to be the first Upholder-class submarine to fire a MK-48 torpedo.
> 
> Those torpedoes, the sole weapon aboard the boats, were recently the source of political backlash from Liberal MPs after news leaked that the Canadian government was considering spending $125 million on torpedo refit kits from the U.S. None of the Britishbuilt submarines are capable of firing the navy's stock of MK 48 torpedoes.
> 
> HMCS Victoria is also slated to take part in the international Rim of the Pacific exercise which takes place every two years off Hawaii.
> 
> kderosa@timescolonist.com
> © Copyright (c) The Victoria Times Colonist


Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/HMCS+Victoria+ready+action+again/4660301/story.html#ixzz1KOwakVPA

Nice to see her back in the water after all this time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and armed as well, guess that was the reason for the MERX bid on the Mk 48 upgrades.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

> The four second-hand submarines have been a lightning rod of controversy since *the Canadian government  * purchased them from Britain for $891 million in 1998. The British Royal Navy launched the dieselpowered submarines in the late 1980s and took them out of service in 1994.



Let's lay the blame where it belongs, at the feet of the Liebrals.



> Those torpedoes, the sole weapon aboard the boats, were recently the source of political backlash from Liberal MPs after news leaked that the Canadian government was considering spending $125 million on torpedo refit kits from the U.S. None of the Britishbuilt submarines are capable of firing the navy's stock of MK 48 torpedoes.


Trying to make hay from the fact that the Liebrals didn't do their due diligence when THEY made the purchase and, typically, they are trying to blame someone else for their own incompetence.


Of course we can't expect the liebral friendly and biased media to take the 'natural governing party' to task during an election, especially if they cam make it look like the 'Canadian government' look like the Tories.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Cmon, open up tell us how you really feel about the Liebrals.....


----------



## Neill McKay

recceguy said:
			
		

> Of course we can't expect the liebral friendly and biased media to take the 'natural governing party' to task during an election, especially if they cam make it look like the 'Canadian government' look like the Tories.



I thought the article was pretty neutral.  You almost seem to be suggesting that it wasn't biased enough in the other direction since it didn't go out of its way to point out who was in power when the submarines were procurred.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I thought the article was pretty neutral.  You almost seem to be suggesting that it wasn't biased enough in the other direction since it didn't go out of its way to point out who was in power when the submarines were procurred.



Yes but when the Liberals first got the subs and it was made known that they would be Canadianized which included removal of the Spearfish and SubHarpoon for the MK48s, then they have the gall to have a backlash against the Conservatives for updating the weapons the Liberals basically forced them to continue using. Recceguys points seem cut and dry to me. So to paraphrase:
1) Oberon class gets scrapped
2) Upholder class gets picked and after a long period of political dithering the Upholders now Victorias come home.
3) For whatever reason the British weapon systems are removed and the Oberon class systems are fitted into Victoria class
4) Mk48s have been in storage for x years need to be updated and the Liberals scream blue murder.
Get the point?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> For whatever reason the British weapon systems are removed and the Oberon class systems are fitted into Victoria class



Word at the time was that the government didn't want to buy Spearfish and a new EW system. They would have run to ~$500 million or so.


----------



## cameron

Here's my first question, Canada bought these boats in 1998, it's now2011, thirteen years later and HMCS Victoria is just becoming operatational.  When all four boats are fully operational how much more years of service can we expect from them.  Second, at this point won't it make more sense, fiscally and otherwise, to scrap the Victorias and buy new boats, such as the French Scorpene Class or perhaps better yet, the Swedish Gotland Class?

I know that scrapping the Victorias would be politically sensitive, but should any more money be spent on them?  With the Arctic Ocean becoming more accessible Canada desperately needs subs to protect its sovereignty in the Arctic, and I look forward to the day when I can hear of Canadian subs taking part in operations worldwide just as our frigates and destroyers do.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

> and I look forward to the day when I can hear of Canadian subs taking part in operations worldwide just as our frigates and destroyers do.



Sub deployments are OPSEC so the chances of you of hearing about anything like that are pretty low.



> won't it make more sense, fiscally and otherwise, to scrap the Victorias and buy new boats, such as the French Scorpene Class or perhaps better yet, the Swedish Gotland Class?



Considering how long its taking to choose a new AOR and get Naval helicopters in service what do you think the answer will be?


----------



## Pat in Halifax

BTW-Submarines can be extremely valuable in the Arctic environment. (O boat guys here can attest to but, then, that is OPSEC) Ask this question again 18 months from now-Let's see where we are then.
Submarines (my opinion only!) will be our first AOPs in theory.


----------



## Sailorwest

There is no doubt that a submarine is a valuable asset when when conducting certain types of operations but what is needed in the Arctic is presence and a sub is not the ideal vessel for that. We need to exert Canadian authority over the area but more importantly, we need to be seen to be exerting Canadian authority.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> When all four boats are fully operational how much more years of service can we expect from them.  Second, at this point won't it make more sense, fiscally and otherwise, to scrap the Victorias and buy new boats, such as the French Scorpene Class or perhaps better yet, the Swedish Gotland Class?



If the Victorias got a reasonable combat systems upgrade, they'd be at the top level of SSKs in the world. They're not exactly what we would have picked if given a completely free hand, but they're what we have now.

There aren't any other boats being built now that would meet a reasonable Canadian spec, so as long as the dive cert risk is accepted, there isn't much point in scrapping the Victorias and buying new boats.



> With the Arctic Ocean becoming more accessible Canada desperately needs subs to protect its sovereignty in the Arctic



Why? Our sovereignty isn't in dispute. Even if it was, submarine operations don't have an effect on sovereignty because you can't talk about them and nobody else sees them.



> I look forward to the day when I can hear of Canadian subs taking part in operations worldwide just as our frigates and destroyers do.



It's pretty difficult to deploy diesel-powered boats worldwide because their transit speed is very slow. The Germans and Americans had significant issues with it in WWII and their boats transit speed was much higher.



> BTW-Submarines can be extremely valuable in the Arctic environment. (O boat guys here can attest to but, then, that is OPSEC) Ask this question again 18 months from now-Let's see where we are then.
> Submarines (my opinion only!) will be our first AOPs in theory.



We only have 4 boats, and they're split on each coast. The operating area is farther away than Europe. Somehow I don't think that patrols in the Arctic are going to be any more effective than West Coast patrols were with the O-boats.


----------



## dapaterson

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> We only have 4 boats, and they're split on each coast. The operating area is farther away than Europe. Somehow I don't think that patrols in the Arctic are going to be any more effective than West Coast patrols were with the O-boats.



We only have four if one considers _HMCS Chicoutimi_ as potentialy returning to the fold, an optimistic view of the world.


I suspect we'd have gotten better value for money if we'd gone for a fleet of these:


----------



## GR66

Subs and warships are a nice _symbol_ of sovereignty but real sovereignty is Canadian customs officials, scientific teams, environmental officers, RCMP officers, medical services, postal and communications networks, etc. working in the arctic enforcing Canadian laws and regulations.  

Also, as drunknsubmrnr noted our sovereignty over the arctic isn't in dispute.  The status of the North West Passage is another issue, but while subs (and other more visible military assets) may make monitoring of traffic in arctic waters easier they do not help to "settle" the dispute one way or the other.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We only have four if one considers _HMCS Chicoutimi_ as potentialy returning to the fold, an optimistic view of the world.
> 
> 
> I suspect we'd have gotten better value for money if we'd gone for a fleet of these:



I want one, I want one, I want one!

Submarines in the arctic would be like nuclear weapons and detente. You are likely not to use them (hopefully), no one knows where they are but the idea that they 'might' be targetting you may be enough to make you think twice about what it is you are doing.


----------



## cameron

You're right Ex-Dragoon.  Considering how we're taking to get our AORs and helos, not to mention replacements for the Iroquois' God only knows how long it'll take at this rate for us to get new subs.  But the subs are, in my view at least, an urgent need that has to be addressed.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> I want one, I want one, I want one!
> 
> Submarines in the arctic would be like nuclear weapons and detente. You are likely not to use them (hopefully), no one knows where they are but the idea that they 'might' be targetting you may be enough to make you think twice about what it is you are doing.



I so wanted one and was determined to get it, until I was shown what fiberboard was......

Subs by their nature are a threat, by their mere existence the enemy or potential opponent must take steps to protect their assets, which means more assets required for any given operation. The Falklands war was a clear demonstration of the threat and cost of ignoring this risk. In the next conflict we will be bringing what we have, so lets hope these boats are properly equipped as there will be little time to do so.


----------



## a_majoor

The USN is being urged to get back in the conventional submarine game, so perhaps there is a long shot possibility of getting on board with this idea and having access to economies of scale and technical support from our most important allied navy:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/us-navy-needs-diesel-submarines.html



> *U.S. Navy Needs Diesel Submarines*
> 
> The American Enterprise Institute makes the case for Diesel Submarines.
> 
> The US Navy should procure a fleet of diesel-powered subs. Not only are diesels cheaper than nuclear-powered subs, but they have the advantage of being better platforms for many of the tasks the Navy faces today. The list of actual and potential submarine missions, including close-in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, special operations, and blockade and mining, continues to grow.
> 
> These growing operational demands are coupled with the exigencies of new undersea requirements. In addition to the deep-sea dives and prolonged blue-water missions that became the staple of submarine operations during the Cold War, there are a number of scenarios today that are focused on the littoral areas, the green water within 100 miles of land, be they in the strait of Hormuz or Malacca, off the shores of Taiwan or in the South China Sea.
> 
> It is these missions that often favor diesel submarines. Diesel subs are smaller, stealthier and more maneuverable in tight spaces than nuclear submarines. For example, unlike a nuclear submarine's power plant, a diesel's primary engine can be turned off when submerged, reducing noise emission. Indeed, unlike a nuclear-powered submarine, a modern diesel can hide on the ocean's floor, deadly silent, while monitoring whatever passes over and around it.
> 
> And with the advent of Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology, today's diesel subs can remain submerged for weeks at a time. When deployed to bases in the Far East or Middle East, the range and reach of today's AIP-equipped diesels would put them well within striking distance of critical choke points.
> 
> Germany's Type 212 subs were sold for approximately $500 million versus the $2 billion for a Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine - the Navy would be able to ramp up submarine production without breaking the bank. (_Interpolation: Any conventional sub suited for US or Canadian needs would need a much greater range than almost any conventional sub currently in service. This would almost certainly be larger and more expensive than a 212 U boat. See Alternative Submarines-Minitruders and Green Nukes by Richard Compton Hall_)
> 
> Wikipedia on Air Independent Propulsion
> 
> Air-independent propulsion (AIP) is a term that encompasses technologies which allow a submarine to operate without the need to surface or use a snorkel to access atmospheric oxygen.
> 
> AIP is usually implemented as an auxiliary source. Most such systems generate electricity which in turn drives an electric motor for propulsion or recharging the boat's batteries. The submarine's electrical system is also used for providing "hotel services"—ventilation, lighting, heating etc.—although this consumes a small amount of power compared to that required for propulsion.
> 
> A benefit of this approach is it can be retrofitted into existing submarine hulls by inserting an additional hull section. AIP does not normally provide the endurance or power to replace the atmospheric dependent propulsion, but allows it to remain submerged longer than a more conventionally propelled submarine. A typical conventional power plant will provide 3 megawatts maximum, and an AIP source around 10% of that. A nuclear submarine's propulsion plant is usually much greater than 20 megawatt


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A littoral sub built by Northrop or Lockheed will cost as much as a Trident, be armed with 1 torpedo tube and have the dive profile of a homemade Iranian sub.


----------



## KJK

More good news in the never ending Victoria class saga:

Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press
HALIFAX - One of the Canadian navy's four Victoria-class submarines will be restricted in its ability to dive deep beneath the seas because of rust, according to a document obtained by The Canadian Press.

Shared with the usual disclaimer.

http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/NewsChannel.aspx?ArticleID=news/capfeed/national/HG7777.xml&CatID=National

KJK


----------



## MSEng314

For those who haven't seen this yet, a submariner friend of mine linked this to me, enjoy!

HMCS CORNER BROOK


----------



## canuck101

Just read this in the Vancouver Sun

Edit: Link to David ******** article removed. Similar article can be found here: http://bit.ly/nyt0Hk


----------



## Edward Campbell

Someone in the political/bureaucratic _centre_ (Privy Council Office, Treasury Board and Finance) is going to ask - probably via an item 'planted' in the media - the obvious question: _"Why is DND shoveling more and more money down a rat hole? If we need submarines then, surely, we need them now, not in 2016. Why not scrap these four lemons and buy new, working submarines?"_

I know there are many good reasons why we are doing what we are doing, but it is going to be an uphill battle on the public relations front - Canadians have heard nothing but bad news about these boats since we bought them. Those, in government, who oppose submarines or just oppose defence spending - and there are a lot of them - will have a field day.

VAdm (ret'd) Lynn Mason, amongst others, has, publicly, made the case for submarines and, indeed, for these submarines. DND needs a loud clear voice again - IF there is one inside NDHQ or in the Navy, generally.


----------



## The Bread Guy

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> *DND needs a loud clear voice again - IF there is one inside NDHQ or in the Navy, generally.*


Here here, and NOT just on the subs.


----------



## Edward Campbell

More in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/barrie-mckenna/the-sad-saga-of-the-boats-that-wouldnt-float/article2153329/


> The sad saga of the boats that wouldn’t float
> 
> BARRIE MCKENNA | Columnist profile | E-mail
> OTTAWA— From Monday's Globe and Mail
> 
> Last updated Monday, Sep. 05, 2011
> 
> As Ottawa prepares to place its largest shipbuilding order in decades – $35-billion worth of patrol ships, icebreakers and research ships – it’s worth checking in on the government’s last big navy purchase.
> 
> Remember the four second-hand subs the government bought from Britain for $800-million back in 1998?
> 
> You would be forgiven for losing track. Amid endless refits and repairs, the subs have spent far more time in dry dock than patrolling Canada’s coasts in the 13 years the navy has owned them.
> 
> And shockingly, none of the four subs is operational. Only one is in water, HMCS Victoria, which is slated to make its first dive later this fall after a major overhaul.
> 
> Not one of the subs is weapons-ready. It will be at least another two years before the subs are equipped to fire torpedoes. And it will cost Ottawa an estimated $125-million to retrofit the ships to fire the same Mk 48 torpedoes used on its now-retired Oberon-class submarines.
> 
> The plan is to have two subs fully operational next year and all four in 2013, according to navy spokeswoman Lieutenant Heather McDonald.
> 
> “We're near the end of a long beginning,” Lt. McDonald said.
> 
> One of the subs, HMCS Windsor, is so badly rusted that it’s apparently limited in its ability to dive deeply beneath the seas. In July, Canadian navy officials offered a less-than-ringing endorsement of the ship’s sea-worthiness.
> 
> “The submarine is safe to perform all expected operations during her operations period until her next extended docking work period,” Blaine Duffley, director of maritime equipment project management for the subs, recently told the Canadian Press. The sub is now in dry dock on the East Coast.
> 
> The rest of the fleet is grounded. HMCS Chicoutimi caught fire in 2004 on its voyage from Britain and won’t be ready until 2013. HMCS Corner Brook is undergoing maintenance on the West Coast, and also won’t be operational until 2013.
> 
> Military experts don’t dispute the value of submarines to a nation such as Canada, with its vast coastline. The stealthy diesel-electric subs can covertly combat smuggling, illegal fishing, terrorism and polluters.
> 
> And the initial purchase price was much lower than buying new subs. Australia, for example, has paid nearly $1-billion apiece for its six new ones.
> 
> If Ottawa is to learn anything from the subs saga, it’s time to divulge the all-in cost of the four ships, which Britain mothballed as part of its conversion to a nuclear-powered fleet. The $800-million purchase price bought Canada four hulking steel shells. Ottawa has spent another $1.5-billion on maintenance and support.
> 
> But that’s only part of the cost of Canadianizing the subs.
> 
> Readying the ships for action is costing still more, according to publicly available information. Ottawa has sunk at least $370-million into upgrades and refits. It has also spent millions to transport the subs via the Panama Canal to the West Coast, where the refit work is being done. It will cost another $125-million to give them torpedoes. In Halifax, the navy has spent has spent $47-million to renovate its maintenance dockyard to accommodate the submarines.
> 
> Further repairs to deal with persistent rust problems could cost millions more.
> 
> A rough and unofficial tally of what’s been spent is now approaching $3-billion. Add in the mind-boggling delays, and the original fire-sale price seems considerably less attractive.
> 
> The Harper government and the navy have repeatedly defended the sub purchase, initiated by the previous Liberal government, as a good deal for taxpayers. Mr. Harper has also championed the cause of giving the Canadian Forces the tools they need to do their jobs.
> 
> But the government has never disclosed the full cost of readying the subs to patrol Canadian shores – a mission that remains unfulfilled. And all the while the aging subs’ useful lifespan is ebbing away.
> 
> It’s time for a full accounting of the depressing saga.
> 
> The next few years could prove difficult ones for Canada’s military. A recent report by Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, chief of transformation, is recommending $1-billion in annual cuts in a reorganization that could see as many as 11,000 positions vanish, mostly at headquarters in Ottawa.
> 
> In an environment of restraint, the Harper government should do a better job of openly explaining, and justifying, its ongoing military purchases.




This is, almost certainly, going to be the broad, general public reaction. Worse, this is in _Report on Business_, fortunately it is not on the front page; sadly it is on page 2 at the top, occupying, with a large picture, half of the page. A lot of (important) people open their morning paper, put aside the news and sports and lifestyle sections and focus on ROB - so this is what they will see as they have their first cup of coffee and start their daily reading. That stuff tends to stick with us ...


----------



## a_majoor

The problem with subs is you can't just go down to Crazy Dave's used military equipment and pick one up. The complexity of subs makes laying them up a very risky thing to do, and getting new ones in a reasonable time frame is also problamatic (see the Australian experience with the Collins class).

Add the rather unique requirements of the RCN and submarines turn into a huge headache. I somehow doubt that getting Kilo class SSK's or refurbishing Los Angeles class SSN's is going to go over well in either the Government or the Media...


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> The complexity of subs makes laying them up a very risky thing to do



Not in general. The Americans laid up a lot of boats at the end of WWII, and pulled them out of storage for foreign sales/Guppy conversions. Thats how we got RAINBOW and GRILSE.

The problems with the layup were that the RN never laid them up properly, and they never properly worked out the kinks in the design in the first place so that had to be done as part of bringing the boats back.

They're more or less fixed mechanically now, but I don't think there's enough money to fix the spares and weapons issues.


----------



## Neill McKay

> Not one of the subs is weapons-ready. It will be at least another two years before the subs are equipped to fire torpedoes. And it will cost Ottawa an estimated $125-million to retrofit the ships to fire the same Mk 48 torpedoes used on its now-retired Oberon-class submarines.



The Commander of the RCN had a letter to the editor in today's Globe and Mail in which he refuted this claim.  Apparently they can fire the Mk 48 now.


----------



## yoman

> *Canada’s subs*
> 
> Contrary to what was conveyed in your article on the Victoria-Class submarines (The Sad Saga Of The Boats That Wouldn’t Float – Sept. 5), our submarines are capable now of firing the Mk48 heavyweight torpedo.
> 
> Victoria and Windsor will be certified next year, followed by Chicoutimi. From 2013 forward, Canada will have a submarine available on each coast, with a third deployed wherever required.
> 
> Our submarines were purchased with 80 per cent of hull life remaining at one-quarter of the cost of a new build. They cost no more to run than other submarines of equivalent capability and will provide a solid return on investment well into the 2020s.
> 
> It has taken us longer to bring the boats into service than we would have wished, but the submarine business is unforgiving. No shortcuts can be taken for the dangerous work our submariners do, and I am proud that they have brought us to this point – near the end of a long beginning.
> 
> _Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, Commander Royal Canadian Navy _


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/sept-10-letters-to-the-editor/article2159982/page2/

Good news.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

I'm pretty sure that none of the boats have actually fired a Mk 48 yet, although that's supposed to change soon.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Good messaging....



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> More in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... The plan is to have two subs fully operational next year and all four in 2013, according to navy spokeswoman Lieutenant Heather McDonald.
> *“We're near the end of a long beginning,”* Lt. McDonald said ....
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/barrie-mckenna/the-sad-saga-of-the-boats-that-wouldnt-float/article2153329/
Click to expand...




			
				yoman said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/sept-10-letters-to-the-editor/article2159982/page2/
> 
> 
> 
> .... It has taken us longer to bring the boats into service than we would have wished, but the submarine business is unforgiving. No shortcuts can be taken for the dangerous work our submariners do, and I am proud that they have brought us to this point – *near the end of a long beginning.*
Click to expand...


----------



## dirkpitt1211

well, test shots were good, at least the dummies that float.  so the torpedos do fit, and fire.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

More like fit and jettison, which is also good to have.

There's a lot more to firing a Mk 48 and getting it working than just ejecting it from a tube.

Hopefully the recent fire won't delay the weapon cert.


----------



## The Bread Guy

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Hopefully the recent fire won't delay the weapon cert.


This one?


> A fire on board HMCS Victoria, the Royal Canadian Navy's best hope for an operational submarine, is the latest mishap to plague the used boats which have spent more time undergoing repairs than in the water.
> 
> The submarine's commanding officer, Lt. Cmdr. Christopher Ellis, confirmed that the fire happened last Tuesday and was contained to the communications mast on top of the sub. It happened during a scheduled radiation hazard survey.
> 
> One of the submariners on the jetty during the training noticed smoke coming from the communications mast, Ellis said.
> 
> "There was no indication of smoke or anything inside the submarine," Ellis said, explaining that the mast does not open up to the rest of the boat. "It was a minor fire in that way."
> 
> The submariner alerted the six crew members inside the submarine and called the Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt Fire Department, he said.
> 
> Three duty members aboard the sub took emergency precautions, isolating the high-powered systems on the submarine and making sure everyone got off the vessel safely.
> 
> Firefighters used a ladder truck to spray water to extinguish the fire in the communications mast, Ellis said ....


Postmedia News, 13 Sept 11


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Owners of British cars and subs should note that all Lucas parts run on smoke, if the smoke escapes, then the part will fail to work. Lucas also makes 3 position switches: Dim, Flicker and smoke. Lucas will also guarantee the supply of lukewarm beer with it's line of fridges.

Lucas the Prince of darkness, bring dark to you since 1925


----------



## Journeyman

Colin P said:
			
		

> Owners of British cars and subs [and motorcycles]  should note that all Lucas parts run on smoke.....


My first bike was a Norton; you'd think that the Brits could devise an electrical system that would work when it's damp.


It's not a rhetorical question kids; Lucas IS the Prince of Darkness -- and that's not a cool vampire metaphor -- when you need lights (or ignition), British electrics will leave you in the dark


----------



## mad dog 2020

14 Sept 2011, Halifax Chronical Herald

Scrap Canada’s naval submarine fleet — critic 
Last of four vessels grounded until 2016
By JONATHAN ARENSON 
Wed, Sep 14 - 4:54 AM
Canada’s naval submarine program is a bust and the time is perfect for the federal government to scrap the four-vessel fleet, says the president of the Rideau Institute, an independent research, advocacy and consulting group in Ottawa.

"I don’t think we’ll ever see all four submarines operating all together and at their full capacity," Steven Staples said Tuesday.

Two weeks ago, the HMCS Corner Brook was put dockside until at least 2016 as a result of damage caused by hitting the ocean floor back in June. As a result, none of Canada’s four Victoria-class submarines are in action.

The damage to the Corner Brook occurred during a training exercise near Nootka Sound off the west coast of Vancouver Island.

Staples said he doesn’t think there would be any political downside to scrapping the submarines.

"I think an argument could be made by the government that they are still committed to the navy by spending upward of $30 billion on a new surface fleet."

Earlier this year, the federal government announced plans to spend up to $35 billion on shipbuilding across the country.

According to Staples, the submarines are doing Canada more harm than good.

"I think it is becoming painfully clear that the sub fleet is providing no benefits to Canada in terms of our defence and, in fact, is probably more of a hazard to submariners than any benefit to the navy."

In October 2004, the HMCS Chicoutimi was handed over to the Canadian navy from Britain. While making the voyage from England to its new home at CFB Halifax, the submarine caught fire in the North Atlantic, resulting in nine people being treated for smoke inhalation and killing one Canadian sailor, navy Lt. Chris Saunders.

The Defence Department has no plans in the foreseeable future to get the Chicoutimi back in action, navy Lt. Heather McDonald, a Royal Canadian Navy public affairs officer, said Tuesday in an email.

The HMCS Windsor landed in Nova Scotia in October 2001. Almost 10 years later, the submarine has been at sea 332 day and has extensive rust damage that will limit its diving depths once repaired.

The Windsor, which has been out of action since January 2007, is scheduled to be operational in 2013, the department said.

The HMCS Victoria is scheduled to be operational in 2012. But last week the submarine’s communications mast caught fire.

The submarines were launched by the British navy in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Britain took the submarines out of service in 1994 before selling them to Canada in 1998 for just under $900 million.

"There were certainly arguments made that $900 million for four submarines was a bargain deal, but we eventually paid $900 million for no submarines," said Staples.

In a letter to the Globe and Mail published Saturday, Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, who heads Maritime Command, defended the submarine program.

"They cost no more to run than other submarines of equivalent capability and will provide a solid return on investment well into the 2020s," wrote Maddison.

Including the price of purchase, repairs and maintenance, the bill to the Canadian taxpayers for the four submarines is an estimated at $3 billion, said Eric Lerhe, a doctoral fellow with the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies at Dalhousie University in Halifax.

However, Lerhe, a former Canadian navy commodore, maintains that because of disagreements over the rights to oil in the Arctic, the submarines are still crucial to Canada’s northern interests.

"There is an 80 per cent chance that this will all be done peacefully in the UN and negotiated by maritime lawyers. The other 20 per cent of it is insurance, and that is submarines."

( jarenson@herald.ca)


----------



## Edward Campbell

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> 14 Sept 2011, Halifax Chronical Herald
> 
> Scrap Canada’s naval submarine fleet — critic
> Last of four vessels grounded until 2016
> By JONATHAN ARENSON
> Wed, Sep 14 - 4:54 AM
> Canada’s naval submarine program is a bust and the time is perfect for the federal government to scrap the four-vessel fleet, says the president of the Rideau Institute, an independent research, advocacy and consulting group in Ottawa.
> 
> "I don’t think we’ll ever see all four submarines operating all together and at their full capacity," Steven Staples said Tuesday.
> 
> Two weeks ago, the HMCS Corner Brook was put dockside until at least 2016 as a result of damage caused by hitting the ocean floor back in June. As a result, none of Canada’s four Victoria-class submarines are in action.
> 
> The damage to the Corner Brook occurred during a training exercise near Nootka Sound off the west coast of Vancouver Island.
> 
> Staples said he doesn’t think there would be any political downside to scrapping the submarines ...
> 
> ( jarenson@herald.ca)




Well, if I needed one, there is a perfect reason to keep the submarines.

If Stephen Staples says it is dark at night then you can rest assured that the sun now shines, brightly, at 0130 Hrs, in Ottawa and Halifax, too. The man is totally committed to the complete disarmament of Canada.


----------



## Haletown

Staples is proof that somewhere a village is missing its idiot.


----------



## dapaterson

Haletown said:
			
		

> Staples is proof that somewhere a village is missing its idiot.



More like proof that Ottawa has an oversupply.


"Hmm, I'm a married politician with a security clearance.  Maybe I should flirt with a Chinese security agent who operates under a journalistic cover.  Yes, there's no possible downside to that!"


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

A stopped clock is right twice a day. 

The boats are basically scarecrows right now, and would need considerable investment to be any more than that. Is the level of insurance they provide worth the considerable premium?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I believe that Mr Staples' point was that no submarine force (or military force) is required by Canada, at all. 

 If the submarines we had bought spent 98% of their time at sea, he would be complaining about the cost of the sea days, or green house gases, or something else.


----------



## Sub_Guy

mad dog 2020 said:
			
		

> "I don’t think we’ll ever see all four submarines operating all together and at their full capacity," Steven Staples said Tuesday.



Pure genius this Staples guy is, considering there will always most likely be one in some sort of refit!    

I don't understand how this guy always seems to get air time, stupid Charlie Brown looking know-it-all mother f*cker...


----------



## Edward Campbell

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Pure genius this Staples guy is, considering there will always most likely be one in some sort of refit!
> 
> I don't understand how this guy always seems to get air time, stupid Charlie Brown looking know-it-all mother f*cker...




He gets all the air time because:

1. He is very visible - he *bombards* the media with press releases and offers to speak;

2. He is always available;

3. He is, to be fair, presentable and well spoken. He knows how to 'work' on TV. TV producers trust him to speak to a well established, easy to understand brief; and

4. He is free ~ some experts demand an appearance fee or, at least, expenses.


----------



## HDE

I've always thought he was the ideal commentator for a media which doesn't worry much about looking beyond the vacuous on the topic in question.  Media needs someone who seems to be an expert on defence issues?  Call up Steve and he'll give you a decisive 30-second soundbite on what may well be a matter crying out for all sorts of careful analysis and debate.  I don't know that his being the go-to-guy for insights speaks highly of the media who seek him out but that seems the norm these days.

I suspect he'd be easy pickings for most folks with real expertise, and the time, to pick apart most of his arguments.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think Harper should go public in agreeing with Staples and state that Canada will buy new subs next fiscal. Also have him thank Staples for brining this issue to the forefront. Ah the look on SS face when he realizes he egged the government into buying newer subs.......almost priceless.


----------



## gwp

Versions of this letter from Vice Admiral Maddison have appeared in the Globe and Mail and Ottawa Citizen.  
“Dear Editor, 

I wish to take this opportunity to reply to an article that your paper recently published.
I am pleased that the article accepted that submarines are essential to Canada’s defence and security. Unrivalled in their stealth, persistence and lethality, submarines permit Canada to act decisively at sea. That capacity has been demonstrated in operations and exercises from tropical to Arctic latitudes, and in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Our boats have conducted surveillance at home and supported the interdiction of drug-traffickers in the Americas. They have helped to prepare our allies for operational missions and acted as formidable adversaries during advanced warfare training. In every instance, our boats performed admirably in the hands of Canadian submariners—outstanding men and women who have chosen to serve Canada at sea in one of the most challenging environments possible.
Our Victoria-class submarines are physically capable of firing the Mk48 heavyweight torpedo, among the world’s most advanced weapons. Had a national emergency made it essential to certify the submarines, we would have done so.
The boats will soon reach full operational status. Victoria and Windsor will be weaponized next year, and Chicoutimi the year after. From 2013 until the class is retired, Canada will have a submarine available for operations both east and west, with a third boat able to deploy where the Government so chooses. A fourth submarine will be with industry, undergoing necessary deep maintenance.
Our submarines remain an exceptional value. They were acquired at roughly one-quarter of the projected cost of a comparable new build. Our operating and maintenance costs are comparable to those of other navies. Given that the boats were purchased with 80% of projected hull life remaining, Canada will see a solid return on its investment well into the 2020s.
Admittedly, it has taken us longer to bring the boats into service than we would have wished. We underestimated a number of challenges, including: the effort needed to re-establish the class integrated logistics and supply chain; the need to establish a capability to sustain the boats in operational service on both coasts; and, finally, the effort associated with transferring strategic skills and knowledge into industry for the deep maintenance of the submarines. Each of these challenges was overcome through the tremendous effort and dedication of our people.
Submarines are an exceptionally demanding business. They are among the most sophisticated machines on the planet, and they operate in one of the world’s most extreme environments—underwater—where any error can be greeted by disaster. Operating submarines safely and effectively requires concentrated investments in training and maintenance. No shortcuts can be taken in any aspect of submarine operations. 
We are near the end of a long beginning, and I believe that Canadians should be proud of the leadership, determination and professionalism of their submariners, who have brought us collectively to this point.
Yours aye,”


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

VICTORIA conducted a series of Camber Dives as part of post-refit trials two weeks ago.  A Camber Dive involves a controlled dive within the harbour to allow submerged testing of various systems. The Harbour Acceptance Trials (HATs) included: Camber Dive (general shake-down and testing of boat systems); Stability Experiment Trim & Incline (to verify ballasting); and Torpedo Shape Discharges.  Photos available at https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.268962473137768.74516.112082765492407&type=1


----------



## medicineman

What they didn't show were the photos the resultant SUBAR that occured shortly after the Camber dive... ;D

MM


----------



## karl28

I really hope that the government will not scrap these boats . I really think that they can be a valued asset we just got to work out the kinks and get them running again .


----------



## tabernac

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> VICTORIA conducted a series of Camber Dives as part of post-refit trials two weeks ago.  A Camber Dive involves a controlled dive within the harbour to allow submerged testing of various systems. The Harbour Acceptance Trials (HATs) included: Camber Dive (general shake-down and testing of boat systems); Stability Experiment Trim & Incline (to verify ballasting); and Torpedo Shape Discharges.  Photos available at https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.268962473137768.74516.112082765492407&type=1



Any reason why the dives were done right next to the fueling jetty?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not sure which is fueling jetty but the most northwest dock which is also close to the fuel tanks appears to be the deepest part (If ever so slightly) of the harbour docks going from 10-12m by the chart. also likely a clean uniform soft bottom would be required. The harbour bottom is pretty constant at 10-12m until you get close to the entrance.


----------



## cartwright

I'm a little curious about a prior post in this thread on the Collins class.  I viewed an online Australian news clip from earlier this year on their plans and the RAN seems to be in a very similar situation as Canada.  The recent competition for the National Shipbuilding Strategy seems to omit future subs.  Are there any plans being developed for an eventual replacement of the Victorias?  Wouldn't the Collins replacement project be a perfect opportunity for a partnership for Canada?


----------



## aesop081

cartwright said:
			
		

> The recent competition for the National Shipbuilding Strategy seems to omit future subs.



Of course it did. Try and find a single shipyard in Canada that has the capability and expertise to build one.


----------



## cartwright

CDN Aviator

Thanks for the response.  I didn't realize that the refits being performed in Victoria weren't enough of a starting point for developing the ability to build.  So no matter which way we go, new subs will need to be built offshore?  Are our requirements similar enough to those of Australia that at least we could benefit from collaborating on a common design?  I read somewhere that they we getting input from the US.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Cartwright:

You may have read recently that our Defence Minister was down under to meet with his counterpart. They agreed on greater collaboration in the future, including in material acquisition matters. While we are both involved in the F-35 programs, the press release appeared to be broader.

I know that the Australians have already started working towards the next boats that will replace their Collins class about the same time our Victoria's are due for replacement. Since Australia and Canada have requirements for their submarine that are different than those currently produced by most submarine builders (a long range patrol boat - not coastal or short legs one - and either AIP or diesel - not nuke) except maybe Japan, who does not export its boats, I am pretty confident that this is one field that will see collaboration in the near future.


----------



## GAP

I see CBC National is speculating that the Cons will divest the Navy of the subs....basic argument given  

750 M. purchase
1.2 B. refit
1 B. more to go


----------



## yoman

GAP said:
			
		

> I see CBC National is speculating that the Cons will divest the Navy of the subs....basic argument given
> 
> 750 M. purchase
> 1.2 B. refit
> 1 B. more to go



For those of you interested in the story (it's a video). http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/1221258968/ID=2161330279

Now with a very brief article.



> The federal government is considering mothballing some or all of its four British-made submarines, CBC News has learned.
> 
> But the diesel-electric submarines, which are all out of service, could possibly be replaced with a nuclear fleet.
> 
> Defence Minister Peter MacKay recently hinted that Canada may be in the market for nuclear submarines.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/27/submarines-british-nuclear.html


----------



## old medic

Two subs will be fully operating by late 2012, top sailor pledges
By Steven Chase 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/two-subs-will-be-fully-operating-by-late-2012-top-sailor-pledges/article2218384/


> In the face of hard questions from the Harper government about Canada’s problem-plagued submarines, the navy’s top sailor is pledging fully operating boats will be on the East and West Coasts by the second half of 2012.
> 
> This would be a breakthrough of sorts for the subs that Canada bought from Britain in 1998 – which for more than a decade have fallen exceedingly short of expectations.
> 
> “That will give us, for the first time, what we’ve always wanted to achieve … high readiness submarines operating on both coasts,” Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison said in an interview.
> 
> “We are now at the end of a long beginning,” the top sailor said.
> 
> As it tries to decide where to chop in an era of restraint, sources say the Conservative government has been pressing the Canadian Forces on when its troubled submarine program will turn the corner.
> 
> Vice-Adm. Maddison said the HMCS Chicoutimi will finally reach what he calls a “steady state” by 2013, when a third sub comes out of maintenance and can function as a “swing boat” to be moved where needed.
> 
> The subs were bought from Britain in 1998 for $750-million, but have spent many intervening years in repair yards. The bill for fixing them has been estimated at more than $1-billion.
> 
> The naval commander on Friday acknowledged Canadians’ “frustration and impatience” about the subs’ record so far, saying there’s “no more frustrated a person than I.”
> 
> He said the navy overpromised on deadlines and underestimated the challenges of getting the subs ready for operation in Canada. For instance, he noted, the military had to scramble to find parts suppliers for the Victoria-Class submarines.
> 
> One of the boats, HMCS Chicoutimi, caught fire on its maiden voyage to Canada from Britain, killing one sailor and injuring others. It’s due to come out of the repair shop in 2013.
> 
> There’s been speculation the Harper government might axe the diesel-electric subs altogether, but Vice-Adm. Maddison said he doesn’t envision Ottawa dropping the boats from its defence plans.
> 
> “I don’t see any messages coming from Canadians or from the government of Canada that would suggest the Canada First defence strategy will go in any direction that does not include a robust undersea submarine-enabled capability for the Canadian Forces.”
> 
> The naval commander said HMCS Victoria will be in full readiness on the West Coast in early 2012, including all weapons, and certified to fire the Mark 48 heavyweight torpedo. About six months after that, he said, HMCS Windsor should reach the same level of capability on the East Coast.
> 
> Vice-Adm. Maddison said shuttering the sub program would create a gaping hole in Canada’s ability to maintain an undersea presence.
> 
> “If we lose the Victoria Class, then I would be really concerned about how we would able to regenerate a submarine capability in Canada,” he said.
> 
> He said his 300 submariners have learned unique skills that require real-life practice to keep up. “It’s more akin to flying the [space] shuttle than driving a warship.”
> 
> Vice-Adm. Maddison said the subs have logged more than 900 days at sea since being bought, including operations in the Arctic and in southern waters tracking drug traffickers.
> 
> The top sailor predicts there will be greater demand for the navy in the future.
> 
> “Looking at the proliferation of submarines around the world, there’s about 450 subs out there right now, [in] well over 45 nations,” he said. “Ocean politics are becoming more and more intense.”
> 
> With a decade, Canada will have to start making plans for new subs. The current boats, which incur up to $300-million a year in operating and maintenance costs, reach the end of their lifespan by 2030.
> 
> Hugh Segal, a Conservative senator and a major supporter of the navy, said Canada should keep an eye out for submarine bargains.
> 
> “Should fleet reductions in other contemporary allied navies produce opportunities in operational submarines that were price competitive, I would hope the government and navy would keep an open mind,” he said.


----------



## Stoker

900 days for 4 subs over 12 years is not exactly a lot of sea time. :


----------



## Snakedoc

This should be an interesting report to watch (video clip in link):

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111111/w5-deep-sea-dud-111112/

"W5 Investigates Canada's floundering submarine fleet

Steve Bandera, W5
Date: Sat. Nov. 12 2011 6:56 PM ET
Canada's navy is promising its Victoria-class submarines will by fully operational by 2013 -- nearly 15 years after the boats were purchased from the United Kingdom.

Speaking with W5's Lloyd Robertson on Oct. 28, navy commander Vice Admiral Paul Maddison said he understands Canadians' frustration with the submarine program.

"I understand why they would feel impatient. I ask all Canadians for patience. We are at the end of a long beginning," Maddison said.

Nearly $1 billion was paid for the boats, and another billion spent on their "Canadianization," including modification of torpedo systems and unplanned repairs necessitated by accidents such as the 2004 fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi that took the life of Lieut. Chris Saunders.

Canadian taxpayers can expect to spend an additional $1.5 billion on these submarines, according to Senator Colin Kenny, who has served on numerous parliamentary defence committees in Canada and NATO. Kenny believes Canada should jump ship on these subs.

"With this particular class we're sending good money after bad," Kenny said. "As a Canadian taxpayer I don't want us to waste any more money on a platform we're only getting to use a few days a year. It simply doesn't make any sense."

In the last decade, the four boats have been operational for less than 1,000 days, combined. If you do that math, that's out of an available 14,600 possible days the boats could have been at sea.

Maddison insists they will be fully operational and weapons-capable by 2013, with one submarine on each coast, a third "swing boat" and the fourth in deep maintenance.

Some critics think that Canada doesn't need any submarines at all.

"I think the days of Canada's submarine fleet are over," said Steven Staples, president of the Ottawa-based research group Rideau Institute that advocates cuts to military spending.

"If we're going to defend ourselves or monitor other submarines, we can do that from helicopters," Staples said. "We can do that from surface ships, from aircraft using sono-buoys. Some of our satellite technology can monitor submarines. (The) submarines we have can't even go under the Arctic ice."

The Commander of Canada's navy disagrees. He says that a submarine's defence capability is in its power to deter. And at least one of the submarines will test-fire a torpedo in 2012.

"Canada's a maritime nation," explained Maddison. "The economy floats. And when there are pressures, by piracy, by illegal activity, by regional conflict, if Canada's going to stand alongside our allies and make a difference, we will need submarines."

Transpolar route to become more important

Forty-five nations currently operate at total of 450 submarines around the world, according to Maddison. Retired submariner and former navy commander Vice Admiral Bruce Maclean estimates that another 150 submarines worth about $100 billion will be built in the next decade.

"In the twenties, thirties, forties and fifties we may actually see a transpolar route across an ice-free North Pole as the preferred transoceanic highway for goods at sea. It will make the Arctic even more important in terms of Canadian national interest," Maddison said.

By the late 2020s the current Victoria-class submarines will require replacing, said Maddison. Senator Kenny, thinks that instead of waiting Canada should replace the Victoria-class with new diesel-electric submarines as soon as possible.

"The nuclear submarines that the Americans or Brits use are much more noisy," Kenny said, adding that the Victoria submarines are "past their best before due date."

Kenny said Canada should consider licensing the design of a submarine from a European country, like Germany, and have six to eight of them built in Canada, a process that will take five to seven years before new subs could be added to the fleet.

But the navy is proceeding full steam ahead with trying to get the Victoria-class subs into service, presumably with the government's blessing.

"There is no indication, that I have seen, that there is any desire to do away with the Victoria class," Maddison said.

He has a more pressing problem to deal with.

In September, Maddison commissioned a "submarine capability study" whose final report is due at the end of the month. The study's convening order, a copy of which was obtained by W5, states that "force generation of qualified, experienced personnel to crew the submarines remains a challenge." Translation: the Canadian Navy needs more submariners.

"I will need at least 380 qualified submariners, ideally about 430. Right now I've got about 300," Maddison admitted.

"Once we get those boats running, success will beget success. We'll attract more Canadians into the submarine service and that will be good," Maddison assured W5."


----------



## Stoker

I'm very surprised that the Navy can't get more volunteers to go on the boats, its known to be a jammy go and its not like they sail that much.


----------



## MSEng314

I've talked to submariners about it and mentioned to them that I want to volunteer for sub training, and the response is usually "That's great, but you need to be HOD qualified first." I guess I'll have to wait a few more years first then...  :facepalm:


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I'm very surprised that the Navy can't get more volunteers to go on the boats, its known to be a jammy go and its not like they sail that much.


Call MOG 5 and I'm sure they can get you loaded on your BSQ!


----------



## Stoker

MSEng314 said:
			
		

> I've talked to submariners about it and mentioned to them that I want to volunteer for sub training, and the response is usually "That's great, but you need to be HOD qualified first." I guess I'll have to wait a few more years first then...  :facepalm:



How exactly are they fixed for officers anyways? Talk to you CM, I assume he would be the one sending you there.


----------



## Stoker

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> Call MOG 5 and I'm sure they can get you loaded on your BSQ!



Sorry i'm too old and have too much self respect ;D. The fact being a lot of surface personnel just do not want to sail on those boats, some of it because of their less than stellar safety record and all the bad press.Some of the submariners are there because they know they don't have to sail much and I heard them brag about it as much. There is a lot of resentment towards them throughout the fleet. Are the reasons valid? I guess time will tell but its doesn't help much when there is a constant list of negative things about the Upholder class in the media. Eventually there will be forced to send more personnel there and they won't be volunteers either.


----------



## MSEng314

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> How exactly are they fixed for officers anyways? Talk to you CM, I assume he would be the one sending you there.



They aren't the worst off compared to some trades, and subs only have two engineers; the EO and the CSEO, which is why they want you to be HOD qualified first. I plan on talking to my career manager about it when I see him, I figure if I'm going to a shore posting next fall anyways, I thought I could do BSQ while I'm waiting to go back to sea to get my HOD qual, and then go to a sub right after that. But it depends on what they want, and of course needs of the service first, so I'll just focus on my current posting for the time being.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Sorry i'm too old and have too much self respect ;D. The fact being a lot of personnel just do not want to sail on those boats, some of it because of their less than stellar safety record and all the bad press.Some are there because they know they don't have to sail much. There is a lot of resentment towards them throughout the fleet. Are the reasons valid? I guess time will tell but its doesn't help much when there is a constant list of negative things about the Upholder class in the media. Eventually there will be forced to send more personnel there and they won't be volunteers either.


It's not for everybody for sure.  The large amounts of sea days compared to the surface fleet (getting worse with HCM), lack of day workers, no Internet, crew shortages and resultant pier head jumps, significant qualification packages, reduced duty watch rotations at all rank levels, etc are major turn-offs for some.  Others see the team spirit, interesting deployments (even if you can't talk about them when you get back), increased responsibility at junior ranks, lack of surface fleet spit & polish "BS", increased pay, and elite status as more than compensating.

PS:  I find it intesting that you admit most skimmers avoid submarines because they don't like going to sea.  Dolphin 28!


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

MSEng314 said:
			
		

> They aren't the worst off compared to some trades, and subs only have two engineers; the EO and the CSEO, which is why they want you to be HOD qualified first. I plan on talking to my career manager about it when I see him, I figure if I'm going to a shore posting next fall anyways, I thought I could do BSQ while I'm waiting to go back to sea to get my HOD qual, and then go to a sub right after that. But it depends on what they want, and of course needs of the service first, so I'll just focus on my current posting for the time being.


The Victoria Class has a fixed crew size due to escape capacities (PM me with your forces.gc.ca address and I will explain more fully if you wish).  Ergo there isn't bunk space to do trades training such as HOD packages.  It would work better for you to do your AILS, AILV, etc and then start sailing aboard a boat while the knowledge is fresh.

The STO at MOG 5 could explain in more detail - drop down to '4 Trap' on NC Jetty and ask around.


----------



## NavalMoose

I think Chief Stoker meant that some submariners are there because the boats don't sail much, not general service personnel avoiding boats because they sail too much. I could be wrong, after all I was never one of the "elite" just a "skimmer".  If you ever want to know how superior a submariner is, just ask him, he'll tell you...over and over. ;D


----------



## Stoker

NavalMoose said:
			
		

> I think Chief Stoker meant that some submariners are there because the boats don't sail much, not general service personnel avoiding boats because they sail too much. I could be wrong, after all I was never one of the "elite" just a "skimmer".  If you ever want to know how superior a submariner is, just ask him, he'll tell you...over and over. ;D



Thanks that's exactly what I meant. I have heard many of the elite brag on exactly how little sea time they exactly did. Nature of their service I guess, free hotel rooms and all. >


----------



## MSEng314

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> The Victoria Class has a fixed crew size due to escape capacities (PM me with your forces.gc.ca address and I will explain more fully if you wish).  Ergo there isn't bunk space to do trades training such as HOD packages.  It would work better for you to do your AILS, AILV, etc and then start sailing aboard a boat while the knowledge is fresh.
> 
> The STO at MOG 5 could explain in more detail - drop down to '4 Trap' on NC Jetty and ask around.



Yeah I understand that subs are not like surface ships and that the space for trainees onboard is very limited, it's just frustrating to get briefings saying that we need more people to volunteer for training, and then when I ask about it I'm told basically "come back in a couple years when you're more qualified." Oh well, like I said, I'll just keep working hard at my current posting, and maybe someday when the stars align I'll be able to do it.


----------



## The Bread Guy

According to the attached written response to an MP's question, here's the latest estimates re:  when the subs'll be back at 'er:  





> .... The Victoria-class will achieve steady-state in the second half of 2013, at which point Canada will have two submarines available for operations, one each on the Atlantic and Pacific Coasts.  The third operational submarine will be available at a lower level of readiness and will be employed for tasks such as crew training and domestic operations.......
> 
> HMCS VICTORIA returned to sea in December 2011.
> HMCS WINDSOR will complete her Extended Docking Work Period and begin sailing in mid-2012.
> HMCS CHICOUTIMI will complete her Extended Docking Work Period and begin sailing in 2013.
> HMCS CORNER BROOK will enter an Extended Docking Work Period in 2013 (on completion of HMCS CHICOUTIMI's Extended Docking Work Period) and return to the fleet in 2016.
> (....)


----------



## SeaDog

I'd like to make two points.  First off, Lex Parsimoniae is correct.  To further add to his response, it is not only a question of bunking.  Even though a person may become a submariner, they are still required to advance within their individual trade.  If certain trade quals are not met prior to joining boats, it will be harder to load you on a career course in the future (which may be surface-centric) in order to advance in your trade.

The second item I would like to address is Chief Stoker's comments about sea time.  I have never heard any submariner brag about not having to sail.  Since I've joined submarines I have sailed as often, if not more than I did on skimmers. Even with only having one boat running, I've still managed to put to sea, as a minimum, for about 4-6 months a year. Although you hear much in the media about submarines being "not operational", please do not confuse that with not being at sea. By operational they are referring to weapons readiness. In one recent year alone COR conducted work ups, a trip across the Atlantic, several international exercises, an arctic sovereignty patrol and an operational narcotics interdiction patrol.  In one year. In fact COR got the CDS unit commendation.  We all know guys who avoid sea-time.  I've seen my share of "NATO knee" when I was in the surface world - and yet I would avoid making sweeping assertions about malingering there. As for the hotels - I'll start feeling guilty about hotels in foreign port (and SA - can't forget the SA) when subs get fitted with cabins, email, internet connectivity at sea, television sattelite, satellite telephones, beer machines, the ability to do laundry, toilets that don't require you dissecting your own feces with a high-power salt water gun, and enough fresh water to shower everyday.


----------



## Occam

These may be of interest to those following the thread:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/agged/6726453711/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/agged/6726454055/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/agged/6726454387/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Interesting pictures. Glad to see how well the crash bulkhead held up.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Interesting pictures. Glad to see how well the crash bulkhead held up.



Still...Must have seemed like the end of the world for those on board. Wow. I read the story but first pics I've seen.


----------



## Hurricane

What happened to the Corner Brook?


----------



## Occam

Hurricane said:
			
		

> What happened to the Corner Brook?



http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/marpac/4/4-w_eng.asp?id=1159


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Occam said:
			
		

> http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/marpac/4/4-w_eng.asp?id=1159



So, reading that, the sub travels in a kind of bubble. The skin of the bubble is it's outer wall of protection or limit of contact. That bubble's position in space is a guessimate based on the three planes (X,Y,Z). The larger, and more frequent, the hazards, the bigger the bubble. The bubble expands exponentially the longer the sub is under and the further it travels.

Have I got that right?


----------



## Pat in Halifax

You're thinking about this way too hard!!
It's Friday - Give it a rest!


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> You're thinking about this way too hard!!
> It's Friday - Give it a rest!


In the man cave with the wood stove going and the wine open. No problem. 8)


----------



## Occam

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, reading that, the sub travels in a kind of bubble. The skin of the bubble is it's outer wall of protection or limit of contact. That bubble's position in space is a guessimate based on the three planes (X,Y,Z). The larger, and more frequent, the hazards, the bigger the bubble. The bubble expands exponentially the longer the sub is under and the further it travels.
> 
> Have I got that right?



More or less.  You start off with a known position based on an accurate fix, or a GPS reading.  The various sensors (gyros, accelerometers, etc.) have known error factors.  The longer you travel without another accurate fix being made, the greater the effect of those error factors will have on the pool of errors.  It's not exponential, but it is cumulative.

If you're on a heading of 000 degrees at a given speed, with sensors that are accurate to +/- 10 degrees over a known distance, then after a unit of time, you could be on a heading ranging from 350 to 010.  After two units of time, you could be on a heading of 340 through 020.  That gives you the possible angular error, which widens as you travel.  You would also get an error from speed, which would give you a minimum/maximum distance traveled over a given period of time.  Draw a circle between the angular and the distance errors and you get the pool of error circle.  Travel more, the circle gets bigger.  That's a rough and dirty way of illustrating it - gyros and accelerometers are a lot more accurate than that, but the errors do become significant - obviously.   ;D


----------



## Stoker

SeaDog said:
			
		

> I'd like to make two points.  First off, Lex Parsimoniae is correct.  To further add to his response, it is not only a question of bunking.  Even though a person may become a submariner, they are still required to advance within their individual trade.  If certain trade quals are not met prior to joining boats, it will be harder to load you on a career course in the future (which may be surface-centric) in order to advance in your trade.
> 
> The second item I would like to address is Chief Stoker's comments about sea time.  I have never heard any submariner brag about not having to sail.  Since I've joined submarines I have sailed as often, if not more than I did on skimmers. Even with only having one boat running, I've still managed to put to sea, as a minimum, for about 4-6 months a year. Although you hear much in the media about submarines being "not operational", please do not confuse that with not being at sea. By operational they are referring to weapons readiness. In one recent year alone COR conducted work ups, a trip across the Atlantic, several international exercises, an arctic sovereignty patrol and an operational narcotics interdiction patrol.  In one year. In fact COR got the CDS unit commendation.  We all know guys who avoid sea-time.  I've seen my share of "NATO knee" when I was in the surface world - and yet I would avoid making sweeping assertions about malingering there. As for the hotels - I'll start feeling guilty about hotels in foreign port (and SA - can't forget the SA) when subs get fitted with cabins, email, internet connectivity at sea, television sattelite, satellite telephones, beer machines, the ability to do laundry, toilets that don't require you dissecting your own feces with a high-power salt water gun, and enough fresh water to shower everyday.



There are exceptions to everything I guess and sailors complain and boast. Yes I have heard plenty of submariners boast about the amount of sea time they have done. I also have plenty of experience working with submariners as well.
I do realize that the creature comforts on a Victoria class are spartan, but a hell a lot better than the O Boats were. Yes there are spurts of actual sea time for the subs and hopefully they will spend more time at sea in the future, but the operational history and actual sea time from the delivery and as of today is not very impressive. 
If we had lots of cash, ships, boats ,personnel etc I would say have at er however with the state of the navy is in with less than 1000 days at sea in 14 years and they haven't even fired a torpedo yet.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

recceguy said:
			
		

> In the man cave with the wood stove going and the wine open. No problem. 8)


I am actually on IR here in Ottawa. In my "cell", I have gathered the necessities: 15 cans of Kieths, a bag of Doritos, wings (from Loblaws) in the oven and "A Bridge Too Far" in the BR disc player! Game on!
BTW-I sent those pics to submariner freinds-They had not seen them and one of these guys was noticebly upset.
As for the comments and this may give away my identity, I worked in the early '90s at the now defunct First Canadian Submarine Squadron (Yes, I still have that patch on an old WD jacket) and I cannot see _*that * _ group fitting into your group of people who do not want to sail. A unique breed-yes, but from that point on in my career, I have always held this group of individuals in highest regard-They do the shit that, frankly, I don't want to do.
To them I say, get ready guys-I suspect your operational seatime is about to increase dramatically in to the next 12-18 months...and to them I say, you have my support and undying respect.
BTW, if you guys are still trying to figure out who I am, I used to paint the crests and make the mahogany backings with a certain MS HT. (...Or as someone else already said: "Pat, we figured out _*long ago * _ who you were!")
Good Luck!


----------



## Occam

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> BTW-I sent those pics to submariner freinds-They had not seen them and one of these guys was noticebly upset.



I'm getting the impression that it was pretty easy to keep everything out of view - until they put her up on the VSL lift.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Occam said:
			
		

> If you're on a heading of 000 degrees at a given speed, with sensors that are accurate to +/- 10 degrees over a known distance, then after a unit of time, you could be on a heading ranging from 350 to 010.  After two units of time, you could be on a heading of 340 through 020.



Not quite, Occam. It's hard enough to comprehend for a poor soldier like Recceguy  , we should not make it even harder. With a known error, the angle differential remains constant so long as you steer on that heading. Thus, after two units of time, your heading is still within the error of 350 to 010, but the area of error generated has doubled in width. 

To picture what is happening, imagine that on a chart, you draw a line going north (000) starting at a known point and, based on set speed, using a drawing compass, mark a point on that line where you will be after a certain unit of time (yes, it is a DR position - going basic here for non navigation types). from your original point, you then draw a line to the left at a 10 degree angle (thus 350) and the same to the right (for the 010). You then take you compass again and draw an arc joining the right and left heading error lines at the place you expect to be for that unit of time at the speed minus error distance - then the same at the speed plus error distance. That is your pool of error. Where it gets more complicated is when you change course and speed as the errors now all have to be accounted for from the corners of the pool of error.

As for depth, the rule is, quite simply, never dive below the shallowest sounding-plus-safety-margin found within the pool of error.


----------



## jollyjacktar

> HMCS Corner Brook collision damage extensive
> HMCS Corner Brook hit the ocean floor off B.C. in June 2011
> CBC News
> Posted: Feb 13, 2012 5:03 PM AT
> Last Updated: Feb 13, 2012 4:40 PM AT
> 
> The damage done to HMCS Corner Brook last summer when it hit the ocean floor was more extensive than first reported, CBC News has learned by obtaining exclusive pictures of the submarine.  The Canadian navy admitted that the submarine crashed off British Columbia in June, but it never described the amount of damage or released a photograph.
> "I was gobsmacked. I had no idea that this level of damage had occurred," said Senator Colin Kenny, the former head of the Senate defence committee. "That may explain why the navy took it out of the water at night."
> 
> The submarine's damage was "horrific," Kenny said, and he worries about the state of Canada's submarine fleet and about the 60 sailors who were aboard.  "I think the psychological impact of what can be described as a near-death experience would have a profound effect on some of these individuals. I hope they are getting the care and support that they need," he added.
> 
> The submarine hit the bottom when it was 45 metres below the surface. The navy's official board of inquiry blamed Lt.-Cmdr. Paul Sutherland, the sub's captain, for the collision.
> The navy released a one-page summary of the board's report on the accident. When asked about the pictures CBC News acquired, officials would only say the damage is being assessed.  Kenny said the navy's response was not good enough.
> 
> Canada bought four used British subs more than a decade ago and so far, it has spent an estimated $3 billion on the fleet.  HMCS Chicoutimi was struck by a deadly fire just hours into its first voyage under a Canadian flag.  HMCS Victoria has a dented hull and is restricted from diving deep.  HMCS Windsor has been dismantled in Halifax, with its refit years behind schedule and millions of dollars over budget.  Not one submarine is capable of firing a torpedo.
> 
> The navy wouldn't comment further to CBC News about the damage to HMCS Corner Brook, but some familiar with the submarine say the sub's pressure hull, the area in which the sailors are housed, may be heavily damaged and that would mean the sub will never go to sea again.  "Canada needs a submarine fleet, and to have this boat not be available would be tragic," Kenny said



Two photos at story link.  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/02/13/ns-hmcs-corner-brook-damage.html


----------



## The Bread Guy

Interesting phrasing from the story:





> .... The damage done to HMCS Corner Brook last summer when it hit the ocean floor was more extensive than first reported, CBC News has learned by obtaining exclusive pictures of the submarine ....


I wouldn't consider photos posted to a public Flickr stream all _that_ "exclusive".


----------



## aesop081

> Kenny said the navy's response was not good enough.



 :

What should they have said, Mr. Kenny ?



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting phrasing from the story:I wouldn't consider photos posted to a public Flickr stream all _that_ "exclusive".



That's the kind of journalism $1B gets you..........


----------



## Occam

Flickr photo stream or not, I hope they secured the photographer's permission to use the photos.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

(Obtained by CBC)


----------



## Occam

I contacted the photographer; CBC obtained permission to use the photos.


----------



## fraserdw

There was an Op Ed piece in the Saint John paper 2 months ago by a Commander who was on the Sub procurement team.  Basically, he said the PMO forced these subs on the navy.  I spoke with a CWO who is my cousin and he said the standing joke is that the subs should be re-named the HMCS Jean Cretin (sic), HMCS Paul Martin and HMCS Bill Graham to ensure a proper tribute is paid to that decision!


----------



## FSTO

Evan Solomon spins the conspiracy theory.; "They took her out at NIGHT!!!";" Only a 1 page report on the BOI"; "Sailors lives at RISK!". CBC thinks it has uncovered the smoking gun.

But Rear Admiral Norman quickly deflates the CBC balloon. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2012/02/13/ns-hmcs-corner-brook-damage.html

God I love it when the CBC looks like idiots.  :nod:


----------



## DBA

The *fibreglass* bow dome was damaged and it was reported as such in the fall along with there being possible damage to Sonar and a small ballast tank leak.


----------



## FSTO

I know that the author of Defence Watch is persona non grata here, but he along with some of his fellow travellers have been reading too many Tom Clancy novels.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Fact Sheet
Royal Canadian Navy Submarines: Fleet Status

RCN FS 12.001 - February 17, 2012

Victoria-class Achievements

The Canadian Victoria-class submarine fleet has been actively sailing since 2003 and has accumulated approximately 900 days at sea, participating in exercises at home and overseas, patrolling our coastal areas including the Arctic and participating in international operations. Highlights of the Victoria-class achievements are as follows:

Both HMC Submarines Windsor and Corner Brook have participated in multiple personnel and team training activities.

HMCS Windsor sailed from June 2005 to December 2006 and spent 146 days at sea in 2006 alone. The boat participated in a number of large US-Canadian exercises and advanced and improved special operations forces capabilities, while training with Canadian ships in essential warfare skills. Windsor participated in the first-ever parachute rendezvous at sea practiced with Canada's Patrol Pathfinders (Canadian Army paratroopers). The boat also conducted several sovereignty patrols off Canada's east coast for intelligence gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance.

HMCS Corner Brook spent 463 days at sea between October 2006 and mid-June 2011. The boat participated in various NATO and Canada/U.S. exercises where she received high praise for her contribution as a simulated enemy to assist in the training of NATO and US surface and air forces. Corner Brook deployed to the Arctic in support of Operation NANOOK in August 2007 and again in August 2009, where she participated in a counter-narcotics exercise and conducted covert surveillance patrols in the vicinity of Baffin Island. In March 2008 and again in 2011, the boat also deployed as part of Operation CARIBBE, a US-led, multi-national effort to interdict drug trafficking in the waters of the Caribbean Basin and the Eastern Pacific.

Submarine Fleet Status

Canada’s submarine fleet is scheduled to achieve full operational capability in 2013; at which point Canada will have three of four submarines available for operations including a high readiness submarine available in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. As part of the ongoing submarine operational cycle, the fourth submarine will rotate into an Extended Docking Work Period (EDWP). An EDWP is a deep maintenance period that provides the submarines’ 200-plus systems with the repairs, maintenance, and upgrades needed to enable six years of effective operation. The current status of the Victoria-class fleet is as follows:

HMCS Chicoutimi

Chicoutimi is currently in an EDWP. This work is being conducted under the Victoria In-Service Support Contract (VISSC) at Victoria Shipyards Co. Ltd. in Esquimalt, B.C. The work is scheduled to be complete in time for the submarine to be available for operations in 2013.

HMCS Corner Brook

In spring 2011, Corner Brook transited from CFB Halifax to CFB Esquimalt to prepare for the submarine’s VISSC EDWP, to be conducted at Victoria Shipyards Co. Ltd in Esquimalt, B.C. by Babcock Canada Inc.

On June 4, 2011, Corner Brook ran aground while conducting submerged manoeuvres during submarine officer training in the vicinity of Nootka Sound on the west coast of Vancouver Island.

On June 10, 2011, a Board of Inquiry (BOI) was convened to gain a clear understanding of the circumstances surrounding the grounding of Corner Brook. The mandate of the BOI was to investigate the cause and contributing factors that may have led to the grounding of Corner Brook, and to identify preventative measures, if any.






A schematic of HMCS Corner Brook.

Additional information about the Corner Brook grounding incident and BOI is accessible here (news release) and here (BOI Executive Summary).

The full extent of the damage to Corner Brook will be assessed during her ongoing Extended Limited Maintenance Period (ELMP). This period of minimal maintenance is programmed to primarily arrest system degradation while the submarine awaits her turn in deep maintenance known as an Extended Docking Work Period (EDWP). The actual repairs to the submarine will occur during the scheduled EDWP at Victoria Shipyards Co. Ltd, which is to commence in January 2013.

Due to contractual and program management reasons relating to DND's In-Service Support Contract, only one submarine at a time is to be in deep maintenance. Corner Brookwill therefore be maintained at the minimum level necessary, as she awaits her scheduled EDWP, which will occur upon completion of Chicoutimi’s EDWP.

HMCS Victoria

Victoria was undocked on April 18, 2011 and began a series of in-harbour tests and trials which included training to conduct operational torpedo firings. Concurrently, the submarine’s crew conducted personnel training and exercises.

In November 2011, Victoria officially completed its VISSC EDWP at DND Fleet Maintenance Facility (FMF) Cape Breton in Esquimalt, B.C. Victoria’s EDWP was the first refit and maintenance activity of this type and intensity ever undertaken on a Victoria-class submarine. The valuable lessons learned from this first EDWP are being applied to subsequent activities. A previous dent located in Victoria’s hull was repaired during her EDWP and there are no diving restrictions on the submarine.

In December 2011, Victoria proceeded to sea to conduct equipment trials and crew training during which she successfully completed the Surfaced Safety phase of her readiness certification.

In January 2012, Victoria conducted the first dive of this operational cycle as well as the submarine’s Dived Safety phase of her workups. Concurrently, the submarine conducted additional post-EDWP sea acceptance trials.

Current planning would see Victoria authorized to fire torpedoes, the crew certified, and both being declared fully operational in 2012. This process is known as a Tiered Readiness Program or TRP for short.

HMCS Windsor

Windsor’s EDWP is expected to be complete in 2012. The work is being performed at Fleet Maintenance Facility Cape Scott in Halifax, NS. HMCS Windsor would then follow a Tiered Readiness Program similar to that of Victoria and be declared fully operational in 2013.

The following table provides a general overview of the current status of Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) Victoria-class submarines:

Submarines                                           EDWP (Extended Docking Work Period)            Ready for operational employment  Next Scheduled EDWP
                                                                                                                                                                                                (Extended Docking Work Period)

HMCS
VICTORIA                                                    2005 - 2011                                                      2012                                                      2016 - 2018

HMCS
WINDSOR                                                    2007 - 2012                                                     2013                                                       2018 - 2020

HMCS
CHICOUTIMI                                                2010 - 2012                                                     2013                                                       2020 - 2022

HMCS
CORNER BROOK                                          2013 - 2015                                                      2016                                                       2022 - 2024

Information about the above table

All dates are approximate as schedules can change according to the needs of the RCN.

A Victoria-class submarine is considered to have achieved operational status when it has been materially certified (successful completion of alongside tests and trials); manned with a qualified & experienced crew; and has been deemed safe to sail, conduct trials and execute operations in accordance with their readiness status.

The extent of a submarine’s capability is fundamentally a product of the states of personnel, materiel and collective team training resident within it. Once operational, a Victoria-class submarine will undergo a period of sea training to either achieve Standard Readiness (i.e. capable of conducting core naval training and executing assigned CF continental and expeditionary missions that do not entail the possibility of high intensity, full spectrum combat) or High Readiness (capable of conducting the full-spectrum of combat operations).
Victoria In-Service Support Contract (VISSC)

In 2008, Treasury Board approved the expenditure of up to $1.5 billion over a period of up to 15 years for the in-service support for the Victoria-class submarines. DND is currently in the first five year option of this support, contracted to the Canadian Submarine Management Group, now renamed Babcock Canada Inc. All Victoria-class EDWP's during this in-service support contract will be funded and managed through VISSC.

Given that submarines are amongst the most highly complex machines that exist, maintaining them can be a costly process. Highly rigorous and regularly scheduled maintenance periods are an essential element of the operational cycle of any class of submarine.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

Schematic of HMCS Corner Brook

The following Victoria-class Submarine schematic depicts the general impact area on the bow of Her Majesty's Canadian Submarine (HMCS) Corner Brook as a result of a grounding incident. Corner Brook ran aground while conducting submerged manoeuvres during submarine officer training in the vicinity of Nootka Sound on the west coast of Vancouver Island on June 4, 2011.

The BLUE area represents damage to Corner Brook's fibreglass bow dome which covers the sonar array that is external to the pressure hull. An initial "in-water" damage assessment indicated some damage to the fibreglass bow dome, which could mean that there may be damage to the sonar array it contains as well as a minor leak in a forward ballast tank. The watertight integrity of the submarine, specifically the pressure hull, remained intact and at no time were the crew in danger after the grounding incident.

A determination of the full extent of the damage will be made during the upcoming docked Extended Limited Maintenance Period (ELWP). The repairs themselves will be performed during Corner Brook's scheduled Victoria In-Service Support Contact (VISSC) Extended Docking Work Period (EDWP) at Victoria Shipyards Co. Ltd., commencing in 2013, upon completion of HMCS Chicoutimi's EDWP.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

This looks a lot worse than it really is. 

We occasionally banged the Oberons off of the bottom or the jetty as well. It's not the end of the world.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Lookit how busy HMCS Victoria is!  





> Her Majesty’s Canadian Submarine (HMCS) Victoria conducted diving operations today in the local waters near Victoria, B.C. Today’s dive was witnessed by General Walt Natynczyk, Chief of the Defence Staff, and Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, Commander, Royal Canadian Navy.  HMCS Victoria is currently at sea conducting equipment trials and crew training such that the submarine can be declared fully operational in 2012. Victoria is expected to complete a number of important milestones in the near future which are required for her to be ready for an operational employment, including the firing of torpedoes as a demonstration of weapons capability in early 2012 ....


RCN Info-machine, 20 Feb 12


----------



## tomahawk6

20 February, 2012
ESQUIMALT, BRITISH COLUMBIA

HMCS Victoria transits in the vicinity of Esquimalt during sea training trials and exercises on February 20, 2012.

Her Majesty’s Canadian Submarine (HMCS) Victoria conducted diving operations today in the local waters near Victoria, B.C. Today’s dive was witnessed by General Walt Natynczyk, Chief of the Defence Staff, and Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, Commander, Royal Canadian Navy.

HMCS Victoria is currently at sea conducting equipment trials and crew training such that the submarine can be declared fully operational in 2012.

Photo Jacek Szymanski, Navy Public Affairs, © 2012 DND-MDN Canada


----------



## Navy_Blue

Here is the video 

Image Tech, Jacek Szymanski, collected footage from the VIC day sail on Monday. Attached is a link to the B-Roll being distributed to the media today via the Combat Camera web site.

http://vimeo.com/37181280  

I hope the rain gear the CDS has is a trial set.  I wouldn't wear the pusser stuff either.


----------



## Snakedoc

Interesting video and neat to see how the subs operate.  Don't know much about subs but I couldn't help but notice some of the conning/engine orders the CO was giving near the end of the video.  Just curious but is the general/standard format of conning orders on subs different from surface ships?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

US floats nuclear subs option

John Kerin 


US ambassador Jeffrey Bleich says Washington views ­Australia’s subs program as crucial to security in the Asia-Pacific region. Photo: Andrew Meares

“All options are being considered other than nuclear propulsion which the government has ruled out,” says Defence Minister Stephen Smith. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen

Senior Lowy Institute fellow Alan Dupont says a nuclear submarine would meet all the requirements of the 2009 defence white paper. Photo: Justin McManus
Virginia class at a glance
Type: Attack submarine
Cost: $2.5 billion
Displacement: 7900 metric tonnes (submerged)
Length: 240 metres
Beam: 10 metres
Propulsion: S9G reactor
Speed: 25+ knots (46km/h)
Range: unlimited
Crew: 135
Armament: 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 4 533mm torpedo tubes
Built: 2000 - present
Active: 8
Planned: 30
Ships in class include: Virginia, Texas, Hawaii, North Carolina, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Missouri, California, Mississippi, Minnesota, North Dakota, John Warner
The United States has indicated for the first time it would be willing to lease or sell a nuclear submarine to Australia in a move that will inflame tensions with China and force the Coalition to declare its policy on ­bolstering regional defence.

US Ambassador to Australia ­Jeffrey Bleich told The Australian Financial Review yesterday that whichever option Canberra pursued as a replacement for its Collins class submarines, Washington viewed ­Australia’s subs program as crucial to security in the Asia-Pacific region.

“Decisions about the design of the Australian submarine are up to Australia’s leaders, including whether they pursue diesel power or nuclear power,” Mr Bleich said. “Whatever they decide the US is willing to help.’’

His comments suggest the US would be open to discussing nuclear submarine technologies with Australia at a time of severe budget constraints here and in the US, despite Defence Minister Stephen Smith restating Labor’s opposition to any nuclear submarine purchase. But Australian sources maintain they have been told by opposition figures that Coalition leader Tony Abbott will consider the nuclear option if he wins an election due in 2013.

Opposition defence spokesman David Johnston has gone as far as saying the Coalition would support Labor if it sought to examine the nuclear submarine option. Neither Mr Abbott’s office nor Mr Johnston were prepared to comment on Mr Bleich’s intervention last night

But leading defence analysts, including former Liberal minister Peter Reith, have urged both sides of politics to consider nuclear subs.

A senior Defence source said ­Australia would probably be able to buy a 7500 tonne Virginia Class submarine for around $2.5 billion, but because it would come off a mature production line its price would reduce over time.

Labor has been considering the purchase of 12 conventional submarines to replace the Collins, with an Australian designed and built option costing up to $36 billion, or $3 billion each. 

Respected senior Lowy Institute fellow Alan Dupont told the Financial Review that given what was at stake, “no option should be ruled out’’.

“If you are talking about spending $36 billion on a replacement for the Collins class then why shouldn’t the nuclear option be put under the microscope?’’ Dr Dupont said. “A nuclear submarine would meet all the requirements of the 2009 defence white paper and go beyond them.’’

Former prime minister Kevin Rudd’s 2009 defence white paper, predicated on the potential threat posed by China, called for 12 submarines, much larger than the Collins class – around 4000 tonnes compared to the current 3050 tonnes. 

They were to be armed with torpedoes, cruise missiles, mini-subs for special forces and state of the art combat and communication systems. 

Kokoda Foundation founder Ross Babbage, a proponent of the nuclear submarine option, said a smaller fleet of nuclear powered boats would serve Australia better than any available conventional submarine. “You would not need 12, you could probably get away with 9 or 10, they are much larger than a conventional sub, can carry more weapons and would have far greater range and endurance than a conventional sub,’’ he said.

“It would also be great step forward in terms of Australia’s interoperability with the United States.’’

Though the idea has been criticised as unworkable because Australia doesn’t have a nuclear industry to support a nuclear submarine fleet defence sources suggest the Australian fleet could be maintained at a US base in the Pacific Ocean or a US nuclear submarine base could be established in Australia.

Mr Smith will take a submission to Cabinet within weeks to fund the concept design phase of the future conventional submarine project.

The government has approached three European conventional submarine builders about off-the-shelf options including Spanish based Navantia which builds the S-80, French based DCNS which builds the Scorpene and German based HDW which builds the Type 212 and Type 214 submarines.

All three subs have been dismissed as too small to meet Australia’s requirements but each manufacturer is understood to have also proposed larger 4000 tonne submarine designs.

Mr Smith told an Australian Defence Magazine conference on Tuesday all options for a conventional submarine from a proven fully military off the shelf design though to a completely new submarine were under consideration.

“All options are being considered other than nuclear propulsion which the government has ruled out.”


----------



## GAP

John Ivison: Sinking Canada’s troubled sub program at budget time may make fiscal sense
Article Link
John Ivison  Feb 28, 2012

 There are signs the worst fears of federal public servants and Canada’s military will not be realized in a budget the Finance Minister, Jim Flaherty, has promised will be “moderate” and “not Draconian.”

Word circulating within government is that the budget will cut around $5-billion from federal operating costs. The size of the federal bureaucracy will be reduced by around 25,000 to 30,000 jobs (out of more than 350,000) but that will be done over a period of three years — and around half of those positions will be eliminated by attrition.

If this proves to be the extent of the cuts, it will come as something of a relief to unions that have been bracing for double that number of job losses. It seems certain that Conservative austerity measures won’t come close to the 45,000 positions made redundant by Paul Martin in his 1995 budget (although his generous early retirement and early departure packages meant there were few involuntary layoffs, which may not be the case this time around.)

Nowhere will the relief be more palpable than in the Department of National Defence, where there have been fears that the Royal Canadian Navy’s submarine program is in danger of being deep-sixed. The good news for them is that sources suggest the submarine fleet will survive Mr. Flaherty’s budget axe.

Yet, the budget is not yet set in stone and perhaps Mr. Flaherty should think again. There is a good argument to be made that he could save hundreds of millions of dollars by shutting down a program that has been plagued by poor judgment and bad luck for more than a decade.

The Liberal government bought four second-hand subs for $750-million from the British in 1998 and renamed them the Victoria class — HMCS Victoria, HMCS Windsor, HMCS Chicoutimi and HMCS Corner Brook.

Since then, billions more have been spent trying to “Canadianize” the subs, including thousands of dollars blown trying to stop pigeons roosting in them, such is the length of time they have been in dry-dock. At various times over the past 10 years, the whole fleet has been out of commission.
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy

> Canada's glitch-prone, second-hand submarines will be with the navy until at least 2030, but defence planners will begin drawing up a replacement program within the next four years.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, head of the Royal Canadian Navy, told a Senate committee Monday that losing the capability of underwater surveillance and attack would be a "dire day for Canada."
> 
> With the federal government in deficit-slashing mode, Ottawa has been awash in rumours about the future of submarine program and that the navy might be asked to give up one — or more — of the boats.
> 
> "In terms of surveillance of our ocean approaches and the protection of our own sovereignty, I would consider a submarine capability critical and so to lose that for a G8 nation, a NATO country like Canada, a country that continues to lead internationally, and aspires to lead more, I would consider that a critical loss," Maddison said.
> 
> ( .... )
> 
> "Assuming that Canadians will continue to see a submarine capability as a critical capability for our Canadian Forces," he said, "I would envision initiating a next generation submarine discussion within the next three or four years in order to go through the various procurement and project planning, approval and funding gates to ensure there is no gap in submarine capability, which is what we faced in the 1990s." ....


The Canadian Press, 27 Feb 12


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Snakedoc said:
			
		

> Interesting video and neat to see how the subs operate.  Don't know much about subs but I couldn't help but notice some of the conning/engine orders the CO was giving near the end of the video.  Just curious but is the general/standard format of conning orders on subs different from surface ships?



Assuming you are referring to  the "slow astern main motor" sentence, the answer to your question is: no, the format is standard, its just that those are parts of the standard orders you don't hear often when your a skimmer person.

Our standard format provides for identification of engines or motors or trusters, depending on what drives you: A submarine is propelled, in all mode, by its electrical motor - hence the order refers to it that way - for MCDV's, it is "trusters", not engines, which is reserved for diesel, steam and gas turbines propelling a ship through gearbox and shafts only.

As for the "main" as opposed to "both" or port/starboard, it is standard for single propeller ships (that is used on AOR's for instance - as in "stop main engine".


----------



## GAP

Journalists sub-par on sub debate
March 3, 2012 - 4:29am By TIM DUNNE 
Article Link

When New York Times writer Paul Krugman observed, "The people who talk the most understand the least," he could easily have been thinking about some Canadian television reporters and commentators as they breathlessly told of the damage to the submarine HMCS Corner Brook.

The boat struck bottom in 45 metres of water near Nootka Sound on western Vancouver Island, June 4 of last year, cutting a four-by-five-metre hole in the boat’s front. CBC TV News showed "exclusive" photographs and alluded to efforts by the Royal Canadian Navy to covertly raise the vessel out of the water "under cover of darkness."

Last week, CBC Newsworld’s Power Panel, comprising CBC’s national affairs journalist and representatives of several communications and government relations agencies, spoke about Canada’s four submarines that "basically don’t work," "that have always been broken," and that "haven’t been able to deploy or deploy properly."

Missing from the debate was that the damage was to the front of the submarine’s fibreglass casing. Four metres inside the damaged casing is the pressure hull, made of 3.8-centimetre HY 80 steel, and this is the main compartment where the crew and controls are located. While the vessel is in the water, the space between the casing and the pressure hull is flooded.

The special high yield (HY) steel alloy is designed to military specification to allow submarines to withstand the pressures of deep dives. This special steel has a yield stress of 80,000 pounds per square inch, corresponding to a depth of about 1,800 feet. While the casing was damaged, the pressure hull, able to withstand incredible stresses, was untouched.

There have been questions about why the navy took the ship out of the water at 4 a.m., "under cover of darkness." The RCN’s deputy commander, Rear-Admiral Mark Norman, explained that the 3,500-tonne submarine was raised out of the water on the navy’s syncrolift, timed to take advantage of high tide and to minimize water turbulence from other vessel traffic in the harbour.

There were suggestions that the navy was reluctant to release information about the accident.

The grounding happened on June 4 and the RCN issued a news release the following day, announcing that the submarine "struck bottom while conducting submerged manoeuvres during advanced submarine officer training." The board of inquiry, convened on June 10 to investigate the matter, released its results on Dec. 16.

Canada’s submarine community could be forgiven for their disappointment at the level of ignorance demonstrated by some commentators about the employment and deployment of our Victoria-class submarines. These vessels, an essential component of the RCN’s fleet, have actively contributed to the navy’s exercises and operations, accumulating some 900 days at sea since they came into service in 2003.

HMCS Windsor spent 146 days at sea in 2006 alone, and participated in several large U.S.-Canada training activities and exercises, and conducted several sovereignty patrols off Canada’s East Coast for intelligence gathering, surveillance and reconnaissance.

HMCS Corner Brook spent 463 days at sea from October 2006 until her June 4 accident. She participated in various NATO and Canada-U.S. exercises, and deployed to the Arctic in 2007 and again in August 2009, where she conducted a counter-narcotics exercise and covert surveillance patrols near Baffin Island. In 2008 and 2011, the boat deployed to the Caribbean Basin and the Eastern Pacific as part of Operation CARIBBE, a U.S.-led, multinational effort to interdict drug trafficking.

HMCS Corner Brook’s grounding should not be trivialized. It was a serious incident and had the potential to be a tragedy. However, commentators should not overstate the accident and ignore the important contributions which Canada’s submarines make to training, sovereignty and prevention of drug trafficking.

The accident was the result of human error, not the submarine’s systems. The boat’s commanding officer was reassigned ashore, indicating a loss of confidence in his ability to exercise sound judgment.
More on link


----------



## The_Dictat

Posted according to Fair dealings provisions

Sub in refit to get wet for first time in 5 years; HMCS Windsor faces sea trials till at least September

The Chronicle-Herald 
DATE:  2012.04.10 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HMCS WINDSOR, the submarine undergoing a multimillion-dollar refit in Halifax, will touch water Wednesday morning for the first time in five years, The Chronicle Herald has learned. 

"This is a huge milestone," military affairs writer Tim Dunne said in an interview Monday about the Windsor's undocking. 

The process is to begin at 6 a.m., with the boat being lowered extremely slowly into Halifax Harbour over a six-hour period that's set to coincide with the tide going out. It will be 20 years almost to the day since the Royal Navy launched the submarine as HMS Unicorn on April 16, 1992. 

Once the vessel is fully in the water, two tugboats will tow it over to an outdoor jetty in preparation for sea trials, which are expected to last until at least September. 

The navy says the sub is scheduled to be operational by early next year. 

Rear Admiral David Gardam is expected to attend Wednesday's event, and about one-third of the 53-member crew will be on board as the vessel is undocked. 

The Windsor entered dry dock in 2007 after spending 146 days at sea the year before, taking part in training exercises with the U.S. navy and conducting sovereignty patrols off the East Coast, gathering intelligence and conducting surveillance and reconnaissance. 

The navy was unable to do an interview Monday. While it has not said what the refit has cost, there are reports the $17-million budget for 2010 topped out at $47 million. 

With dryland tests now complete aboard the Windsor, all systems have been certified as working properly, clearing the way for Wednesday's undocking. 

The sub now sits on chocks on a Syncrolift, a dock that raises and lowers. At 6 a.m., the lift, powered by 34 motors, will begin lowering the 2,400-tonne submarine into the water. 

The vessel is expected to be floating by noon, when the tide will be fully out and the water will likely be calm. 

Divers will pull the chocks away and two tugs will haul the Windsor to a jetty near the battery shop, where it will be tied up so that more equipment can be tested while wet. Two periscopes will be installed and fuel added, allowing the engines to run for the first time since the sub entered dry dock. 

HMCS Windsor is one of four submarines Canada bought from Britain for an initial purchase price of $750 million in 1998. Collectively, the four have spent 900 days at sea since coming into service in Canada in 2003, though their tenure has been marred by accidents and bad press. 

HMCS Corner Brook struck bottom in 45 metres of water near Nootka Sound off western Vancouver Island last June, cutting a hole in the sub's outer fibreglass casing. Before that, it had taken part in NATO and Canada-U.S. training exercises, two deployments to the Arctic and two deployments with a U.S.-led multinational anti-drug operation, one in the Caribbean and the other in the Eastern Pacific. 

HMCS Victoria is ahead of the Windsor in its refit and has just completed its second set of torpedo firings during sea trials off Canada's West Coast. 

The fourth sub, HMCS Chicoutimi, caught fire during its maiden voyage in 2004, killing Lt. Chris Saunders, 32. It is undergoing a refit in Victoria and is expected to be operational next year. 

While a number of critics don't agree, Dunne said Canada, with its almost 250,000 kilometres of coastline, needs a submarine fleet to protect its sovereignty, fight the drug trade and provide a valuable training platform for both the Canadian navy and its allies. 

"The things a submarine has going for it is its stealth, its endurance and its deployability," said Dunne, who is writing an article for Vanguard, a trade magazine for Canada's defence and security industries, on why Canada needs submarines. 

"They can choose when to disclose their presence, they don't have to disclose their presence, and they're virtually undetectable in the water," he said. 

In fact, 40 countries worldwide have 450 submarines. North Korea and India have aggressive submarine construction programs and China added 13 subs to its fleet from 2002 to 2004, for a total of 31 new subs in a 10-year period ending in 2005. 

Canada has diesel-electric subs. When they switch to battery power, "they are absolutely silent," Dunne said, while the nuclear-powered subs the Americans and British are using generate noise. Dunne said that makes Canada extremely attractive to those countries when they want to conduct anti-submarine warfare training. 

"There's such a lack of knowledge about what the submarines are and what they're doing and why they're needed," he said. 

"Not only are they worth the expense, if we have to buy four new submarines, we could expect to spend $5 billion to $6 billion. We bought four slightly used Upholder-class submarines for $750 million. With the refit work, there are estimates they cost upwards of $2 billion. That's still a far cry from $5 billion to $6 billion." 

And submarines are, by nature, more expensive than ships because they have to safely operate underwater. In this case, expenses were compounded because they sat dockside in England for four years before Canada bought them. 

"Submarines are second only to the space shuttle in complexity," Dunne said, and safety requirements demand more stringent testing and trials. "They are not taking any chances when it comes to safety."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Fair winds and good sailing, WINDSOR. May all your patrols be quiet and uneventful.


----------



## OldSolduer

I've done some reading on submarines (Tom Clancy stuff) and IMO you have to be somewhat....different.....to be a submariner. I was on course with a cox from one of the subs and yes.....he was .....different. 
Its part science and part black arts IMO.


----------



## SeaDog

You don't have to be "different" to come down to boats - but it certainly makes the transition to insanity easier  :nod:  (But as a man far wiser than myself once said, "insanity is often the logic of the accurate mind overtaxed").  Overall, a good day yesterday.  Dolphin 39!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Nice piece on CTV Maritimes 6 O'Clock news last night, where the Hon. Peter Stoffer showed his support for the boats, the crews and for hoping to see all 4 of them operational.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I hope all continues to go well for this program, I am getting tired of defending the sailors, navy  and the Conservatives to people who only read headlines.


----------



## OldSolduer

Stacked said:
			
		

> Put my name in for Subs yesterday (Sonar Op QL3 student) hopefully it works out.   Last I heard was the training system was backed up though.    God forbid I have to spend some time in the Surface Fleet .



I'm not a sailor and I hold those who are in high regard.....despite their drill .

Now, have you ever sailed on a warship, surface or otherwise? If not, that comment is unwarranted.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I may have mentioned this in an earlier thread and if so; apologies. I worked at the now defunct "First Canadian Submarine Squadron" from Aug 1990 to Aug 1992. As an engineer, I worked in the shop ashore so as boats came back from deployment, we would be given a share of the work requirements (no FMFs back then). I feel bad knowing what I do now in that our efforts were woefully inadequate.
That said, I gained a respect for this unique breed of sailors. Their devotion to their individual as well as group responsibilities is unmatched (and rightly so!). There were several attempts to recruit me by the likes of JJ and Mr Bramwell (those who have been around know who I mean) and though I applaud their efforts, my response was a resounding "F*** you!"..and I 'grew up' on steamers. 
I understand the new boats are better for crew comforts but I still hold you guys in highest regard. It looks like you will be busy the next 12-18 months-know you have me at your back if not on your watch!


----------



## Occam

Stacked said:
			
		

> Put my name in for Subs yesterday (Sonar Op QL3 student) hopefully it works out.   Last I heard was the training system was backed up though.    God forbid I have to spend some time in the Surface Fleet .



I think that last bit is a little harsh.  I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you, is there not a QL5 requirement to go subs to ensure you get a well-rounded knowledge of your trade?


----------



## medicineman

When I left Victoria, they were doing mandatory sub screenings for certain trades - sonar was one of them - and they were doing it at the QL3 level while still on course.  The electricians were given that as well - I had to do alot of the medical screenings for them.

MM


----------



## Occam

My, how things have changed.  I don't recall ever seeing an OD on an O boat, regardless of trade...though, if you're going to force someone to go subs, those are the trades it's going to be in.


----------



## hugh19

Occam said:
			
		

> My, how things have changed.  I don't recall ever seeing an OD on an O boat, regardless of trade...though, if you're going to force someone to go subs, those are the trades it's going to be in.




Thats funny when I was there in 1988 as a sea cadet. Thier where quite a few OD's on the Onondaga


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

We got an OD stoker on OJ in '97. At the time, nobody could remember the last time we'd gotten an OD.


----------



## medicineman

Stacked said:
			
		

> Surprisingly I'm the only one on my QL3 course who asked for them.



Not really - you should hear all the excuses that come out about why people "can't" be submariners...

MM


----------



## Occam

The plot thickens....



Original Link

*Crippled sub Corner Brook not fully inspected*

CBC News Posted: Apr 27, 2012 8:53 AM AT Last Updated: Apr 27, 2012 8:52 AM AT  

The Royal Canadian Navy still doesn't know the extent of the damage to the submarine HMCS Corner Brook, which ran aground off B.C. last year.

The submarine slammed into the ocean floor in Nootka Sound on June 4. It ended up with a four-by-four metre hole in its bow after hitting a rock.

The navy's second in command, Admiral Mark Norman, compared it to a car accident.

"When you're looking at your damaged car in the intersection and you can drive it home, you don't really know how badly damaged it is," he told CBC earlier this year. "It is similar to a fender bender."

That was in February, before the navy knew the full extent of the damage to its submarine.

In fact, the navy says it's still assessing the damage to the sub. Minimal repairs are underway, but the full overhaul won’t begin until January after another damaged sub, HMCS Chicoutimi, is done.

"This period of minimal maintenance is programmed to primarily arrest system degradation while the submarine awaits her turn in deep maintenance," according to a sub fleet status update released this week.

In a statement issued to CBC late Thursday, the navy said Norman used the "automotive analogy in order to explain the damage … to the average viewer."

The submarine hit the bottom when it was 45 metres below the surface. It remained watertight and none of the crew was in danger, the navy said in February.

The navy's official board of inquiry blamed Lt.-Cmdr. Paul Sutherland, the sub's captain, for the collision.

Corner Brook is expected to be fully operational in 2016.


----------



## Virtuoso

Anyone got any idea on when the Victoria will be in service again?


----------



## medicineman

VIC has been undergoing sea trials for some time now...

MM


----------



## medicineman

Even better  :nod:

MM


----------



## OldSolduer

medicineman said:
			
		

> Even better  :nod:
> 
> MM



Cool!!!


----------



## Hurricane

Stacked said:
			
		

> Victoria is at RIMPAC lol



That is Awesome News! The crew must be having a blast!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yet to be picked up by the Canadian press, funny that..... :

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/1158de55c7914ba2ae037cf556588206/HI--Sinking-Exercise


HONOLULU — Navies participating in Rim of the Pacific exercises of Hawaii sank a decommissioned supply ship in waters more than 15,000 feet deep.
The Canadian submarine HMCS Victoria launched a torpedo that took down the former USS Concord about 60 miles off Kauai on Tuesday.

The Concord is one of three decommissioned ships the military plans to sink during the exercises. The Navy sank the former USS Niagara Falls in waters off Kauai over the weekend.

Environmental and costs concerns had prompted the Navy to observe a moratorium on using old ships for target practice. The Niagara Falls was the first to be sunk since 2010.

The Navy says the exercises provide crews the opportunity to practice tactics, targeting and firing at surface targets. It says this enhances combat readiness.

(Story distributed by The Associated Press)


----------



## Haletown

saw the video of the event yesterday on Island TV news.

They called it a "war shot" . . .  someone gets it  :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfgecbxU5cs


funny that a small independent runs the story first.


----------



## Occam

Any missile or torpedo which has an explosive warhead (vice a telemetric warhead) is referred to as a _warshot_.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Morale on that boat must be very high! You can send a big thank you from us old farts to the guys on the boat for doing a great job.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was talking on another forum about the merits of the Victoria class vs the Type 212 and Type 214. Wiki lists the range of the Victoria class as 8,000nm, is that submerged at what average speed?

Sigh my brain is at half speed today, found my answer on wiki, sorry for any unnecessary  clicking.  :facepalm:

_The surface speed is 12 knots (22 km/h) and the submerged speed is in excess of 20 knots (37 km/h). In snorkeling mode, travelling at low speed at periscope depth using an extendable air-breathing system, the submarine can continue at up to 12 knots (22 km/h). The range at an 8 knots (15 km/h) snorkeling speed is 8,000 miles (13,000 km). The submarine has a patrol endurance of 56 days._


----------



## calgaryguy

Gentlemen,

Long time lurker here on this particular thread. No service history, but grew up around family that have served. Many friends from 2/PPCLI.

Does anyone have any updates on Windsor, Corner Brook, or Chicoutimi? I've googled, but much of whats there is months to years out of date.

Excited to see Victoria closing in on an official 'Fully Operational' status. Any updates from the end of Rimpac on her status?

Windsor went into the briny a few months ago - any updates?

Chicoutimi is slated to begin trials early next year - is this still realistic?

Corner Brook is entering a EDWP after Windsor is on its way to fully operational status - any updates on its 'gobsmacking' damage? ie: all I have read is that the non structural dome over the forward sonar array was damaged as evidenced by the photos. Was there any damage to the pressure hull?

To state the obvious, I'm not interested in any knowledge that would violate OPSEC. I'm just a prairie boy with a fascination for very complex machines. 

Cheers,
CG


----------



## Snakedoc

The discussion continues..


http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/navy-planners-lay-out-case-for-replacement-subs-1.922251

Navy planners lay out case for replacement subs

The Canadian Press 

Published Monday, Aug. 20, 2012 3:53PM EDT 

OTTAWA -- Naval planners have started to lay the groundwork for the possible replacement of the country's second-hand, glitch-prone Victoria-class submarines, arguing such warships are a necessary part of Canada's arsenal.

Planners say the country will likely need bigger, quieter boats that can perform stealth missions, launch undersea robots and fire guided missiles at shore targets.

A nine-page briefing note for the country's top military commander last year sets out the justification for keeping a submarine capability, and comes at a time when the Harper government wants budget savings in both the near- and long-term.

The report looks at what kinds of boats will be on the market between 2020 and 2050.
Ottawa was awash in rumours last spring that the current submarine program was on the chopping block because of its enormous expense and repeated setbacks, including a fatal fire aboard one boat in 2004.
"Submarines are the ultimate stealth platform, able to operate in areas where sea and air control is not assured, and to gain access to areas denied to other forces," said a May 9, 2011, briefing for Chief of Defence Staff Walt Natynczyk.

"A capable submarine force creates uncertainty; countering them is difficult, expensive and cannot be guaranteed."
Investing in submarines is prudent because "in the event of global tensions these relatively cheap assets will counter projection of power and hinder freedom of movement and action."
According to defence experts, that was a veiled reference to Arctic sovereignty, which the Harper government has made key policy platform.

Dan Middlemiss, who has written extensively on naval strategy, said the government clearly sent a message to the navy last year about the current, troubled fleet, warning: "Get these boats in the water -- or else."
That the program has been in jeopardy was subtly underscored by the navy's top commander, Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, during an appearance before a Senate committee earlier this year.

"Assuming that Canadians will continue to see a submarine capability as a critical capability for our Canadian Forces," he said, "I would envision initiating a next-generation submarine discussion within the next three or four years ... to ensure there is no gap in submarine capability, which is what we faced in the 1990s."
Under questioning, he was more pointed: "In terms of surveillance of our ocean approaches and the protection of our own sovereignty, I would consider a submarine capability critical.

"And so to lose that for a G8 nation, a NATO country like Canada, a country that continues to lead internationally, and aspires to lead more, I would consider that a critical loss."
Maddison told the committee he didn't envision replacing the four existing boats, purchased from the Royal Navy in 1998, until the late 2020s.

But it may come sooner than that.
Much hinges on whether engineers can successfully extend the service lives of HMCS Victoria, Windsor, Corner Brook and Chicoutimi, which are already nearly 20 years old.
That assessment, including affordability, is still underway, said Middlemiss, who taught at Dalhousie University Centre for Foreign Policy Studies in Halifax.

"I think there is Sword of Damocles over the heads of submarines at the moment and I know the navy, and I think the dockyard and everybody, have had this brought home repeatedly and vigorously and are now trying to play catchup," said Middlemiss.

Other naval projects, such as supply ships and Arctic patrol vessels, have been postponed until later in the decade, and "I think most expect more cuts and outright deferral to come," he added.
The briefing note points out that the market for submarines, especially emerging powers such as India and China, has grown by leaps and bounds, but there are still only a handful of countries in the world capable of building them.

At the top of the list is Howaldtswerke Deutsche Werft, which is a division of Thyssenkrupp Marine.
The company's senior executives were part of a German trade delegation that accompanied Chancellor Angela Merkel to Ottawa and Halifax last week.

Middlemiss said giving up the capability would potentially leave Canada blind in the Arctic because nations are required to notify each other when their submarines are operating around the territorial waters of others.
"The current subs are, despite the bad press, incredibly useful and will still be of equal or even more value as climate change wrecks havoc in the Arctic," he said.

The briefing note said that the traditional Second World War perception and use of submarines has been refined.
Where once they were torpedoing enemy shipping, subs are now more useful in coastline surveillance and intelligence-gathering, as well as being able to launch guided missiles at shore targets, the way U.S. and British boats did during the Libya campaign.


----------



## Ziobrop

HMCS Windsor recently completed her camber dive test

Complete coverage of the Victoria class can be found at http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/search/label/victoria%20class

_- mod edit to fix first link -_


----------



## The Bread Guy

Ziobrop said:
			
		

> HMCS Windsor recently completed her camber dive test
> 
> Complete coverage of the Victoria class can be found at http://blog.halifaxshippingnews.ca/search/label/victoria%20class
> 
> _- mod edit to fix first link -_



CTV news catches up (via the Naval Open Source Intelligence blog)....


> The refit of Canada’s secondhand submarines is years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget.
> 
> However, it seems the East Coast is now only months away from having an operational submarine.
> 
> HMCS Windsor has been in refit since 2007 but Defence Minister Peter MacKay tells CTV News it completed a key dive, called a camber dive, on Nov. 7 and is now being readied for sea trials ....


----------



## SeaKingTacco

HMCS Victoria has been doing really excellent work on the west coast.

It may have taken a long time, but we are beginning to get payback on our investment.


----------



## kratz

HMCS WINDSOR is steaming on the surface in Bedford basin.
I wish we had a camera at home right now.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> HMCS WINDSOR is *steaming* on the surface in Bedford basin.



Must have been one major refit.


----------



## Nuggs

kratz said:
			
		

> HMCS WINDSOR is steaming on the surface in Bedford basin.
> I wish we had a camera at home right now.



Click

<a href="http://www.freeimagehosting.net/pi6sp"><img src="http://www.freeimagehosting.net/t/pi6sp.jpg"></a>

Congrats to the crew of the Windsor.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the Info-machine:


> Her Majesty’s Canadian Submarine (HMCS) Windsor returned to sea yesterday at Halifax, N.S., officially marking the completion of a deep maintenance cycle known as an Extended Docking Work Period.
> 
> “HMCS Windsor’s return to sea is a key milestone and her crew now embarks on another challenging journey as they focus on operations at sea,” said The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence. “I commend the outstanding efforts of Windsor’s crew, our Fleet Maintenance Facilities and of industry that have brought us to this point.”
> 
> “Over the next few months, Windsor will conduct additional crew training and trials on her path to high readiness,” said Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, Commander Royal Canadian Navy. “This milestone builds on the achievements of HMCS Victoria and is another important step towards the Victoria-class Submarine Fleet achieving steady state.”
> 
> With the completion of the Extended Docking Work Period, HMCS Windsor will now conduct a series of sea trials, crew training and certifications to prepare for future operations, a process known as the Tiered Readiness Program.  HMCS Windsor’s Tiered Readiness Program will closely resemble the one conducted by HMCS Victoria, the first Victoria-class Submarine to become operational and weapons certified to fire MK 48 Heavyweight Torpedoes.
> 
> The Victoria-class Submarine Fleet continues to progress towards steady state when three of four submarines will be available for operations. This will include a high readiness submarine available on both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, HMCS Windsor and HMCS Victoria respectively, with a third submarine, HMCS Chicoutimi, available at standard readiness. HMCS Corner Brook will rotate into an Extended Docking Work Period in 2013.  An Extended Docking Work Period provides the submarines’ 200-plus systems with the maintenance and upgrades needed to conduct operations on behalf of Canadians.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Saw her in the Basin today around noon while going over the MacKay.  BZ.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I see the Subs having been busy, sailing in Howe sound, right near my cabin, which leads me to ask, what's the best gear to catch a sub, buzzbomb, triple hook with ajig or a spinner on a cannonball? Video on link

S_ubmarine surfaces in Howe Sound

HMCS Victoria spotted on exercises near Anvil Island

WEST Vancouver residents looking out on Howe Sound over the weekend may have seen 2200-ton steel leviathan emerge from the water just off Anvil Island.

The Royal Canadian Navy's HMCS Victoria, a hunter-killer/upholder class submarine, surfaced in Howe Sound Friday afternoon as part of a training exercise in the area.

The Victoria was spotted by John Buchanan, caretaker with the Squamish Environmental Society as he made his way down the Sea-to-Sky Highway.

"It was just the freakiest thing. I've never seen a submarine before in my life," Buchanan said. "I looked over at Anvil Island and there's this bloody submarine. This thing is huge, eh?"

Buchanan pulled over to shoot pictures and video of the rare sighting. No one in Buchanan's circle could remember any other instances of a submarine coming into Howe Sound in the past, he said.

As a conservationist, Buchanan said he has some concerns with military activity in Howe Sound, but not enough to sound a red alert. His reaction was mainly one of "good fun," he said.

"I don't want them out there every day with their sonar, do I?" he said. "But I don't know enough about them to know what the environmental consequences of what their manoeuvres may be."

The Department of National Defence purchased the Victoria from the British government in 1998 but it spent years in dry dock undergoing retrofitting and repairs. It successfully fired its first torpedoes in 2012 and began popping up around the south coast waters of British Columbia in 2013.

"When she goes out like this, if it's not a specific exercise, it's for training," said Capt. Annie Djiotsa, Royal Canadian Navy spokeswoman, "A lot of members of the public have seen her lately because she was in Howe Sound and she's been out there doing her thing."

Read more: http://www.nsnews.com/news/Submarine+surfaces+Howe+Sound/7969659/story.html#ixzz2LGyUdrkB



_


----------



## flavelle

What is the status on recruitment for submarine service? More specifically, I'm wondering about the demand for CSE/MSE officers (red/yellow/green?). I'm also curious about the demand for other trades on board and the available crewing for all the boats. I hear mixed things that there won't be enough crew for three boats when Chicoutimi becomes operational. 

Anybody with some insight, please PM me and then maybe contact me on the DIN. Thanks!


----------



## Occam

The submarine community is so small for CSE/MSE Officers, you won't see a red/yellow/green status for them - only for the classification overall.  The submarine positions for CSE/MSE Officers is probably barely into the double digits - so it would come down to being available at the same time that a position is becoming vacant.  Express a desire early in your career to go into the submarine world and hope that the universe lines up the right way.

There are probably very few people who could tell you if there are more interested personnel than positions available - I'm not one of them, sorry.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Re-produced under the usual caveats of the Fair Dealings section of the Copyright Act.



> Submarines ready to enter Royal Canadian Navy fleet
> 
> By Simon Kent, Toronto Sun
> 
> First posted: Saturday, April 13, 2013 05:00 PM MDT | Updated: Saturday, April 13, 2013 10:14 PM MDT
> 
> TORONTO - Run silent, run deep.
> 
> In a matter of weeks the Royal Canadian Navy will have three submarines ready to do just that.
> 
> The fourth will be in dry dock and not released until 2015.
> 
> These conventional diesel-electric boats were all purchased second hand from Britain in 1998 and transferred to the RCN at an initial cost of $750 million.
> 
> Years of controversy and refit followed before last year’s historic visit by HMCS Victoria to the RIMPAC exercises off Hawaii. That passage culminated in its firing an MK 48 heavyweight torpedo and sinking the decommissioned transport USNS Concord.
> 
> News that HMCS Victoria is to be joined by its sisters is welcome for the defence establishment. For critics — of which there are many — it is just another chapter in a convoluted tale of mismatched procurement meeting ill-defined strategic needs.
> 
> The Canadian taxpayer has been left to pick up the now estimated $3 billion (and rising) tab prompting the question: does the RCN even need to stay in the submarine business?
> 
> It’s in good company if it does.
> 
> Across the Pacific Rim, alone, countries as far apart as South Korea and Australia, Indonesia and Japan, China, Vietnam, Malaysia and Singapore operate conventional submarines.
> 
> Further afield Bangladesh is acquiring its first submarines to boost its naval power in the Bay of Bengal while India operates 14 boats, including a nuclear-powered attack submarine leased from Russia.
> 
> All are used for sea-lane security in a variety of scenarios including clandestine work delivering special forces operators in shallow coastal waters.
> 
> Still, those tasks should be viewed through an entirely different geo/strategic setting to that of Canada’s, cautions Steven Staples, president of the Rideau Institute, a defence and foreign policy think-tank in Ottawa.
> 
> He acknowledges the growing submarine capabilities in other parts of the globe but maintains Canada is historically not in the trade of long-range power projection.
> 
> “We live in a self-evidently different neighbourhood to Asia,” Staples said, “and our submarines are more coastal. They were designed to sit on the sea floor during the Cold War to watch and listen for Soviet fleet activity.
> 
> “There is a strong argument against whether we need them at all. The three Oberon class boats that preceded the current subs were mostly used to provide opposition training for the U.S. Navy.
> 
> “We may well find the new boats doing that as well. That’s a pretty expensive way to stay friends with an ally.”
> 
> Sitting, watching and listening. Three things non-nuclear submarines excel at.
> 
> Surely with increased shipping activity in the Arctic thanks to receding pack ice and more and bigger ships transiting the route for a short-cut to Europe, doesn’t it make sense for Canada to have eyes and ears monitoring a potentially ice free Northwest Passage?
> 
> “Well, it would help if they were ever fully operational, put it that way” Staples said. “If they could dive without hitting the ocean floor or even remember to close hatches before submerging.
> 
> “Look, I just don’t think this project has been worth the money and the time spent to deliver a marginal capability. I wouldn’t call it a textbook case of how Canada should NOT go about procuring extremely complicated defence equipment because, sadly, there are other contenders for that title.”
> 
> If Canada eventually embraces the “use ‘em if you’ve got ‘em” doctrine, they might want to look at what Australia did with its six Oberon-class diesel-electric boats during the last decades of the Cold War.
> 
> The Royal Australian Navy conducted perilous intelligence-gathering operations off the coasts of Vietnam, Indonesia, China and India as part of an American-led effort to check the Soviet Navy’s formidable fleet.
> 
> Between 1978 and 1992 Australian submarines would secretly track Soviet ships as they transited the South China Sea.
> 
> There were 16 patrols in all.
> 
> In one case an Australian boat famously trailed a new Soviet frigate all the way to the entrance of Vietnam’s Cam Ranh Bay naval base and photographed its hull shape, propellers, weapons systems and sonar. All undetected despite being just being 1.8-metres from the frigate’s hull at one stage.
> 
> Difficult but not impossible to replicate in Arctic waters if RCN submariners ever get the call to covertly see just who is using the trans-polar shipping route. And why.



 Article Link 

Wish writers could find someone else to interview besides Staples. He never has anything nice to say about the military.


----------



## Monsoon

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Re-produced under the usual caveats of the Fair Dealings section of the Copyright Act.
> 
> Article Link
> 
> Wish writers could find someone else to interview besides Staples. He never has anything nice to say about the military.


Agreed. I'd have expected at least a Sun paper to ignore a blatantly anti-military lobbyist. Seems laziness will win over political bent every time.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Staples needs to be invited along for a ride in one of those Subs, then be allowed to try out the escape gear.


----------



## medicineman

Colin P said:
			
		

> Staples needs to be invited along for a ride in one of those Subs, then be allowed to try out the escape gear.



MUST...BITE...TONGUE...stuff it - would that be at below safe maximum individual escape depth?

MM


----------



## Colin Parkinson

do we really know what the safe depth is without trying it first? Since he is such an expert he can demonstrate it and then write a detailed article quoting himself or not.


----------



## medicineman

Colin P said:
			
		

> do we really know what the safe depth is without trying it first? Since he is such an expert he can demonstrate it and then write a detailed article quoting himself or not.



Actually yes...but I'm not supposed to wish ill of folks in a public forum...much.

MM


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The safe depths you speak of is for mere mortals such as ourselves, not the elite thinkers group that he belongs to you that can transcend beyond mere physiological restraints. 

What really frustrates me is that even if you did exactly what he suggests in one article, he would counter it in the next and he will have some journalistic lightweight quote him without bothering to challenge his statement or ask why we should listen to him.


----------



## medicineman

If, as you suggest, he is a deity of some sort, then perhaps a prayer or casual drink with the patron saint of my alma mater (St Michael) would end it all for us as he is smitten back to the D&D lair he emerged from...

MM


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Plus ca change, plus la memechose. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/04/30/ns-hmcs-windsor-generator.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We just can't seem to catch a break.


----------



## cupper

:sigh:


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Colin P said:
			
		

> We just can't seem to catch a break.


Understatement, but so true.  If it's not one thing it's another.  Lets hope all of the submarines are put into active service sooner rather than later.


----------



## cupper

Canadian.Trucker said:
			
		

> Understatement, but so true.  If it's not one thing it's another.  Lets hope all of the submarines are put into active service sooner rather than later.



We could celebrate and make it a national holiday. :nod:


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

cupper said:
			
		

> We could celebrate and make it a national holiday. :nod:


It will most likely coincide with a National Holiday already... 150th anniversary of Confederation anyone?  Think positive now.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Colin P said:
			
		

> We just can't seem to catch a break.



Or predictions were made that couldn't be kept. It isn't realistic to expect to run the only four submarines of their type at once when we could only run one O-boat out of three and we had a full global supply chain to draw on.


----------



## dapaterson

Colin P said:
			
		

> We just can't seem to catch a break.



Anyone who has ever owned or operated a British car is unsurprised.  A used British car, even lees so.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Mind you I recall the icebreaker Henry Larson, blowing an electric motor on her shakedown run and having to sit dockside for 6 months while a new one was made.


----------



## CombatDoc

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Anyone who has ever owned or operated a British car is unsurprised.  A used British car, even lees so.


Remember British vehicle electronics?  "Lucas, Prince of Darkness"!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Lucas refrigerators, the reason the Brits drink warm beer. Lucas made vacuum cleaners, it was their only product that did not suck, Lucas electricals run on smoke, when the smoke escapes, the part stops working. Lucas switches has 3 positions, dim, flicker and smoke.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Quick sub purchase related question. Had we chosen to go with a another class of sub like the 212/214 would we have run into the same issue as having to switch weapon systems or change the design to suit our weapons? In other words were the designs out there already fitted/designed for the weapons we wanted?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> Had we chosen to go with a another class of sub like the 212/214 would we have run into the same issue as having to switch weapon systems or change the design to suit our weapons?



Yes.



> In other words were the designs out there already fitted/designed for the weapons we wanted?



No.


----------



## FoverF

Follow-up questions:


Are the weapons used by Canada greatly superior to those used by Germany, Italy, France, UK, etc?  


What would the cost comparison be (very approximately) for retrofitting a 4 sub fleet versus replacing Canada's stock of munitions? Close? Vastly more expensive in one direction or the other?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> Are the weapons used by Canada greatly superior to those used by Germany, Italy, France, UK, etc?



Well....there are different strengths and weaknesses to every system. We mostly use very very old Mk 48 mod 4 fish with a handful of mod 7's.

If you didn't want any chance of an Otto fuel leak, you'd probably want the German DM2A4. They're electric and relatively quiet but pretty slow.

If you wanted screaming fast performance at shallow depths over a short range, but not so much at deep depths you'd want Spearfish. It has a gas turbine engine that provides significantly variable output at significantly different external pressure. Coincidently, RN submariners have been trained for close to a century now to make short-range attacks at shallow depths.

If you wanted really good performance at all depths and an Otto fuel leak doesn't faze you, go with modern Mk 48's. They're fast on the surface and still relatively fast at depth. As far as system capability goes, they're the Starship Enterprise of torpedoes.

The combat system is pretty much determined by the torpedo you use. ie don't pick an American combat system with British torpedoes, unless you really have too much money and need to spend it. And don't think you can get full capability out of a modern torpedo if you don't have a full capability combat system.



> What would the cost comparison be (very approximately) for retrofitting a 4 sub fleet versus replacing Canada's stock of munitions?



The boats have little enough life left that there isn't any point in major upgrades now. The RAN spent over $1 billion to put a modern combat system into the Collins, and it would probably cost close to that to upgrade the torpedoes to mod 7's as well. 

It's probably best to just buy new boats. Apparently the new German Type 216 is aimed at the RCN among others.


----------



## AlexanderM

The Type 216 would do very nicely.  At the moment the endurance for AIP seems to be 3-4 weeks, perhaps by the time we purchase it will be even longer.  Still, wouldn't be bad to have a boat that could lurk around up north undetected for a month at a time.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

AIP isn't all that useful, but if we buy the 216 we'll have to get it anyway. The Germans are unlikely to sell the boats without it.


----------



## Haletown

Things could be worse, as is happening in Spain.


http://digitaljournal.com/article/350661


----------



## OldSolduer

:facepalm:


			
				Haletown said:
			
		

> Things could be worse, as is happening in Spain.
> 
> 
> http://digitaljournal.com/article/350661



Maybe we should just get out of the business altogether?


----------



## AlexanderM

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> AIP isn't all that useful, but if we buy the 216 we'll have to get it anyway. The Germans are unlikely to sell the boats without it.


Is that because all one can do is lurk, can't catch anything or keep up with anything?  I read that the Spanish AIP system can generate at least 300kW.  If that is sustained, I'm wondering what speed it translates to?


----------



## Monsoon

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> Maybe we should just get out of the business altogether?


Now that the sub capability is up and running? That would be strange timing.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> Maybe we should just get out of the business altogether?



Instead of buying new ones? I think that's what is going to happen. I don't think the current funding is enough to replace the surface fleet one-for-one, and there definitely isn't enough to fund a new submarine purchase as well. Even if the funding became available it would probably make more sense to put into the surface fleet than replace the current boats.

There's no point in paying off the current boats now that they're working about as well as can be expected.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> Is that because all one can do is lurk, can't catch anything or keep up with anything?



Pretty much. It's a trickle-charger. It lets you keep a charge in the battery without having to snort, but that's the only major difference. It doesn't help with conducting domestic routines and all the other noise-making issues associated with normal operations, or increase the very slow transit speed, or increase the top speed.



> I read that the Spanish AIP system can generate at least 300kW.  If that is sustained, I'm wondering what speed it translates to?



Not as high as you'd think. It has to cover hotel load as well.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

To add to drunksubmrnr, consider the MCDV's: They carry four mains for propulsion that generate about 1.2 MW when all running and they don't have to provide "hotel" charge. That gives you 15 knots on a ship of 970 tons.

Your Spanish boat, with a quarter of that power on AIP and hotel load to provide out of it, has to push a 2400 tons submerged boat. Sure a sub is more hydrodynamically efficient than a MCDV, but you are still only talking of 3 to 4 knots while on AIP, otherwise you start drawing down on the batteries. And if the sub runs into a fight or has to escape from a datum quickly and draws the batteries down, the AIP speed will be even lower for quite a while during the recharge period. When it comes to recharging or transiting, it is a lot faster and more efficient if it is at all possible, to do it on diesel while snorting.


----------



## AlexanderM

Application for lurking up north comes to mind.  Move at 4 knots and listen.  Could be used a limited amount under ice, as long as batteries are charged to get back out?  So boat would charge batteries with snorkel, then use to get into position, then lurk for a couple days, then use batteries to move on.  Still moving at 100 miles per day, 2800 miles in 4 weeks, at 4 knots.  Wouldn't be helpful to partol up north?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I suggest you look up this past discussion on use of submarine in arctic sovereignty mode, so we can keep this thread for its own purpose of dealing with the VIC class.

http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/96172.0.html


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

And Byers weighs in...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/06/11/conservatives_should_scrap_submarine_fleet_or_buy_new_ones_thinktanks_say.html



> Conservatives should scrap submarine fleet or buy new ones, think-tanks say
> Canada’s submarine fleet has never lived up to its expectations, says a report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute.
> 
> By: The Canadian Press, Published on Tue Jun 11 2013
> 
> OTTAWA—A pair of think-tanks say the Harper government should either announce plans to scrap its glitch-plagued submarine fleet — or begin the process of replacing them before any more tax dollars are wasted.
> The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute say the Victoria-class submarines, purchased second-hand from Britain in the late 1990s, are within a decade of ending their service life, and have never lived up to expectations.
> A report written by defence and law academic Michael Byers and researcher Stewart Webb asks whether Canada, bordered on three sides by oceans, even needs submarines.
> Byers says he doesn’t see a strong case for submarines, but remains open-minded and would like to see the government make a coherent case for the capability.
> He says the stealth coastal surveillance aspects of subs is rapidly being overtaken by unmanned aerial vehicle technology.
> The national shipbuilding strategy is silent on whether the Conservative government intends to replace the current submarine fleet, something Byers says means the decision has either been made, or the file is being horribly mismanaged.



My _opinion_ is that the file has been mismanaged. I don't think the government has an actual plan to replace the boats by their use-by date, and they're unwilling to admit it.


----------



## The Bread Guy

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> And Byers weighs in...
> 
> http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/06/11/conservatives_should_scrap_submarine_fleet_or_buy_new_ones_thinktanks_say.html


And here's a link to the Byers+Webb report, _"That Sinking Feeling:  Canada’s Submarine Program Springs a Leak"_.


----------



## Journeyman

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> ...asks whether Canada, bordered on three sides by oceans, even needs submarines. Byers says he doesn’t see a strong case for submarines....


I would think that being bordered by three oceans, of itself, would suggest a utility for submarines....   ???


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's difficult to see past the arms of his chair.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I would think that being bordered by three oceans, of itself, would suggest a utility for submarines....   ???



That indicates a utility for a navy, not necessarily submarines any more than there's a requirement for an aircraft carrier.


----------



## PanaEng

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> That indicates a utility for a navy, not necessarily submarines any more than there's a requirement for an aircraft carrier.


ignoring the fact that 1 1/2 of those oceans are covered in ice for most of the year...


----------



## STONEY

Make a list of all the Navy's in the world of any importance that don't have Submarines. There aren't any.

Take a good look at all countries sub programs and you would see that they all have problems and many are worse than ours.  The Aussies built 6 brand new boats instead
of buying the boats we bought and are having nothing but problems.  They are having a problem just keeping 1 of the 6 operational.

Our last boats were one of the worlds best of their time but we very seldom ever had them all operational at one time. If you look at any sub fleet you would find a very small percentage operational at any one time . That's the nature of the beast but if you want to play in the big leagues ?

Cheers


----------



## HB_Pencil

Colin P said:
			
		

> It's difficult to see past the arms of his chair.



What bothers me about these two is that neither has any training in military affairs, strategic studies, defence procurement ect. Byers' PhD work is in international law. Yet they seem to have a new report every week on widely disparate topics and then are portrayed as "experts" on the topic in the media. Look at the bibliography; its made up completely of internet resources and a couple of books. They don't talk to any experts, their analysis is really simplistic.  If I were to write an article on this I'd arrange an interview, talk to some formers officials, or request an ATIP for some documents. Byers? Cite some stuff he could google and to meet your preconceived notions. 

Nothing better reflects that than the discussion on page 25 talking about China. Having just read two books on china's efforts to expand its power in South east asia (Trapped Giant and Regional Disorder.) Their whole analysis can be summed up by a statement they make: 

"In the circumstances, the question needs to be asked: does Canada really want to participate in a submarine race based on speculative concerns about a country that has been embraced by the Harper government as central to our trade and foreign policy?"


Lets see here. China biggest trading partner is Japan... and we're witnessing a full blown arms race emerge between the two. The United States, South Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, India, Australia, and Philippines are all major regional trading partners of China. Yet each one is stocking up on new capabilities including submarines in the case of SK, US, India, Malaysia and Australia. Most of these states have significantly larger trade relations and much more direct security interest at stake. And what about our relations with those countries in the region, like Japan? Are we just going to ignore their security concerns?

Want an useful analysis? Tell me how the navy can meet our security interests in the region. Give me some analysis about how we should purchase and position our capabilities to respond to a potential crisis? Don't blindly state that we don't need capabilities because we shouldn't antagonize a country that every one of its neighbours (even the ostensibly neutral ones) are preparing to defend against. 


Mile wide and inch deep.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

PanaEng said:
			
		

> ignoring the fact that 1 1/2 of those oceans are covered in ice for most of the year...



That would indicate a need for upgrading all of the Auroras, not half of them. You can't do much with SSKs under the ice.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

STONEY said:
			
		

> Make a list of all the Navy's in the world of any importance that don't have Submarines. There aren't any.



We wouldn't be on that list with or without SSK's.



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> Take a good look at all countries sub programs and you would see that they all have problems and many are worse than ours.  The Aussies built 6 brand new boats instead
> of buying the boats we bought and are having nothing but problems.  They are having a problem just keeping 1 of the 6 operational.



The RAN sorted out most of the technical problems fairly quickly. Their main issue is keeping crews in the middle of a mining boom, to the extent that retention bonuses are making some PO stokers better paid than the boats captains. As the boom is fading out, the crew situation is getting better to the point that they now have 2 operational, and that will probably rise to 3.



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> Our last boats were one of the worlds best of their time but we very seldom ever had them all operational at one time. If you look at any sub fleet you would find a very small percentage operational at any one time . That's the nature of the beast but if you want to play in the big leagues ?



Our old boats were bought because they were cheap, not the worlds best. The RCN made it very clear that if they were to only have SSK's, they wanted Barbels. The Barbels would have cost twice as much. That being said, the Oberons had a major global supply chain. The Victorias don't. We're unlikely to ever have more than one obsolescent boat operational for significant periods of time. Is that capability really worth the opportunity cost?


----------



## Monsoon

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> We're unlikely to ever have more than one obsolescent boat operational for significant periods of time. Is that capability really worth the opportunity cost?


So the fact that we have three operational now (and that they're not "obsolescent") is just a flash in the pan?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> So the fact that we have three operational now (and that they're not "obsolescent") is just a flash in the pan?



Two...and one is crippled with a bad donk. It'll take a long time and lots of spares to make Windsor fully operational. Those spares will have to come from somewhere, and there weren't all that many submarine versions of that genset made. That sort of issue is going to be repeated a lot while we have these boats.

All we've been able to do with these boats since we got them is to have one operational, and the other either completely tied to the wall or tied-up-and-waiting-for-people-or-parts. Either way, we can keep one operational over a period of time, and that's all. That's not necessarily bad, it's about what we could do with the TRUMPs.

The boats are about as current as an IRE was in the mid 90's. It could get off a bunch of 3" rounds, but putting it up next to modern ships made it obsolescent at best.


----------



## HB_Pencil

Question for you DSubmrnr

How is lifecycle calculated for submarines? Is there an underwater equivalent for cycles or time at depth operated at? Or is it just a milestone that indicates a larger shifts in cost ect. Really my question is whether the 2030 timeframe is really a hard limit... or is it something that we can stretch out


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

There are calculations for hull life depending on how it's been used etc. However, that process has already been run for those boats, and that's how they came up with 2030. Remember Chicoutimi was laid down in 1983, and at that point she would have been planned to be disposed of somewhere around....now.  

The only other boats I can think of that are that old are some of the US fleet boats from WWII. I think the ROCN navy still operates a couple of those, although I haven't heard of either of them diving in years.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Raeside proposes a another role for the subs

http://www.timescolonist.com/raeside-s-view-1.17418


----------



## Tralax

Is it mainly cost reasons that we aren't considering purchasing new/used nuclear submarines?


----------



## CombatDoc

Tralax said:
			
		

> Is it mainly political cost reasons that we aren't considering purchasing new/used nuclear submarines?


FTFY.  Yes to both.


----------



## Monsoon

Tralax said:
			
		

> Is it mainly cost reasons that we aren't considering purchasing new/used nuclear submarines?


Yes, they're colossally expensive to build and maintain, and require an enormously expensive supporting infrastructure. They're also colossally loud underwater (you can't just switch a nuclear reactor to "off" and run silent), so they aren't of much use if what you're primarily interested in doing is discreetly finding out what other folks are up to.


----------



## Tralax

Thank you for your replies to my question.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

hamiltongs said:
			
		

> They're also colossally loud underwater (you can't just switch a nuclear reactor to "off" and run silent), so they aren't of much use if what you're primarily interested in doing is discreetly finding out what other folks are up to.



Newer generations have variable-speed machinery, and can be more quiet than conventional boats. They're also quite handy if you're found and have to get out of Dodge really quickly.


----------



## kratz

For the past hour I have been watching the boat manouvering on the surface of Bedford Basin, from my deck.

It's great to see her out again.


----------



## The Bread Guy

> B.C.’s shipbuilding and repair industry will get a shot of good news today when the Harper government announces a five-year, $531-million contract extension to repair and upgrade Canada’s fleet of four diesel-electric submarines, The Vancouver Sun has learned.
> 
> The contract, following a similar agreement struck in 2008, will protect roughly 200 jobs at the Department of National Defence’s Fleet Maintenance Facility in Esquimalt, according to a federal official.
> 
> Another 200 jobs will be protected at locations elsewhere in Canada, he said.
> 
> “This significant federal investment will support more than 400 high-quality jobs, improve the long-term sustainability of B.C.’s shipbuilding industry and provide the best tools for Canada’s sailors,” he said in a prepared statement.
> 
> The contract was won in a competitive bid by Babcock Canada Inc., a subsidiary of the British multinational firm Babcock International Group PLC ....


_Victoria Times-Colonist_, 4 Jul 13


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest Fact Sheet from the Info-machine (also attached if link doesn't work), including where each sub is at maintenance-wise - here's a summary table:


----------



## Haletown

The story in summary form.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sub-support-contract-creating-canadian-controversy-04563/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Quite possibly from a PAO in DND. It's not that bad in the scheme of things, I seen far more glaring errors everyday in print.


----------



## GAP

Navy submarine damage severe, internal report says
HMCS Corner Brook hit seafloor off British Columbia in 2011
Rob Gordon, CBC News  Jul 16, 2013
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/07/16/ns-navy-submarine-damage-hmcs-corner-brook.html

Slamming into the seafloor at 11 km/h damaged one of Canada's submarines more severely than the navy originally admitted to the public, new documents obtained by CBC show.

The Royal Canadian Navy's Damage Assessment and Options Analysis report for HMCS Corner Brook tells a story of a submarine suffering "extensive damage" from "tearing and dents" that left a gaping, two-metre hole in the submarine’s bow.

Seawater was "roiling" in the parts of the submarine and two of its torpedo tube doors had been torn off when it rammed the ocean floor off British Columbia two years ago.

The submarine had 60 people aboard, including some of the most experienced and senior submariners in the navy, when it rammed the rocky seafloor while cruising 45 metres below the surface.

Two sailors were slightly injured during the June 4, 2011 collision.The navy's official board of inquiry blamed Lt.-Cmdr. Paul Sutherland, the sub's captain, for the collision.

The inquiry was closed to the public and the navy only released a one-page summary of the hearing.

The navy has publicly called the accident a "fender bender" which resulted in no structural damage. But the navy's internal report tells a much different story.
more on link


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The damage in the actual documents doesn't sound that bad. Most of the damage was to the fiberglass dome.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Running any vessel into rocks at 11 kts is going to cause all sorts of unseen damage and issues. Even my 17' Double Eagle would suffer damage equal to at least 25% of the purchase price.


----------



## CougarKing

Germany's "Kremer affair" and its connection to the delayed installation of acoustic monitoring devices for the RCN's sub program:

From the Defense Industry Daily site:



> 2012 – 2013
> Torpedo firing. Windsor breakdown. VISSC.
> 
> Sept 8/13: Spy story. In 2008, Canada signed a C$ 1.3 million deal with the German firm Applied Radar and Sonar Technologies GmbH to install acoustic monitoring devices, as part of an underwater training range. *Delivery was supposed to take place in 2009. Fast forward to a a December 2012 briefing note prepared for senior DND staff, which says the company has disappeared, the contract is terminated, and they’re going to try and use international collection agencies to collect about C$ 1 million.
> 
> Just one problem. The Ottawa Citizen tracked the firm to Izmir, Turkey. Its CEO says that not only has the equipment been ready for a while, but DND officials have visited him in Turkey at least 4 times over the years. The hangup is transportation costs*, and the core of the 2012 allegations involve sloppy research by the Ministry of Public Works and Government Services, which is disconnected from DND’s efforts.
> 
> As to why they’re in Turkey, and why the shipping charges are a problem, the “Kremer Affair” is an interesting story. In 2005, Germany’s BND intelligence service asked the firm to pass along information acquired from arms deals with foreign customers. Applied Radar and Sonar Technologies declined, and shortly thereafter, German police seized their computers and company equipment. German courts cleared the firm of wrongdoing under the charges, and said that compensation was in order for the grave damage to the firm’s finances and operations, but none has been paid. The firm had relocated to Turkey to avoid further harassment, and the entire affair left them without the funds to ship Canada’s equipment per the contract. DND was contacted about this in 2009, and refused to pay anything more. A more rational model might have looked at the small shipping sum involved, the firm’s proven ethics, and the cost of not having the range at full readiness, and paid it. Instead, here we are. Sources: Ottawa Citizen external link, “Missing $1M DND equipment order not missing all along, contractor says” |



_*Article & link deleted in accordance with site policy*_


----------



## CougarKing

RCN official youtube channel video "Underway on board a Canadian submarine"


Plus more from Defense News Intercepts blog:



> No one would argue the Canadian Navy has had an easy time of it with its four Upholder-class diesel-electric submarines. Each one has been plagued with problems since they were acquired from the British Royal Navy a decade ago.
> 
> *Here’s a nice video of one of them, HMCS CORNER BROOK (ex-HMS URSULA) underway in early June 2011. One of three submarines based on the west coast at Esquimalt, British Columbia, the CORNER BROOK had just transferred from the east coast when this video was shot.*
> 
> Sadly, the cheerfulness shown in the video didn’t last long. The submarine struck bottom while operating submerged near Vancouver Island in Nootka Sound on June 4, 2011. *Despite injuries to two sailors and damage to the submarine, CORNER BROOK was able to return to Esquimalt under her own power. There she remains, awaiting full repairs that are not expected to be completed until at least . . . 2016.
> 
> Of the four Upholder-class submarines, only one, HMCS VICTORIA, is operational, although she has yet to be elevated to the fully operational status.*


----------



## The Bread Guy

The latest on the fleet from the Info-machine:


> .... *HMCS Chicoutimi:*
> 
> HMCS Chicoutimi was undocked and returned to the water on November 26, 2013, following the submarine’s extended docking work period at Victoria Shipyards Co. Ltd. in Esquimalt, B.C. This important milestone signifies progress to the completion of its deep maintenance work, which is being conducted for the first time solely by industry under the Victoria In-service Support Contract.
> 
> HMCS Chicoutimi continues to conduct system testing and trials as well as crew training. As part of the normal testing and trials regime, HMCS Chicoutimi will conduct a camber dive, so-named as it takes place in a protected, shallow area within a harbour known as a camber. This dive verifies the submarine’s watertight integrity and the functionality of its communications and other key systems.
> 
> HMCS Chicoutimi is expected to return to sea in early 2014 in order to commence sea trials as part of her tiered readiness program. This program will certify the crew and all engineering systems - including the weapon systems - with the aim of having the submarine declared fully operational.
> 
> The submarine will return to the RCN upon completion of its extended docking work period.
> 
> *HMCS Corner Brook:*
> 
> .... On June 4, 2011, HMCS Corner Brook ran aground while conducting submerged manoeuvres during submarine officer training in the vicinity of Nootka Sound off the west coast of Vancouver Island .... The full extent of the damage to HMCS Corner Brook was assessed during its ongoing extended limited maintenance period, a period of minimal maintenance designed to preserve the submarine’s existing condition. The actual repairs will occur during the submarine’s scheduled extended docking work period at Victoria Shipyards Co. Ltd.
> 
> Due to program management reasons relating to the Department of National Defence's In-Service Support Contract, only one submarine at a time is to be in deep maintenance. HMCS Corner Brook will therefore be maintained at the minimum level necessary as the submarine awaits its scheduled extended docking work period, which is planned to commence upon completion of HMCS Chicoutimi’s extended docking work period in 2014.
> 
> *HMCS Victoria:*
> 
> .... HMCS Victoria was declared fully operational in 2012. Since completing its tiered readiness program, Victoria has participated in various advanced international exercises. These exercises have demonstrated the modern capabilities of the Victoria-class submarine while providing anti-submarine training for Canadian and international maritime vessels.
> 
> *HMCS Windsor:*
> 
> .... In December 2012, a defect was identified with one of HMCS Windsor’s two diesel generators during sea trials. These diesel generators are part of the main submarine battery-charging system. Having two diesel generators provides a level of redundancy because the submarine can still safely operate at sea using a single diesel generator.
> 
> Despite the loss of one of its two diesel generators, HMCS Windsor is conducting local operations at sea to train submariners; however the submarine is under temporary restrictions on the range and endurance of these operations. These restrictions will remain in place until the affected diesel generator is replaced during a pre-planned work period within the submarine’s scheduled maintenance and operations routine ....


----------



## MMSS

I saw Chicoutimi in the water yesterday at Ogden Pt. Good to see progress.


----------



## CougarKing

A broken generator?

Canadian Press link



> *HMCS Windsor, only operating submarine on East Coast, to undergo repairs*
> 
> By Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press
> 
> HALIFAX - *The navy says its only operating submarine on the East Coast will have to undergo repairs for six to seven months because of a broken generator.
> 
> Capt. Peter Ryan says HMCS Windsor will be out of commission for repairs from March until September at a navy facility in Halifax.*
> 
> Ryan says the generator is one of two on the submarine that provides a crucial source of power for the vessel.
> 
> He says it is a key piece of equipment that must be fixed before the submarine can return to operations.
> 
> The submarine spent five years in a refit from 2007 until the middle of 2012, when it was returned to service.
> 
> The navy said in an email late Wednesday that theproblem with the generator was detected shortly after it returned to sea.
> 
> Spokeswoman navy Lt. Jennifer Fidler said the work has been planned for "months."
> *
> "HMCS Windsor is conducting ongoing local operations to train submariners. However, as it is operating with one generator, the submarine is under temporary restrictions on the range and endurance of these operations," she wrote in an email.*
> 
> "The exact parameters of these restrictions are classified, and will remain in place until the affected diesel generator is replaced."
> 
> She said the diesel generators are large components attached to the submarine's diesel engines, and are used to charge the submarine's battery.
> *
> She estimated the cost of installing a replacement would be about $1.5 million.
> 
> The navy's four submarines were once heralded as a great bargain for taxpayers, but the poor condition of the British-built, diesel-electric vessels has since tarnished their reputation.*
> 
> Prior problems with the fleet include extensive rust, flooding and hull dents.
> 
> *HMCS Victoria — based on the West Coast — is now the navy's only fully operational submarine, having completed the test firing of a live torpedo.*
> 
> Windsor was in operation but remained under dive restrictions and wasn't certified to fire its weapons.
> 
> *HMCS Corner Brook is in dry dock for life extension and repairs after hitting the ocean floor off Vancouver Island.
> 
> The navy recently said HMCS Chicoutimi — which was damaged in a fire 10 years ago that killed a sailor — has been rebuilt and is set to return to the fleet.*


----------



## RedcapCrusader

The poor things. The Navy needs to put them down and move on; keep the 2 in best shape around for training and invest in obtaining new(er) subs. Sell the other two for scraps or to a starving developing Navy. Maybe Argentina would buy them?


----------



## CougarKing

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> The poor things. The Navy needs to put them down and move on; keep the 2 in best shape around for training and invest in obtaining new(er) subs. Sell the other two for scraps or to a starving developing Navy. Maybe Argentina would buy them?



Taiwan would jump at the chance considering they only have 2 modern subs to face the threat of 69 Chinese submarines.


----------



## RedcapCrusader

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Taiwan would jump at the chance considering they only have 2 modern subs to face the threat of 69 Chinese submarines.



They'd probably pay a pretty penny too


----------



## YZT580

If they had wanted them they would have bid on them a decade ago when they first became available.  Perhaps they did a proper survey and decided that there were too many potential trouble spots on boats that had been tied up for so long.


----------



## Journeyman

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> HMCS Victoria — based on the West Coast — is now the navy's only fully operational submarine, *having completed the test firing of a live torpedo*.


WOOHOO!!  How many years?

Ah yes, the downside of retaining obsolete Mk 48 Mod 4s that couldn't be fired from the British subs.  (No mention if the 'test fire' was a US-compatible Mod 7 or not).

Thank you Navy, for reassuring us that the Army and Air Force aren't alone in facing procurement....." _issues_."     :not-again:


----------



## Navy_Blue

There is very little truth in the latest news.  It is actually old news.  The Engine is fine it is the generator that is U/S.  It has been that way for over 12 months and in that time the Windsor has sailed its arse off.  It would not be uncommon to see any ship go in for a "short work period" after running 6 to 12 months.  The Brits were willing to attempt and completed such repairs in the water I am told, but the brass feels the risks are to high and to be honest it is a much safer choice.  Therefore it must go on the lift and while it there they are going to get they're moneys worth and fix and refit what they can.  

Everyone is hoping for it to be a quick as possible.  They are good boats and given time they are going to preform most likely beyond 2020 .  The problem is the media keeps spinning them on slow news days.  

Don't believe everything you hear about the subs take it with a grain of salt.  The problem is we are not allowed to say much in our own defense most times and the truth is much more boring and un news worthy


----------



## Sub Standard

Stacked said:
			
		

> The torpedo firing was completed rimpac 2012 when we sank the USNS Concord. And yes it is a mod 7.  Victoria has been sailing quite hard as of late actually.


  No the torpedo fired was not a Mod 7 it was a MK 48 mod 4M, I should know as I was her TI at the time. As to the "extensive modifications" that were rewired to the torpedo tubes there have been very few changes to the weapons discharge system and the only big change was the swap out of the British fire control system for the Canadian one and the Canadian one is a much better and modern system.  VICTORIA was discharging MK 48 dummy torpedoes in 2004 and 2005 to map out the firing envelope for the 48 on this class.

As to WINDSOR getting repairs done this is old news.  The only reason it hasn't been done sooner is the syncrolift in Halifax has been under going an over haul that took a lot longer than was forecasted.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So have the PAO been working to correct the media's reporting?


----------



## MilEME09

https://buyandsell.gc.ca/procurement-data/tender-notice/PW-14-00628491

found this today, wonder where they will find spare parts for such old subs?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Since they are valves and valve parts I suspect they should not be hard to find. Valves don't change that much, mostly it's the outside casting and flanges that get altered to fit the job.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Since they are valves and valve parts I suspect they should not be hard to find. Valves don't change that much, mostly it's the outside casting and flanges that get altered to fit the job.



A large amount of parts weren't purchased by the RCN and now as the boats age this will become a bigger and bigger problem. Parts for the sub are usually very specialized and expensive. They plan to operate the boats until 2030, with a life extension program starting around 2020. Many Billions more I expect.


----------



## dapaterson

Note that it's being run out of the PWGSC office in Germany.  I suspect they are hoping for the OEMs to bid.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I see that HMCS Victoria is at RimPac in Hawaii


----------



## Mike5

Just thinking about the quote above "The problem is the media keeps spinning them on slow news days.  Don't believe everything you hear about the subs take it with a grain of salt.  The problem is we are not allowed to say much in our own defense most times and the truth is much more boring and un news worthy "

Are we allowed to say anything -- i.e. letters to the editor?  It's frustrating when the media chooses recycling bad news from 10 years ago over honest, objective reporting.


----------



## CougarKing

3 out of 4 subs ain't bad. Though the majority of those commenting at the source link comment section say otherwise.

CBC



> *Navy submarines: first time Canadian fleet is operational*
> CBC – 3 hours ago
> 
> Canada's Navy is marking what it calls a milestone for its controversy-plagued submarine program.
> 
> *For the first time since Canada's four Victoria-class subs were purchased almost two decades ago, the navy says the fleet is now "operational", meaning three of the subs are able to conduct naval operations.
> 
> Two of the subs, HMCS Victoria and HMCS Chicoutimi will be in the water off Esquimalt, B.C. this week, while HMCS Windsor is currently operating out of Halifax.
> 
> A fourth vessel, HMCS Corner Brook is currently in dry dock in Esquimalt in what the navy calls a period of "deep maintenance".  *
> 
> Canada's submarines were bought second-hand from Britain for $896 million in 1998. Critics believe they've cost at least twice that much to fix, maintain and update to modern standards.
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Allen

> We don't have three submarine's ready for operations.   All you have to do is look in the Drydock in Esquimalt and you'll find one of the "operational" ones sitting there.



Isn't that HMCS Corner Brook? According to RCN, not operational but currently docked at Victoria SY for EDWP until 2017.

http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=victoria-class-submarines-reach-operational-steady-state/i6miwqrg


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Stacked said:
			
		

> We don't have three submarine's ready for operations.   All you have to do is look in the Drydock in Esquimalt and you'll find one of the "operational" ones sitting there.


Are you saying VIC or CHI is in drydock?


----------



## Thumper81

Chicoutimi is in drydock.  Soon Victoria will be going into EDWP.


----------



## bigal

I am glad to see they are almost ready-at least three out of four.There has been a lot of technology upgrades done to them from what I have read.There has been so much bashing about these subs its disheartening.I would suspect the DND would start considering new subs in the near future as its not like a car dealership where you lay down your money and drive it away right there and then.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

bigal said:
			
		

> I am glad to see they are almost ready-at least three out of four.There has been a lot of technology upgrades done to them from what I have read.There has been so much bashing about these subs its disheartening.I would suspect the DND would start considering new subs in the near future as its not like a car dealership where you lay down your money and drive it away right there and then.



Politically, I think they'll be looking for 24-36 months of trouble free operational use before we see anything about replacement efforts....otherwise the opposition parties and guys like Steven Staples will be waiting with sharpened blades to jump on the idea before it gets off the ground.


----------



## OldSolduer

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Politically, I think they'll be looking for 24-36 months of trouble free operational use before we see anything about replacement efforts....otherwise the opposition parties and guys like Steven Staples will be waiting with sharpened blades to jump on the idea before it gets off the ground.



Stephen Staples - is that little t**t still relevant?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Count me as surprised....but it appears the Navy is trying to push forward immediately.


Link:  http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/05/02/canada-submarine-naval-victoria/26603667/



> VICTORIA, British Columbia — Canada has begun work on a multibillion-dollar project to ensure it has a submarine capability beyond 2025.
> 
> Naval planners are determining the various options for extending the life of the Victoria-class submarines. They hope to finish a report on those options by June for senior officers.
> 
> Depending on the capabilities selected and the length of the life-extension for the boats, the cost of the project will be CAN $1.5 billion to $3 billion (US $1.2 billion to $2.5 billion), Royal Canadian Navy Capt. Wade Carter, director of naval requirements, told industry representatives at a closed-door meeting April 7, according to briefing materials obtained by Defense News.


----------



## Lumber

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Count me as surprised....but it appears the Navy is trying to push forward immediately.
> 
> 
> Link:  http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/05/02/canada-submarine-naval-victoria/26603667/



This still doesn't tell us anything about what the plan is to actually replace the VICs. What do we do when we can't extend their lives any longer?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Count me as surprised....but it appears the Navy is trying to push forward immediately.
> 
> 
> Link:  http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/naval/submarines/2015/05/02/canada-submarine-naval-victoria/26603667/



No surprise at all, actually. I would even say that is a little behind the eight-ball.

A submarine replacement program requires about 15 years from inception to first hulls in the water. And that is not in a country like Canada, which screws up acquisition processes all the time.


----------



## quadrapiper

Stacked said:
			
		

> My bet is the submarine program will be scrapped before the submarine life extension is even relevant.


The submarines are a bird in the hand, as far as recent naval projects go: while I have no idea of the operational lifespan expected of a sub versus a frigate, the subs are somewhat newer and less used than those workhorses. Rather expect the program will survive.


			
				Stacked said:
			
		

> Also, there is no way in hell these boats will be able to operate until 2033.   They can barely operate in 2015 as it is.


Can't speak to the former comment, but as far as the latter, it's very much not the story I'm hearing from a senior West Coast submariner chief who volunteers with my corps. The boats seem to be very much a going concern.


----------



## Lumber

Stacked said:
			
		

> These news articles that say we have three running boats are a total farce.



Did a sub go missing? From what I can tell, CHI is doing sea trials, WIN and VIC are both active...


----------



## Monsoon

Stacked said:
			
		

> All one needs to do is look in the esquimalt drydock. I'll leave it at that.


The long-term steady state was always intended to be three boats up and one in EWP/drydock: that's the 100% solution. Having 75% of your force available for deployment is very good by any standard.


----------



## Monsoon

Hey, why not go ahead and post the OPSKED, too? It would save the bad guys a lot of time and effort.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Stacked said:
			
		

> There are two boats in refit, I'm not sure how you can consider either boats in drydock operational and ready for deployment.



Shhh.....don't disturb the echo chamber.  :


----------



## Underway

Sub replacement questions for those out there who know.

Building a sub industry from scratch is extremely expensive and complicated (ref: Australia) for what will probably be 4 subs (or are requirements going to be different?).  Can a shipyard like Seaspan undergo a simple refit to build subs?  They seem to have done well in the sub midlife and the full repair of Chicoutimi from everything I've heard.  But repair/refit is no the same as full on build.  

What are the special requirements for sub yard.  I've read somewhere that there needs to be a capability to "slide" decks and equipment into blocks before the blocks are welded together.

Lead time for the sub replacement planning (15 years or so someone has stated here)?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Considering the small numbers we will need, there is an excellent argument not to build them here, but tag onto an existing order or take part in a order with someone like Australia.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering the small numbers we will need, there is an excellent argument not to build them here, but tag onto an existing order or take part in a order with someone like Australia.



True, however Oz's subs are probably going to be replaced sooner than later.  I don't think their replacement is in our time frame.  Also the Japanese sub seems to be the front runner and it might not be what we are looking for in capability.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

From my reading the Collins and the Upholders were some of the biggest non-nuclear subs built, mainly to deal with the large Pacific Ocean. It would make sense to combine the 3 countries if possible, but I think it will be a hard sell here. While Japan could get away with smaller subs, that would limit their scope. Who knows they might even go for 2 classes, one for littoral waters and one for ocean going.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering the small numbers we will need, there is an excellent argument not to build them here, but tag onto an existing order or take part in a order with someone like Australia.



It would seem like a slam dunk as long as you could get the political win of an offsetting military purchase (or purchases): LAV's, helicopters, other ships, etc. so the employment gains were balanced.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Just reading "Through a Canadian Periscope, " Just into the part about debating between the Nuke boats, US Barbel class and the O boats. The dithering, indecision, regional benefits, poor presentation skills and rotating government, nothing has really changed other than back then we still had a robust ship building industry.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin,

The BArbel's were not nuke boats. They were one of the last US diesel boat, but they were considered at the same time as the "o" boats. They were more expensive but clearly superior to the "o" boats.

It's only in the time of Mulroney that we considered nuclear boats seriously, and then the wall fell.

The highly specialized skills required for assembling and welding pressure hulls makes it near impossible to efficiently develop the capability for a very small number of boats, as the Australians discovered.

However, any boat that satisfies the requirements of Australia would normally satisfy our needs also. The Collins replacement boats program would be a perfect fit: By the time the last Australian boat would hit the water would correspond to the timeline for replacement of our first boats.


----------



## dapaterson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It's only in the time of Mulroney that we considered nuclear boats seriously, and then the wall fell.



It was never serious; it was a sop to the pro-military base of a political party.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

OGBD thanks, I do realize the Barbel were Diesel-Electric and according to the book the first choice of the RCN, although apparently a proposal was floating around to replace 1/2 of the surface fleet with nuke subs for hunting Soviet subs, I can imagine the bun fighting that caused. It appears by the time we got our act together the Barbel door was shut, shame seem like really nice boats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbel-class_submarine


----------



## Edward Campbell

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It was never serious; it was a sop to the pro-military base of a political party.




Actually it *was serious*, all the way up to and including Minister Beatty.

What wasn't _serious_ was the money allocated. The authors of the White Paper, mostly from Toronto, did a good enough job on getting decent life cycle costs for the French _Rubis_ class boats and those costs would have covered a smaller number of Brit _Trafalgar_ class boats, too.

Where they dropped the ball was on _infrastructure_ costs which, in a long into the night brainstorming session led by two two stars (a RAdm and a MGen, both engineers), we calculated to be, at the very, very minimum 125% of the capital and life cycle costs ~ so we needed $20-25 Billion, not $10B, and we needed a lot of it to be front loaded.

It died a pretty quick death when we offered those numbers ...


----------



## dapaterson

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually it *was serious*, all the way up to and including Minister Beatty.
> 
> What wasn't _serious_ was the money allocated. The authors of the White Paper, mostly from Toronto, did a good enough job on getting decent life cycle costs for the French _Rubis_ class boats and those costs would have covered a smaller number of Brit _Trafalgar_ class boats, too.
> 
> Where they dropped the ball was on _infrastructure_ costs which, in a long into the night brainstorming session led by two two stars (a RAdm and a MGen, both engineers), we calculated to be, at the very, very minimum 125% of the capital and life cycle costs ~ so we needed $20-25 Billion, not $10B, and we needed a lot of it to be front loaded.
> 
> It died a pretty quick death when we offered those numbers ...



If you haven't costed it out and received approval of the cost, it's not serious.  Until the money is in hand, it's an idea, not a plan.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually it *was serious*, all the way up to and including Minister Beatty.
> 
> What wasn't _serious_ was the money allocated. The authors of the White Paper, mostly from Toronto, did a good enough job on getting decent life cycle costs for the French _Rubis_ class boats and those costs would have covered a smaller number of Brit _Trafalgar_ class boats, too.
> 
> Where they dropped the ball was on _infrastructure_ costs which, in a long into the night brainstorming session led by two two stars (a RAdm and a MGen, both engineers), we calculated to be, at the very, very minimum 125% of the capital and life cycle costs ~ so we needed $20-25 Billion, not $10B, and we needed a lot of it to be front loaded.
> 
> It died a pretty quick death when we offered those numbers ...


Was that the refueling facility costs?


----------



## Edward Campbell

That was part of it. NDHQ had limited input to that White Paper; a lot of Conservative members (also members of the RCMI) in Toronto had too much say.

They simply didn't understand how much it would cost to develop the infrastructure before the first nuclear boat arrived ...

As dapaterson says, they had a Big Idea but they were amateur (armchair) strategists and a White Paper needs engineers and accountants to get it right. (I know that offends some who think that the engineers and accountants should dance to the _operators' tunes_ but that's not how it works and it hasn't worked that way since about 1570 (when Elizabeth I and John Hawkins made a deal with the dock workers at Chatham).)


----------



## Underway

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> That was part of it. NDHQ had limited input to that White Paper; a lot of Conservative members (also members of the RCMI) in Toronto had too much say.
> 
> They simply didn't understand how much it would cost to develop the infrastructure before the first nuclear boat arrived ...
> 
> As dapaterson says, they had a Big Idea but they were amateur (armchair) strategists and a White Paper needs engineers and accountants to get it right. (I know that offends some who think that the engineers and accountants should dance to the _operators' tunes_ but that's not how it works and it hasn't worked that way since about 1570 (when Elizabeth I and John Hawkins made a deal with the dock workers at Chatham).)



The prelude to battle is the work of the engineering dept....

This is one of the reasons that the FELEX radars are what they are.  The operators wanted two new 3D radars and one of them was to be the SMART L.  They got one 3D radar which was the SMART S (though now the argument is that the volume search radar should have been 2D and the tracking radar be 3D...).  Because of cost and engineering issues (mostly cost though).

Its also a reflection of the current shopping list that no one told them about costs or even in some cases the tactics involved.  Massive armed ice breakers?  That was an election promise that had to be changed when it ran up against costs and navy requirements.

My biggest concern is for the continued existance of the sub fleet.  It's easy to explain the need for tanks to Canadians and to be perfectly honest the army is cheap to run (relatively).  Subs are a big price tag with the associated sticker shock.  Every naval expert out there understands and has no disagreement on the need for subs.  It's a bizzare situation.  Due to the political football that was the subs the public now percieve subs as a waste of money with little to no advantage.  IF one could get under ice capable non-nuclear subs that would probably be a game changer.  That would be a capability that the gov't could easily sell and clearly demonstrate something that no other military asset could do.  Currently no AIP can be run with enough confidence for under ice.  It's probably an endurance issue,  I could see under edge ice (which we probably do now) but not full ice cap ice.  This article is a good indicator on how the submariners view AIP.



> SEA 1000
> CONVENTIONAL AIR INDEPENDENT PROPULSION
> 
> Byline: Rex Patrick / Sydney
> 
> AIP for Australia
> In January 2008 Captain (Ret) James Patton, USN, published an article in the US Naval Submarine League’s quarterly journal reporting on a submarine conference he’d attended in Europe in late 2007. He mentioned in the article a conversation he’d had with an RAN submariner Commodore and Commander. Asked about the likely role of Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) in Australia’s future submarine force, the Commodore indicated that he didn’t think that Australia would be interested in AIP from an operational point of view. The Commander then offered a “Yeah, but …” opinion that some form of AIP would be valuable as a contingency system – like parachutes for fighter pilots or fire extinguishers and active sonars on submarines – something that wasn’t intended to be used, but when pinned down in some shallow water or bay with the battery running low, it would be nice to have a week or so of emergency propulsion to extricate oneself from adversaries. At the time the Commander represented the entirety of the RAN’s future submarine project “team” and he knew the Commodore was mistaken. In the shadow of his superior officer, and in the best interests of the RAN, he had delicately tried to correct the faux pas.
> AIP is an essential capability in modern conventional submarines. Today it is utilised in German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Pakistani, Portuguese, Singaporean, South Korean and Swedish submarines and will soon be found on Indian, Israeli, Spanish and Turkish submarines. In the past ten year, the only countries that have signed contracts for non AIP submarines are new entrant navies or those that have or are developing a nuclear capability, itself a form of AIP.


----------



## Baz

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I know that offends some who think that the engineers and accountants should dance to the _operators' tunes_ but that's not how it works and it hasn't worked that way since about 1570 (when Elizabeth I and John Hawkins made a deal with the dock workers at Chatham).



Being an operator, and one of the people who believe engineers and accountants need to stay in their lanes, I'll rise to that challenge.

... and state that so do operators (need to stay in their lanes).

Engineers and accountants win wars, operators win battles.  And by winning wars I mean that they are absolutely required to focus the resources of the nation to the overall effort.  Operators would have you believe that money is not important in combat... it absolutely is; when you run out, you lose.

Even in peacetime, anything most operators come up with is not supportable in the medium to long term... that's why the MR process is flawed.  It results in operators spending a lot of money patching holes, and not very effectively.

Unfortunately, Canadian engineers and accountants don't seem able to get it right either!

What I will say, and have written papers right, is that Engineers and Accountants don't know how to:
- design a _usable_ system; operators need to be involved.  And it shouldn't be through operator's embedded at the project offices.  It should be by specing a modern development process, which uses agile methodology, and has the contractor human factor types have direct, robust access to real operators.  Which the projects office hate because, left unchecked, leads to scope creep (perfect example: F-35);
- lead in combat: they just don't do well wrapping their heads around the human component.

What really confuses me is operators that honestly don't care if the system is capable of doing its job; aren't they the ones who will be taking the risks if we have to use it in its design role.  The engineers and accountants have the luxury of saying "hmm, that didn't go well, fix it up and find some more saps, er I mean operators..."  At best case the operators will be left sitting in the life raft going "hmm... that didn't go well, now what do we do?"

Last point: I hate the term operator; it implies I exist to support the weapon system.  I prefer how the Americans say it: warfighter; which implies the weapon system is their to support me fighting.


ERC: how's that, do I sound like an operator?


----------



## Kirkhill

Back to Pugh, folks.

Every system is doomed to fail unless the owner (the person using the tool) is satisfied.  Engineers exist to satisfy the owner.  Accountants are a necessary evil.

Most jobs start with the owner saying "I need to get this job done, by this time and I have this much money to spend".

Then the spiral starts. 

Roto 0: Here's what I'd like. Here's what is possible. Here's what it costs.
Check against budget
Roto 1 Here's what I can live with. Here's how you could do that. Here's what it costs.
Check against budget
Repeat as necessary.

The thing is - you have to go round that spiral three or four times before you can even consider setting a proper budget - much less establishing a project.   And your vendors should expect that.

The Duke University study "THE NSPS SHIPBUILDING VALUE CHAINS" does an excellent job of explaining the process.  
http://www.cggc.duke.edu/pdfs/NSPS_GVC_Analysis_Jan2013_01282013.pdf

The thing is for you lot - how many times can you get around the spiral before your decision makers change and you have to start all over again?

PS - WRT the quality of Canadian engineers.

Canadian engineers are as good/bad as anybody else's.  The issue is how many mistakes have they made in the past.  I like engineers that have made a lot of mistakes.  That means that they have put a lot of systems into production.  Engineers that have not made mistakes are engineers that not produced systems... and in many fields, due to the small Canadian market many Canadian engineers have not had the opportunity to make mistakes.

The real definition of quality is do the engineers have enough knowledge to guide the user through the realm of the possible and how do they manage their mistakes.

Equally though, it is a great help if the client is a qualified client and knows what they are asking for and how it might be used.

I get the strong sense that in Canada, due to long intervals between major defence projects and the demand for defence projects to be nationally sourced we end up with the worst of both worlds:  neophyte engineers and neophyte clients/owners/users/operators.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Baz said:
			
		

> Being an operator, and one of the people who believe engineers and accountants need to stay in their lanes, I'll rise to that challenge.
> 
> ... and state that so do operators (need to stay in their lanes).
> 
> Engineers and accountants win wars, operators win battles.  And by winning wars I mean that they are absolutely required to focus the resources of the nation to the overall effort.  Operators would have you believe that money is not important in combat... it absolutely is; when you run out, you lose.
> 
> Even in peacetime, anything most operators come up with is not supportable in the medium to long term... that's why the MR process is flawed.  It results in operators spending a lot of money patching holes, and not very effectively.
> 
> Unfortunately, Canadian engineers and accountants don't seem able to get it right either!
> 
> What I will say, and have written papers right, is that Engineers and Accountants don't know how to:
> - design a _usable_ system; operators need to be involved.  And it shouldn't be through operator's embedded at the project offices.  It should be by specing a modern development process, which uses agile methodology, and has the contractor human factor types have direct, robust access to real operators.  Which the projects office hate because, left unchecked, leads to scope creep (perfect example: F-35);
> - lead in combat: they just don't do well wrapping their heads around the human component.
> 
> What really confuses me is operators that honestly don't care if the system is capable of doing its job; aren't they the ones who will be taking the risks if we have to use it in its design role.  The engineers and accountants have the luxury of saying "hmm, that didn't go well, fix it up and find some more saps, er I mean operators..."  At best case the operators will be left sitting in the life raft going "hmm... that didn't go well, now what do we do?"
> 
> Last point: I hate the term operator; it implies I exist to support the weapon system.  I prefer how the Americans say it: warfighter; which implies the weapon system is their to support me fighting.
> 
> 
> _ERC: how's that, do I sound like an operator?_




Baz, you sound like one of the (precious few) good guys, like some of the best operators I knew: HC Pitts, Jack Vance, Lyn Mason and Larry Murray, and I'm sure a few other _Old Timers _could add a few more names to that list. I see nothing much with which I could disagree ... and I used to work (1980s) for the chief engineer, and I'm pretty sure he would agree, too.

_En passant:_ There were some _engineers_ (using that term to describe people from branches like e.g. RCE and RCCS, in  the Army) who could lead (still can, in the cases of e.g. LGen Thibault and MGen Neasmith (both personal friends, _I am, almost certainly, biased_)), but I agree that it's far, far less than the norm.


----------



## Old Sweat

There usually is more than enough blame to be shared in development programmes. Note: Mods, perhaps this could be a separate thread.

I just finished Adrew Godefroy's new book, _In Peace Prepared_, on the Canadian Army's combat development process, which was a rigorous, well-disciplined but lengthy approach. This prompted me, after reading the above commentss, to google Bobcat Armoured Personnel Carrier, which was the Canadian Army's attempt to produce a designed and made in Canada APC. The project was conceived in 1952, but it took until 1956 to come up with an approved requirement document. A few test models were built, but serious design flaws appeared and eventually in late 1963 the project was cancelled. We bought 961 of the M113A1 family of APCs instead.

Personal notes:

In 1959 or maybe 1960 our troop in 4 RCHA was tasked to support live firing trials of the 105mm SP version. I think we provided a gun detachment and CP crew including me as a young arty tech. I may have been on the artillery board and produced the firing data to be put on the sights. Anyway, away we went and the first round was fired, at which point the tracks broke. Back we went to camp, leaving various contractors, engineers and the like to pick up the pieces and take it back to Ottawa. A year or two later (see above years) I was an officer cadet in Shilo when the SP appeared again for testing at the artillery school. Our course officer arranged for our class to see it and we went out and clambered all over it. Maybe it was all my fault and I jinxed it, because the tracks failed again. 

Personal opinion: Even if it had been a flawless design and the best APC in the world, we could not have sold it to the Brits or the Americans, both of whom were developing their own. Thus, like the Avro Arrow, we would have ended up with a relatively few very, very expensive APCs. Unlike ship or aircraft building, the production run, technological boost  and jobs created would not have been enough to get much political support in any case.


----------



## Edward Campbell

But there's another problem or, at least, another spanner in the works, which is _*a)*_ why I joined a discussion about nuclear submarines, and _*b)*_ why I mentioned Chatham and 1570: it is the government of the day, the queen's (people's) treasury, not the admirals and generals, who decides what equipment you're going to get, how much money will be spent on it, and, even, why you're going to get it (rather than something you want/need). Any ideas about the military's _operational requirements_ and _procurement strategies_ must be viewed through that _political_ lens or your just blowing smoke up one another's arses.


Edit: punctuation


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Reading the book on the subs shows that we are wonderfully consistent in mucking up procurement of subs. I wonder if we can convince Christy Clark to follow in the footsteps McBride?  8)


----------



## Underway

A very good video on the Victoria.

HMCS VICTORIA:  A Long Beginning  Distribute widely as it seems the navy is now taking the proper route to selling submarines to the Canadian public.  Giving them information to make up their own minds. (yes I know this was on youtube over a year ago I just thought it was cool and topical ;D)

I particularly like the WG information.  It's one of the gems in the RCN's training system that's not talked about enough IMHO.  Combined CAN/US operation and it does an amazing job.


----------



## larry Strong

At approx. 11.04 there is a member running a key board at the Mk 48 weapons station wearing camo "Medical" epaulette??????




Cheers
Larry


----------



## RedcapCrusader

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> At approx. 11.04 there is a member running a key board at the Mk 48 weapons station wearing camo "Medical" epaulette??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Larry



It appeared to be blank. Might indicate that they're a First Aider?


----------



## larry Strong

RedcapCrusader said:
			
		

> It appeared to be blank. Might indicate that they're a First Aider?




Good point....hadn't thought of that. That would make sense.

Thanks
Larry


----------



## medicineman

It's the boat's Physician Assistant - part of their job on a sub is plotting surface targets and assisting with fire control, when they're not driving and playing Doc.

MM


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Posted it to FB along with a suggestion to read "Through a Canadian Periscope"  8)


----------



## Underway

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


> .....................
> In reviewing existing non-nuclear AIP it is useful to clarify some popular misconceptions that have developed about these systems. Regrettably, it is all too common for manufacturers to quote optimistic performance figures for speed, endurance and atmosphere, often out of context with practical considerations of submarine operations.
> Here are some clarifications of the capabilities of AIP systems:
> 
> • Speed: an AIP-configured conventional submarine may be able to achieve speeds in excess of 20 knots, but it can only do it for very short periods, usually measured in minutes. AIP does not deliver the continuous and virtually limitless high speed sustainable by a nuclear-propelled submarine.
> 
> • Endurance: non-nuclear AIP systems are limited by the fuel they need to operate (all use LOX as a minimum) and what can be carried onboard the submarine. Judicious operation of the AIP system will be required to avoid quickly exhausting fuel supplies before having to return to conventional diesel engines to generate power.
> 
> _• Atmosphere: currently conventional submarines clear the internal atmosphere when they snort. By carrying LOX onboard, it is possible to regenerate oxygen supplies without snorting, but there is little capability to cope with a fire while submerged. It is for this reason alone that prolonged under-ice operations are impractical in a non-nuclear propelled submarine_.
> 
> ..............emphasis mine..............


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

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

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


----------



## suffolkowner

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

Perhaps a Victoria Class replacement?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

dang not what we or they needed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

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

He is professor of international law and politics.

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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Colin Parkinson

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


----------



## George Wallace

Colin P said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## Underway

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


----------



## Colin Parkinson

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

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


----------



## cupper

Interesting take on the same event by CBC.

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

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

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



> Top East Coast naval brass are pointing to a recent foray by a foreign power as an act of aggression that shows why Canada needs a strong sub-sea presence.
> 
> Rear-Admiral John Newton, commander of the East Coast navy, shared details of the 2015 incident during a media tour aboard HMCS Windsor, one of Canada's four submarines.
> 
> Last fall, NATO forces noticed five submarines belonging to a major foreign power moving into the North Atlantic. Newton did not name the country.
> 
> The subs—four nuclear-powered and one diesel-electric—were tracked to the area near Iceland and Greenland.
> 
> The Canadian military deployed Halifax-based HMCS Windsor, and Aurora patrol aircraft from 14 Wing Greenwood.
> 
> The response was in coordination with American and European allies to "demonstrate resolve" against this show of aggression, Newton said.
> 
> *Teaching old subs new tricks*
> 
> HMCS Windsor is one of four submarines purchased by the Canadian government nearly two decades ago from Britain. They were slow to be put into service, and have had numerous issues over the years including on-board fires and collisions with the sea floor.
> 
> But the subs are getting significant technological refits.
> 
> HMCS Windsor is now using the same sonar system found on the United States' Virginia-class submarines, considered among the most capable nuclear subs on the planet. The sonar system can identify and track targets from many kilometres away.
> 
> Military officials showed the system to members of the media, but did not permit them to take pictures or disclose specific details about its performance capabilities.
> 
> *'These submarines or no submarines'*
> 
> Canada's submarines have often been criticized for being second-hand and expensive to maintain.
> 
> While both those assertions are true, the subs are still good value for money, said Ken Hansen, a retired military officer and independent maritime security analyst.
> 
> "It was these submarines or no submarines," he said. "We couldn't have bought new submarines for the money that was available [in 1998]. Therefore, we had to buy used. It was simple."
> 
> He said the submarines are powered by diesel-electric engines, which are quieter than many nuclear-powered submarines.
> 
> Beneath the surface, HMCS Windsor runs on battery power. A nuclear submarine needs complex systems for power and heat management that produce slightly more noise.
> 
> The next mission for Canada's East Coast submarine involves a trip to Norway, followed by a series of international exercises planned to take place in the waters between Halifax and St. John's.


----------



## PuckChaser

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


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Never underestimate them sneaky Norks!!!


----------



## Eaglelord17

PuckChaser said:
			
		

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



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


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eaglelord,

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


----------



## Lumber

Eaglelord17 said:
			
		

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



I never understood this either.

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


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Lumber said:
			
		

> I never understood this either.
> 
> We ripped out the torpedo system because the subs were equipped for Spearfish, and we use Mk48s. Would it not have been a lot cheaper and simpler to buy some Spearfish then to rip out an entire, complicated, weapons system and install a new one onto a platform that wasn't designed from the start to take it?



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

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


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

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

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

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


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

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


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

cupper said:
			
		

> Interesting take on the same event by CBC.
> 
> Can someone explain how the North Koreans got to the East Coast?
> 
> *Incident in North Atlantic last fall shows why Canada needs submarines, navy says
> NATO forces identified 5 subs from a major foreign power moving into North Atlantic last year*
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/hmcs-windsor-submarine-canada-navy-greenwood-subs-halifax-1.3601633



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

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

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


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

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

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


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

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


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


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

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



op:


----------



## cupper

:facepalm: 

So you're saying it was Pakistan?

:rofl:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

:bowdown:

No, No, No:  I -N- D - I- A !


----------



## Cloud Cover

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> :bowdown:
> 
> No, No, No:  I -N- D - I- A !



The taxi meter must have spinning out of control.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Thing is, if the Navy is the Silent Service, the Submarine service is like the Silent Service of the Silent Service. I am glad that current naval leadership now recognizes that too much secrecy is bad for support for submarines in the public and are slowly lifting parts of the veil to address this PR matter. But for the good of the service, I think it is better to let the leadership of the Navy decide which part of the veil to lift and to which extent while remaining mum on the rest.
> 
> 
> Those of us who support continued operation of submarines by Canada (I am one of them), should continue to support their use in public, but as until now, only on the basis of what is already public.



Specifically related to the yellow part of OGBDs post above, and in addition to what Cupper posted earlier in the thread here.  Great PR for the Silent Service and HMCS Windsor.  BZ to the crew.

Article Link

Canadian sub in underwater hunt for Russian vessel

*HMCS Windsor dispatched on underwater hunt when Russia deployed five attack subs into the North Atlantic last fall, the Star has learned.
*

ONBOARD HMCS WINDSOR—A Canadian submarine was on the front lines as NATO allies scrambled last fall to track a “surge” of Russian subs that had deployed into the North Atlantic, the Star has learned.

HMCS Windsor, already in European waters for a NATO exercise, was re-tasked on a mission to try to track the Russian vessels. 

Rear-Adm. John Newton, commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic, called the movement of Russian submarines “historically significant.”

“There was a quite a surge of Russian strategic power . . . it was moving a lot of boats around the North Atlantic,” he told the Star this week.

On the move were five Russian attack submarines, a show of force that might have been Moscow’s response to “Trident Juncture,” NATO’s largest exercise in a decade, involving 36,000 personnel from more than 30 nations.

But with the Russian boats active, the exercise turned real as NATO nations responded with ships and aircraft.

That included the HMCS Windsor, one of four Victoria-class submarines operated by the Royal Canadian Navy, which had been taking part in the NATO drill.

“Near the end, we were working bilaterally, nation-to-nation, in European waters when the opportunity came up to deal with a surge of undersea activity in the North Atlantic,” Newton said.

“Our role is to go with the alliance . . . and participate in coordinated surveillance, tracking, intelligence gathering,” he said.

The Star was among several media outlets invited onboard HMCS Windsor this week to get a glimpse of submarine life as it cruised underwater in the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Nova Scotia.

The extent of Canada's role in last fall’s maritime cat-and-mouse game has not previously been disclosed.

For HMCS Windsor, the tasking set in motion a search far below the rolling ocean surface, as its crew used sophisticated sonar gear to listen for the telltale sounds of a Russian boat hiding in the depths.

And the submarine had a more capable set of ears, so to speak, thanks to a sonar system installed in 2014, the same gear used on the U.S. Virginia-class nuclear submarines, Newton said.

The upgraded sonar enables the crew of HMCS Windsor to pick up contacts at a longer distance and detect the telltale sounds of engines, even the noises of bearings, air pumps and hydraulic motors, to determine the classification of a ship, sometimes even the exact ship.

During its mission, HMCS Windsor prowled the area from the North Sea down to the Strait of Gibraltar, the strategic gateway to the Mediterranean.

Lt.-Cmdr. Peter Chu, commanding officer of the HMCS Windsor, says the boat was a “major” part of NATO’s effort to “track, follow and respond.”

“The situation evolved, matured. Canada presented the asset to NATO and off we went,” Chu said in an interview.

“What is really important is that Canada had an asset — HMCS Windsor — that was responding, tactically and operationally ready, and were able to do whatever NATO wanted,” he said.

The Star has learned that a (sic) CP-140M Aurora aircraft — dispatched overseas last November at the request of Great Britain — was also employed in the search to detect and track the Russian subs.  

The surveillance aircraft — purpose-built as a sub hunter and upgraded with new electronics to better search for targets — was deployed to the Royal Air Force base at Lossiemouth in northern Scotland. The defence department has refused to talk about the aircraft’s role, saying only that it “routinely conducts operations and exercises” with the British :Tin-Foil-Hat:, a statement it repeated to the Star on Friday.  

Last fall’s surge by Russia comes as American and NATO military leaders are sounding the alarm about heightened levels of activity by the Russian submarine fleet that boast new capabilities and more proficient crews.

The commander of U.S. naval forces in Europe told CNN last month that Russia is deploying its submarines in numbers not seen in decades.

“The submarines that we're seeing are much more stealthy,” Adm. Mark Ferguson told the news network.

“We're seeing (the Russians) have more advanced weapons systems, missile systems that can attack land at long ranges, and we also see their operating proficiency is getting better as they range farther from home waters,” Ferguson said.

The drama also happened against the backdrop of heightened tensions between NATO nations and Russia over Moscow’s aggression against Ukraine.

Newton said last fall’s events underscore the role of the subs — to covertly gather intelligence that is then shared with allies. “It’s a very clandestine battle. You never want to show your adversary you detect them,” Newton said.

Neither Chu nor Newton would say whether HMCS Windsor was able to detect and track one of the Russian vessels.

“We definitely were a major contributor. Everything with regards to the deployment was very successful,” Chu said.

But Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, suggests that HMCS Windsor was successful in its mission. In a new video to highlight the navy, Norman singles out the submarine’s work last fall.

“The operational success of HMCS Windsor in particular is worthy of recognition,” Norman says.

“She was employed to help our NATO partners keep tabs on a very important vessel that was transiting through NATO’s operating areas,” Norman said.

HMCS Windsor returned to its Halifax home in December after 101 days at sea, the longest mission yet for Canada’s Victoria-class submarines and the high point of a maritime program burdened by its share of troubles.

Getting subs bought second-hand from the British operational has cost money and the life of a Canadian sailor, who was killed in 2004 when fire broke out on HMCS Chicoutimi.

But navy commanders are hoping the worst is behind them as they now exploit the capabilities of the sub fleet. 

“For this boat, that was the peak of its operational readiness . . . to be employed directly in a task important to NATO, important to our bilateral relations with the French, the British and the Americans,” Newton said.

“She was doing her job.”


----------



## cupper

What? The Russians?

Who would have guessed that? :facepalm:

 [


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

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



No, it was as SKT said...money. The Navy at the time wanted Spearfish, but the government was unwilling to pay extra for them. We wanted the ESM fits too, but they wouldn't pay for those either.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> No, it was as SKT said...money. The Navy at the time wanted Spearfish, but the government was unwilling to pay extra for them. We wanted the ESM fits too, but they wouldn't pay for those either.



My apologies drunknsumrnr, but what does ESM stand for in this case? 

Thanks in advance, Matthew.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Electronic Support Measures; the ability to detect, say, the RADAR and stuff.  ESM can tell you who/what is in the area and emitting.

Not a fan of this site as a reference but...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_warfare_support_measures


----------



## Colin Parkinson

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> No, it was as SKT said...money. The Navy at the time wanted Spearfish, but the government was unwilling to pay extra for them. We wanted the ESM fits too, but they wouldn't pay for those either.



Interesting I always understood it was the Navy pushing for the US weapons


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Electronic Support Measures; the ability to detect, say, the RADAR and stuff.  ESM can tell you who/what is in the area and emitting.
> 
> Not a fan of this site as a reference but...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_warfare_support_measures



Thanks EyeInTheSky.  Cheers, Matthew.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Well here's some uplifting news for the Dutch Navy,seems like it's done the new subs will come. 

y Niels Rigter - June 17, 2016

The Hague - The Netherlands needs submarines. With that finding, the government fixes the start of the replacement of the four submarines, a billion project.

Is expected to Hennis Secretary (Defence) today with a sketch of the need as defense sees. According to insiders also need new submarines 'expeditionary' are thus suitable for operation over long distances. They should not only be useful for intelligence gathering but also for tactical operations of special forces and deterrence

Thereby Netherlands would maintain its current position within NATO. Netherlands brings with current submarines of Walrus class a unique force in the alliance: the submarines are big enough to be able to operate over long distances, but also quiet enough not to run into the holes in intelligence gathering. In that respect, they differ both from the robust nuclear submarines as the French, British and Americans who have and the little kustverdedigingssubmarines of Norwegians. Apart from the Netherlands alone, Canada has similar submarines.

About money is in the sketch according to a source Hague nothing. For the whole project Defense estimated 2.5 billion. According to experts, is that enough for four new boats. At the same time four or the minimum amount that the Navy from the feet said to be based on the rule of thumb that there is always one boat is in maintenance, one for education and training, one is engaged in mission area and one on the way.

International cooperation can help. Defense wants to work with "one or more partner countries' purchase new submarines and develop, in partnership with research institutes and industry. Dutch companies such as Thales (radar and communications) and shipbuilder Damen stand in front to help with development.

Earlier Hennis gave in the House that cooperation with Norway is promising. The Norwegians find another - smaller - type boat, meant for coastal defenses along the fjords. These "subs" are noticeably cheaper.

The Lower House majority convinced of the usefulness of new submarines. The cost, however, can indeed constitute a political divisive the next few years.


ps,the 2.5 billion will not be enough,but sources say there's about 4 billion availeble.

gr,walter(used google tranlate,sorry for any mistakes)


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Has the navy talked about an eventual replacement?

Numbers?
Replacement timing?

I have to assume the submarine community in Canada was watching the Australian selection of the DCNS design with great interest.


----------



## FSTO

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Has the navy talked about an eventual replacement?
> 
> Numbers?
> Replacement timing?
> 
> I have to assume the submarine community in Canada was watching the Australian selection of the DCNS design with great interest.



Cripes we are on pins and needles about the AORs! Planning for new subs? Madness I tell you, MADNESS!!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Has the navy talked about an eventual replacement?



I googled "Liberal Part of Canada Submarine Replacement Program...which lead me directly to this site. 

 ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

We should go for the Victor III, they're 40% off !!!!!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Ya, grab a few extra and put them away on the top shelf in the closet for 'later'!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

this would give a Surface and Subsurface ability in a multi-task hull

http://www.hobbylinc.com/hobbyboss-french-surcouf-sub-cruiser-plastic-model-military-ship-kit-1:350-scale-hy83522


----------



## Colin Parkinson

HMCS Chicoutimi anticipated again at sea by finish of yr, says RCN commander

http://buzzbry.com/hmcs-chicoutimi-expected-back-at-sea-by-end-of-year-says-rcn-commander/


----------



## PuckChaser

That is a terribly written article. Looks like it wasn't in English originally, but translated to English with Google translate.


----------



## dimsum

From the National Post.  Wonder if this will become a political hot potato in the next election?   >


> Canadian navy will lose submarine fleet in next few years without billions in upgrades: DND report
> 
> OTTAWA — The navy’s submarine fleet will have to be cut adrift in the next few years unless the federal government opts to spend billions to upgrade the ships, according to internal Defence Department documents.
> 
> The documents show that the first submarine, HMCS Victoria, is scheduled to reach its end of service life in 2022. The other three vessels will follow until the last, HMCS Windsor, retires in 2027.
> 
> The documents, released to The Canadian Press through the Access to Information Act, peg the cost of extending the lives of the submarines at between $1.5 billion and $3 billion, depending on how long the vessels would remain in service and what technical upgrades would be made. They don’t specify when a decision needs to be made, but work needs to begin by 2020 to prevent a gap.
> 
> Military officials have recently praised the submarines. Royal Canadian Navy commander Vice-Admiral Ron Lloyd described the vessels in June as “essential” to the navy’s ability to protect the country and help NATO, an assessment that was echoed by defence chief Gen. Jonathan Vance.
> 
> “As Canadians, I think we want to know who’s operating on, above and below our water from a sovereignty perspective,” Lloyd said. “The one strategic asset that allows you to understand what’s operating below the water is a submarine. Nothing else can replace that.”
> 
> But any investment is likely to stoke controversy. The submarines have been plagued by technical problems since they were bought used from the United Kingdom in 1998 for what the Chretien government described as a bargain $750 million.
> 
> While naval officials say they have managed to fix many of the problems and have started using the submarines in earnest, two were docked early this year over concerns about shoddy welding that prevented them from diving. Another had to be repaired after breaking down en route to a training exercise in Norway in June.
> 
> At the same time, the government is preparing to shell out billions for new fighter jets while the army has been clamouring for cash for new light and heavy trucks. Half of its current truck fleet has been parked because of age and maintenance costs.
> 
> The navy is also waiting to see how much money it will get from the government for new surface warships, which are slated for construction at the same time the submarine life extension would take place. The budget was previously set at $26 billion for up to 15 vessels, but recent estimates have put the cost much higher.
> 
> As Canadians, I think we want to know who’s operating on, above and below our water from a sovereignty perspective
> 
> Retired commodore Eric Lerhe, a senior fellow at Dalhousie University, says the navy has been trying to start a conversation about buying new submarines for some time. However, any purchase would take at least a decade, which is why a life extension to the existing fleet is considered necessary.
> 
> The document says that depending on the amount of work done, an extension could extend the lives of the submarines by between six and 18 years.
> 
> The Liberal government is currently developing a new defence policy, which will spell out what jobs the military will be expected to perform. That will have direct bearing on the types of equipment purchased in the coming years.
> 
> Lerhe acknowledged the current submarine fleet has had its teething problems. But he said actions by Russia and China plus the growing importance of the Arctic and the fact Canada has one of the longest coastlines in the world makes them essential. And he argued the estimated cost of the upgrades isn’t astronomical.
> 
> “What’s it going to cost to send peacekeepers to Mali?” he said. “In Afghanistan, the cost was $2 billion per year.”



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/canadian-navy-will-lose-submarine-fleet-in-next-few-years-without-billions-in-upgrades-dnd-report


----------



## PuckChaser

We've already wasted billions. Victoria just reached FOC in 2012, meaning we're going to get about 10 years of service life per sub (if they don't run aground again). 

Time to let them retire and start a project to replace them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The problem is that then you don't have submariners or commanders that know how to deploy them. Start tagging onto the Aussie build and get the 4th hull as the first one, then slowly replace them. We will sell the Victoria's off and they will be run by another country for 20 years.


----------



## CBH99

We could almost just treat this whole experience as a massive learning curve for submarine operations & maintenance.

The subs we purchased had quite a few problems, and the whole fleet isn't even fully operational yet - if I understand the current situation correctly.  That being said, they have proven themselves to be very capable assets & have proven the value of having submarines in service.

The Navy has been able to develop the skills & leadership within the submariner community to sustain & potentially expand this capability.  The shipyards have been able to develop the skills necessary to service the boats, complete extensive upgrades & repairs, and understand the unique challenges that submarines have when compared to maintaining surface assets.

We can look at this whole experience from either a "_glass is half full, or half empty_" in terms of the availability/capability the current fleet brings to the table.  But I think we could all agree that if we apply the lessons we learned from this - from multiple perspectives - we could (both the government and the Navy) provide a much more reliable service with the next fleet of subs.


*I am completely and totally out of my lane on this topic, and I'm the first to admit that there are a lot of technical details about the submarines that I am completely ignorant of.  I didn't mean to offend anybody with the above post, apologies beforehand if I do.*


----------



## MilEME09

I am rather annoying that government continue to do upgrades to put of the replacement choice to another government, for god sake, start the program to replace them now, at the rate we are getting equipment if we start now, we might actually get subs when these are retiring


----------



## Eye In The Sky

But this is becoming the normal way of doing business.  Sea King replacement.  Aurora's were upgraded to fly into year 20XX.  AOR replacement.  Etc.

Until the parties, all of them, agree on a defence policy and then procurement system to meet that policy (Australia is doing it better in this regard), we will continue to trip over our own feet and not have the kit we need when we are _really_ going to need it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I am rather annoying that government continue to do upgrades to put of the replacement choice to another government, for god sake, start the program to replace them now, at the rate we are getting equipment if we start now, we might actually get subs when these are retiring



The choices for replacement subs is quite limited considering our requirements, basically we will repeat what the Aussies did and look at the same contenders. I say skip the drama, and negotiate into the existing contract.


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> The choices for replacement subs is quite limited considering our requirements, basically we will repeat what the Aussies did and look at the same contenders. I say skip the drama, and negotiate into the existing contract.



Like skipping over the YF-32 / YF-35 drama, and going straight to procuring the winner of the JSF competition?  

I jest...partially, but yes, I absolutely agree with your point.  GTFOWI!  (money saved on ISS and O&M by collaborating with another like-minded nation will outweigh the acquisition costs in probably only a few years)

Regards
G2G


----------



## FSTO

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Like skipping over the YF-32 / YF-35 drama, and going straight to procuring the winner of the JSF competition?
> 
> I jest...partially, but yes, I absolutely agree with your point.  GTFOWI!  (money saved on ISS and O&M by collaborating with another like-minded nation will outweigh the acquisition costs in probably only a few years)
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Quit talking sense dammit! This is Canada don't you know!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think I have made it quite clear in the past that I favour participating in the Australian program as the best replacement choice for Canada.

But there are other, just as valid reasons for doing so than merely skipping the competition and saving on ISS and O & M.

The old "O" boat community used to share many things: Standing international exchanges of personnel, which permitted the transmission of all lessons learned on the type to all users, joint "perisher" program, sharing of tactical knowledge and adoption of best practices from one another, etc. 

Such collaboration with the Aussies in a single type of sub would bring the same benefits, not to mention assist in developing personal relationships that could become extremely useful should the dragon decide to flex its muscles.


----------



## Kirkhill

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Like skipping over the YF-32 / YF-35 drama, and going straight to procuring the winner of the JSF competition?
> 
> I jest...partially, but yes, I absolutely agree with your point.  GTFOWI!  (money saved on ISS and O&M by collaborating with another like-minded nation will outweigh the acquisition costs in probably only a few years)
> 
> Regards
> G2G



But think of the lawyers, the consultants, the journalists ----- the project managers.   >


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think I have made it quite clear in the past that I favour participating in the Australian program as the best replacement choice for Canada.
> 
> But there are other, just as valid reasons for doing so than merely skipping the competition and saving on ISS and O & M.
> 
> The old "O" boat community used to share many things: Standing international exchanges of personnel, which permitted the transmission of all lessons learned on the type to all users, joint "perisher" program, sharing of tactical knowledge and adoption of best practices from one another, etc.
> 
> Such collaboration with the Aussies in a single type of sub would bring the same benefits, not to mention assist in developing personal relationships that could become extremely useful should when the dragon decides to flex its muscles.



OGBD, I was perhaps too discrete with my "like-minded" comments....I perhaps should have said *AUSCANUKUSANZ*?  ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

Victoria-class life extension and costs not news but sadly typical of our media to recycle such things breathlessly--from May 2015:



> RCN Subs Life-Extension to 2030s? Why?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/05/04/mark-collins-rcn-subs-life-extension-to-2030s-why/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## STONEY

HMCS Windsor departed Halifax Sept. 12 in company with a French and an  American nuc boats and 10 surface ships from NATO for largest ASW exercise off east coast in 20 years .  Several different types of RCAF and contracted aircraft will also be involved over the nxt 10 days.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

There are also NATO MPAs and MHs playing with the rest of the party.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Any word on what DND is going to do:  Upgrade vs New Build?

Lots of competing projects for funds and I'm doubting the Liberals are looking at dramatically increasing the defense budget to accommodate them all.

Would be sad after training up all the crews that the capability would be forfeited....


----------



## STONEY

I  am afraid the answer to that question is still years in the future . That program is at the back of a long line SAR  aircraft, frigates and fighters that have draging on for years and years and it seems no one can make a decision. Surprise     Surprise.    Cheers


----------



## Underway

Thread Necromancy activate!

Chicoutami is back on the water apparently.

http://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/west-coast-sub-returns-to-sea-for-trials-prior-to-operations-with-allies-1.3296840



> The Canadian Press
> Published Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:24PM PST
> Last Updated Wednesday, February 22, 2017 12:51PM PST
> 
> ESQUIMALT, B.C. - The Royal Canadian Navy's only operational submarine on the West Coast is doing training exercises as it readies for operations after undergoing repairs to dozens of problem welds, a spokesman said Wednesday.
> 
> Katelyn Moores, with Maritime Forces Pacific, said HMCS Chicoutimi has been doing trials since mid-December to gear up for exercises with Pacific allies later this year.
> 
> “They did repairs and inspections and then ... she was returned to sea,” she said from Esquimalt, B.C.
> 
> She said she couldn't provide any details about the Pacific exercises due to operational security.
> 
> The return to sea follows a lengthy repair and inspection process after problems were discovered in late 2015 with 30 welds on the Victoria-class submarine. Vice-Admiral Mark Norman had said the welding work was done by a subcontractor hired by a contractor working on both Chicoutimi and HMCS Victoria as well as some surface ships in Victoria.
> 
> He said the welds were passing inspections, but the navy did not realize at the time that the inspection process itself was flawed.
> 
> Moores said she didn't believe any problems have been detected on Chicoutimi since her return to sea. HMCS Victoria is undergoing the inspection and repair process, but Moores says it's not clear when that will be done.
> 
> Last spring, Norman said Chicoutimi would be fixed first, followed by Victoria, which was being used for training. HMCS Windsor is operating from its home base in Halifax. The navy's fourth sub - HMCS Corner Brook - was undergoing deep maintenance.
> 
> Canada's four long-range, diesel-electric submarines were bought from Britain's Royal Navy in 1998 for $750 million, but the transition to full Royal Canadian Navy operations has not been smooth.
> 
> The sub program has endured years of setbacks, including a fire aboard Chicoutimi in 2004 that killed Lt. Chris Saunders and sent two others to hospital during its first Canadian voyage.
> HMCS Corner Brook hit the ocean floor during training exercises off Victoria in June 2011 and will be out of service until at least next year.
> 
> Norman said Canada spends roughly $200 million a year on maintaining the submarines.


----------



## CBH99

So the government hired a shipyard in Victoria...who subcontracted to a guy....who subcontracted again to another guy?    :-\


----------



## MilEME09

CBH99 said:
			
		

> So the government hired a shipyard in Victoria...who subcontracted to a guy....who subcontracted again to another guy?    :-\



well that explains why our industry is so costly


----------



## Colin Parkinson

http://www.news1130.com/2017/02/22/west-coast-sub-returns-to-sea-for-trials-prior-to-operations-with-allies/




ESQUIMALT, B.C. – The Royal Canadian Navy’s only operational submarine on the West Coast is doing training exercises as it readies for operations after undergoing repairs to dozens of problem welds, a spokesman said Wednesday.

Katelyn Moores, with Maritime Forces Pacific, said HMCS Chicoutimi has been doing trials since mid-December to gear up for exercises with Pacific allies later this year.

“They did repairs and inspections and then … she was returned to sea,” she said from Esquimalt, B.C.

She said she couldn’t provide any details about the Pacific exercises due to operational security.

The return to sea follows a lengthy repair and inspection process after problems were discovered in late 2015 with 30 welds on the Victoria-class submarine. Vice-Admiral Mark Norman had said the welding work was done by a subcontractor hired by a contractor working on both Chicoutimi and HMCS Victoria as well as some surface ships in Victoria.

He said the welds were passing inspections, but the navy did not realize at the time that the inspection process itself was flawed.

Moores said she didn’t believe any problems have been detected on Chicoutimi since her return to sea. HMCS Victoria is undergoing the inspection and repair process, but Moores says it’s not clear when that will be done.

Last spring, Norman said Chicoutimi would be fixed first, followed by Victoria, which was being used for training. HMCS Windsor is operating from its home base in Halifax. The navy’s fourth sub — HMCS Corner Brook — was undergoing deep maintenance.

Canada’s four long-range, diesel-electric submarines were bought from Britain’s Royal Navy in 1998 for $750 million, but the transition to full Royal Canadian Navy operations has not been smooth.

The sub program has endured years of setbacks, including a fire aboard Chicoutimi in 2004 that killed Lt. Chris Saunders and sent two others to hospital during its first Canadian voyage.

HMCS Corner Brook hit the ocean floor during training exercises off Victoria in June 2011 and will be out of service until at least next year.

Norman said Canada spends roughly $200 million a year on maintaining the submarines.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I really hope we jump onto this bandwagon as far as the subs are concerned http://gcaptain.com/australia-wants-exports-68-billion-naval-investment/


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

We need to be more strategic with government-to-government deals.

Canada agrees to buy $3 billion in new submarines from Australia and in exchange Australia agrees to buy $1 billion in new LAV 6's with 30mm guns and $2 billion in SCC's from Canada.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> We need to be more strategic with government-to-government deals.
> 
> Canada agrees to buy $3 billion in new submarines from Australia and in exchange Australia agrees to buy $1 billion in new LAV 6's with 30mm guns and $2 billion in SCC's from Canada.



Here's another one,

Canada agrees to join or buy 4 of the new dutch subs(are being designed by Saab/Damen and other interested parties,but i think the Saab/Damen combo has it ) and the Netherlands buys 8/10 MPA Swordfishes(which are essentially Bombardiers modified by Saab) I like this one. ;D ;D

PS don't forget the Short-Fin's will be around 5300 tons submerged,about twice the size of the Victoria's,me thinks too big for Canada.The new Class of Dutch Subs,wich are to replace the Walrusses will be around the 3000-3500 tons submerged much more in line of what Canada would need,i think.


----------



## jmt18325

It's not happening.  The government has committed to the Victoria modernization with operations until at least 2037.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's not happening.  The government has committed to the Victoria modernization with operations until at least 2037.



At least the LRP fleet won't have to worry about having no one *local* to train with, as I am sure most Aurora flying will be done in the Sim's by then.   ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's not happening.  The government has committed to the Victoria modernization with operations until at least 2037.



20 years sound like a lot, but it will be likely 10 years before steel is cut for the first Aussie sub, another 2 years to launch the first one, then likely a new hull every year to 1.5 years, so by the time they have built 4 that will be 2035, by that time governments, needs and world events will have changed.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine_replacement_project


----------



## Underway

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's not happening.  The government has committed to the Victoria modernization with operations until at least 2037.



So what you are saying is that this government in 2017 will be the same government in 2037?  No.  Rust out, accidents, events, and many other things can change the course of a submarine fleet.  Right now subs are a poliltical hot potato moreso than any other purchase.  The Liberals already have to deal with the AOPS, CSC, JSS, and the CF-18 replacement.  I think 4 major projects that all have the potential to blow up for them are enough right now.  The subs can be safetly put on the backburner for a while in hopes the next gov't or the one after that has to deal with them.

This gov't has really only committed to not committing to anything and pushing any potential problems down the road.  The Aussie sub program could still be on the table for us.


----------



## jmt18325

Underway said:
			
		

> So what you are saying is that this government in 2017 will be the same government in 2037?  No.



And if someone else comes up with a different plan, fine.  Right now, it's not happening.


----------



## suffolkowner

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> It's not happening.  The government has committed to the Victoria modernization with operations until at least 2037.



http://gentleseas.blogspot.ca/2017/07/ex-pm-abbott-doubts-wisdom-of.html

I posted this in the Australian sub thread as well. I doubt that we can or should keep the Victoria's going for another 20yrs. No that long ago our sub service was running 90cents to the dollar of the surface fleet and that was when we had the AOR's and Tribals


----------



## suffolkowner

frontline exploring nuclear option again

http://defence.frontline.online/blogs/3896-Dr.%20Danny-Lam/7909-Hybrid%20submarines%2C%20an%20efficient%20alternative


----------



## MarkOttawa

No atom-splitting way in Canada.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

not with our political climate any way, look what happened last time we attempted to consider, considering it


----------



## suffolkowner

Do you guys think because the public will confuse nuclear powered with nuclear armed?

Would a slowpoke pool reactor even count as nuclear power? 
The numbers are interesting as I think the French subs/reactors are running 48MW and a slowpoke can maybe run 2MW.
Would 2MW be enough to run a Victoria/Collins class?
I'm guessing that nuclear subs just have a huge amount of excess power?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

No. It's not a matter of confusion between the two. Say the word "nukelar" in Canada and all the flower children, assorted enviro-freaks, left wing everything come out of the wood work. Doesn't matter what the nuclear proposal is or even how "peaceful" its use.

We tried it before for submarines - it got shot down - twice (or one could almost say trice - see below). Believe it or not, nuclear propulsion was looked at many times in the RCN: Twice for submarines. The first time was at the time of unification. Believe it or not, the father of unification wanted six nuclear American subs for the defence of  Canada's coasts. In the end, in view of the price, we got three Oberons. When replacement of the Oberons came up, you may then recall that the Mulroney government White paper on defence called for eight to ten nuclear submarines as the principal striking power for the Navy. Again, it evaporated as a result of public pressure, and cost after the wall came down.

There had been a flirtation with the idea of making HMCS LABRADOR a nuclear powered ice breaker at the time. Environmentalists fought very hard for the idea to be abandoned. They were afraid of a nuclear accident in the Arctic. Go figure.

And I said almost trice because, in the early 80's, when the SOUP (Submarine Operational Upgrade Project) came up for the Oberon, there was a plan somewhere in the West for a town to have a generation facility of about 10MW based on a Slowpoke-3 reactor. When the specs were studied at RMC (which has a Slowpoke already), it looked to them, and extensive studies followed, that it could be retro-fitted to the Oberons in lieu of the diesel engines so as to continuously charge the submarine's batteries. It would not have turned them into nuclear boats on par with US or British types, but it would have meant near unlimited range, much faster underwater transits overall than in the classic boat configuration, and a greater capacity to maneuver at high speed for longer and more frequent periods of time, not to mention cutting down on noise greatly. Can't remember why it did not come to pass.


----------



## suffolkowner

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> No. It's not a matter of confusion between the two. Say the word "nukelar" in Canada and all the flower children, assorted enviro-freaks, left wing everything come out of the wood work. Doesn't matter what the nuclear proposal is or even how "peaceful" its use.
> 
> We tried it before for submarines - it got shot down - twice (or one could almost say trice - see below). Believe it or not, nuclear propulsion was looked at many times in the RCN: Twice for submarines. The first time was at the time of unification. Believe it or not, the father of unification wanted six nuclear American subs for the defence of  Canada's coasts. In the end, in view of the price, we got three Oberons. When replacement of the Oberons came up, you may then recall that the Mulroney government White paper on defence called for eight to ten nuclear submarines as the principal striking power for the Navy. Again, it evaporated as a result of public pressure, and cost after the wall came down.
> 
> There had been a flirtation with the idea of making HMCS LABRADOR a nuclear powered ice breaker at the time. Environmentalists fought very hard for the idea to be abandoned. They were afraid of a nuclear accident in the Arctic. Go figure.
> 
> And I said almost trice because, in the early 80's, when the SOUP (Submarine Operational Upgrade Project) came up for the Oberon, there was a plan somewhere in the West for a town to have a generation facility of about 10MW based on a Slowpoke-3 reactor. When the specs were studied at RMC (which has a Slowpoke already), it looked to them, and extensive studies followed, that it could be retro-fitted to the Oberons in lieu of the diesel engines so as to continuously charge the submarine's batteries. It would not have turned them into nuclear boats on par with US or British types, but it would have meant near unlimited range, much faster underwater transits overall than in the classic boat configuration, and a greater capacity to maneuver at high speed for longer and more frequent periods of time, not to mention cutting down on noise greatly. Can't remember why it did not come to pass.



thanks kinda what i figured


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> No. It's not a matter of confusion between the two. Say the word "nukelar" in Canada and all the flower children, assorted enviro-freaks, left wing everything come out of the wood work. Doesn't matter what the nuclear proposal is or even how "peaceful" its use.
> 
> We tried it before for submarines - it got shot down - twice (or one could almost say trice - see below). Believe it or not, nuclear propulsion was looked at many times in the RCN: Twice for submarines. The first time was at the time of unification. Believe it or not, the father of unification wanted six nuclear American subs for the defence of  Canada's coasts. In the end, in view of the price, we got three Oberons. When replacement of the Oberons came up, you may then recall that the Mulroney government White paper on defence called for eight to ten nuclear submarines as the principal striking power for the Navy. Again, it evaporated as a result of public pressure, and cost after the wall came down.
> 
> There had been a flirtation with the idea of making HMCS LABRADOR a nuclear powered ice breaker at the time. Environmentalists fought very hard for the idea to be abandoned. They were afraid of a nuclear accident in the Arctic. Go figure.
> 
> And I said almost trice because, in the early 80's, when the SOUP (Submarine Operational Upgrade Project) came up for the Oberon, there was a plan somewhere in the West for a town to have a generation facility of about 10MW based on a Slowpoke-3 reactor. When the specs were studied at RMC (which has a Slowpoke already), it looked to them, and extensive studies followed, that it could be retro-fitted to the Oberons in lieu of the diesel engines so as to continuously charge the submarine's batteries. It would not have turned them into nuclear boats on par with US or British types, but it would have meant near unlimited range, much faster underwater transits overall than in the classic boat configuration, and a greater capacity to maneuver at high speed for longer and more frequent periods of time, not to mention cutting down on noise greatly. Can't remember why it did not come to pass.



I thought I knew the history of HMCS Labrador well. It was laid down in 1949 and the worlds first nuclear powered warship and civilian ship was in the 60's. Canada could of beaten the US by 10 years to have a nuclear powered warship.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Chief, the first nuclear powered vessel, ever, was the USS Nautilus, laid down in 1951, but after a reasonably long design process (a few years) so the idea of nuclear powered ships started almost immediately after the war. And Canada had been a major contributor to the Manhattan projects, as result of which we were one of the countries at the forefront of nuclear development immediately after the war, expanding on the Chalk River laboratories.

So we would have beaten the Americans by only a couple of years.

Heck! When I was a kid, there were even talks of nuclear powered aircrafts doing the rounds. Everything was nuclear and space crazy in those days.


----------



## dapaterson

Of course, the RMC Slowpoke was acquired to train nuclear engineers for Canada's nuclear fleet; so why do we still have a reactor if we never got the rest of the kit to go with it?


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, Chief, the first nuclear powered vessel, ever, was the USS Nautilus, laid down in 1951, but after a reasonably long design process (a few years) so the idea of nuclear powered ships started almost immediately after the war. And Canada had been a major contributor to the Manhattan projects, as result of which we were one of the countries at the forefront of nuclear development immediately after the war, expanding on the Chalk River laboratories.
> 
> So we would have beaten the Americans by only a couple of years.
> 
> Heck! When I was a kid, there were even talks of nuclear powered aircrafts doing the rounds. Everything was nuclear and space crazy in those days.



I'm not talking about subs and i'm quite aware of the Nautilus.   I'm talking about ships, the first nuclear powered US warship being the Nuclear powered cruiser Long Beach and the first civilian ship the NS Savannah built in the 60's. I find it hard to believe that the US would allow any technology transfer for a nuclear powered HMCS Labrador. Would you have any source on the consideration of HMCS Labrador possibly being nuclear, I find that quite interesting.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I wonder if the canceled Polar Class 8 was considered to be named CCGS Labrador. The original 1985 plan for the ship was nuclear propulsion, which the US totally freaked out over that. Global security has an article on it. 
The ship was, of course, canceled just prior to cutting steel.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We had a chunk of the Polar 8 test steel stored at the Hovercraft base, so technically I am one of the few that every saw it in real life


----------



## serger989

Colin P said:
			
		

> We had a chunk of the Polar 8 test steel stored at the Hovercraft base, so technically I am one of the few that every saw it in real life



Whoa, they actually cut steel for the Polar 8 Project? I didn't know it got past the paper design in any way whatsoever. Wouldn't that icebreaker have been one of the best non-nuclear ones around even today?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It would have been impressive, one model/drawing I saw even had a SRN-6 hovercraft on davits on one side.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

http://mapleleafnavy.com/2018/02/24/windsor-sails-for-exercise-dynamic-manta-in-mediterranean/

The Royal Canadian Navy announced February 24th that submarine HMCS Windsor has sailed for the Mediterranean to take part in NATO Exercise Dynamic Manta-L 18.

NATO describes it: “To exercise submarine warfare and ASW (antisubmarine warfare) warfighting capabilities for submarines, ASW surface units and maritime aircraft in order to conduct sea control and sea denial related naval tasks in preparation for future collective defense and crisis response operations.”

20 years after acquisition, it is good to see two Canadian submarines deployed in ASW target duties, with HMCS Chicoutimi currently on operating in Asian waters. Canada can now truly assist allied combatants in training for this vital component of naval warfare.

The multinational training will run from March 5-16 2018.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Couldn't find a link for DM 18 but here's some more on the ex...great ASW ex and training for the RCN folks and for folks in my line of work to fly on NATO SSK/SSN.  Nice to see a RCN boat in the players list this year.

Dynamic Manta 2017

Moosemilk planned for the International Party at ENDEX   :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Funny how our exercise just happen to be in hot spots......... 8)


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Sicily really isn't that nice...in the...winter.  Honestly...


----------



## CBH99

2 out of 4 submarines currently deployed on operations & exercises is actually pretty fantastic!!  Way to go RCN leadership, honestly.  

Considering there are fellow NATO members that can't currently deploy any submarines, or possibly only 1 or 2 also - the RCN submarine force is doing pretty good given it's size.  

Great job to the crews & leadership.  Lots to be learned in these exercises, fantastic learning opportunities.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Yup, we're not the only NATO country who is in the hurt locker for funding for our submarine service...

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/germany-does-not-have-one-working-submarine-23688

Manta is a really good exercise overall;  I've done several and will be going over for this one again.  Last year we got to work with a CPF and AirDet (which is rare, oddly enough...), this year with a V-boat.  Next year it would be nice to see a LRP Det, SSK, and a surface force complete with a CH-148 Det.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CAF Operations Article Link

HMCS Windsor, two CP-140 Aurora aircraft, and approximately 140 Canadian Armed Forces members are participating in NATO's Exercise DYNAMIC MANTA alongside 5,000 allies from 10 other countries. 

This annual exercise is designed to sharpen the Alliance's collective defence by honing the participants' skills in anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare.
-----------------------------------------------------

Great picture of Windsor alongside in Augusta, Sicily before the EX started in this Janes article.

HMCS Windsor completes BQQ-10 sonar fit

We (my crew) had an unexpected surprise earlier during the EX;  an invitation to go down to Augusta to meet the crew and get a tour of the boat.  I'd never been inside a sub before and it was an amazing and eye-opening experience.  Living spaces - prisoners have nothing to complain about, trust me.  I think the galley on the Aurora might actually be a bit bigger than the galley on our SSKs.  Hats off to this group of professionals for doing what they do in the service of our great country - each and every day is truly a sacrifice and I don't know if I'll be able to complain about things like how tired I am after a 10+ hour mission again - these folks don't have a ladder to walk down after their watch that leads to the rental car...

Thanks to the skipper and crew for a great afternoon;  the _next_ time I see you guys you'll look more like the pic attached.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> the _next_ time I see you guys you'll look more like the pic attached.



You wish!  ;D

The nice thing about the Windsor is how luxurious the accommodations are compared to the previous "O" boats class.  :nod:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You wish!  ;D



I can't confirm or deny if a RCAF MPA successfully exercised against a RCN SSK   



> The nice thing about the Windsor is how luxurious the accommodations are compared to the previous "O" boats class.  :nod:



If the V-boats are considered "luxurious"...wow.  Most of the Jnr Rates bunks looked like they'd have a hard time comfortably fitting 3 loaves of bread in them!!


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Excluding our politicians, what is the Navy's view of submarines as part of our future force?

Do they believe 4 is sufficient?

Or for next generation will they be lobbying for more?


----------



## Swampbuggy

If it were me, I’d think 6 was a reasonable and attainable number. Even 5 would mean 1 for each task force, 1 on patrol each coast and 1 in deep maintenance.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Blackshirt, it is difficult to ask serving members that may be involved in advising the Government to indicate in public what the view of the Navy is. 

However, The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence released a report in May 2017 titled Reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces - A Plan for the Future. They derived their recommendations further to holding extensive hearings of multiple expert witnesses, including many serving and even more numerous recently retired generals and admirals, for the naval portion. So their recommendations are probably very indicative of the views of the Navy.

The final recommendations on make up of the Navy called for 18 Surface Combatant, 12 submarines (six per coast), four AOR - 2 Resolve for home waters and 2 PRO for deployment, and the replacement of all 12 MCDV's by proper fully equipped mine sweepers/hunters. Finally, they strongly suggested a review of the AOPS program to determine if spending all that money on such limited capability is worth it.

Surprisingly enough (he said, sarcastically), that report does not appear to have been taken into consideration by the Government when drafting its most recent Defence Policy.


----------



## Journeyman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> However, The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence released a report in May 2017 titled Reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces - A Plan for the Future.


The report can be found here.  While sometimes the Senate draws whining negative comments for being a bunch of 'unelected, old white guys,' they do have the potential benefit of being able to look at issues outside of party politics' blinders (where re-election sound bites are the overarching concern rather than honest appraisal), unlike House of Commons' committees.



> Surprisingly enough (he said, sarcastically), that report does not appear to have been taken into consideration by the Government when drafting its most recent Defence Policy.


Of course they did; the Senate Report mentions "gender" FOUR times in the section on Reflecting Canada's Diversity (plus a fifth time where they felt a need to reiterate the full list of the Dechamps' Report recommendations).   :nod:

The government just chose to ignore all those pesky "investment" recommendations... something from the Defence Policy that they continued quite strongly in the Federal Budget ("gender," good; 352 mentions -- actual "economics," what?; 3 mentions [all tied to employing women])


/non-submarine tangent  (but Oldgateboatdriver started it   )


----------



## Czech_pivo

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/politics/uss-hartford-nuclear-submarine-arctic/index.html

The Arctic......why is it only US and British subs training up there....oh wait, we've got nothing that can train up there during the months of Feb/March.  This is capability that we need....


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/politics/uss-hartford-nuclear-submarine-arctic/index.html
> 
> The Arctic......why is it only US and British subs training up there....oh wait, we've got nothing that can train up there during the months of Feb/March.  This is capability that we need....



Because they're nuclear and Canada does not want that. Invest 100 Billion and we'll have that capability.


----------



## Uzlu

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Because they're nuclear and Canada does not want that. Invest 100 Billion and we'll have that capability.


Nuclear-powered submarines using pressurized-water reactors are indeed very expensive.  But there may be less-expensive nuclear reactors—SLOWPOKE reactors.





> Heat from a low-power nuclear reactor could be used to generate steam to drive a turbo-alternator for charging submarine batteries. This small "n" SSn would provide SSN endurance (albeit at lower speeds) for significantly less than an SSN price tag.


The quote is from PDF page 13:
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/mdn-dnd/D12-21-1991-3-eng.pdf


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Does "could be used" mean "no one else is doing this now" or "yet"...and if so, the question is 'why not'?

If we aren't willing to pay for things like AIP, or even new(er) classes of SSKs...doesn't that indicate the GoC wouldn't venture into the SSn world either?

* I think there are other than US/UK nuc boats in the arctic...


----------



## Czech_pivo

There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them. Two questions, how did the Brit sub get to the exercise location, did it go through Canadian waters to do so and the second question, is a nation truly sovereign if it can’t go to parts of its territory at anytime, in any manner, when others can and most likely do?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them. Two questions, how did the Brit sub get to the exercise location, did it go through Canadian waters to do so and the second question, is a nation truly sovereign if it can’t go to parts of its territory at anytime, in any manner, when others can and most likely do?



Well, if you look at a world map (or better, a globe), you'll see this great big open expanse of water North of the UK called the North Sea, with it's upper portion called the Greenland Basin: It's huge and leads straight into the Arctic ocean without having to detour South of Greenland and then negotiate pretty shallow and narrow passages on top of that. Hint: that's where the UK subs went through.


----------



## PuckChaser

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them. Two questions, how did the Brit sub get to the exercise location, did it go through Canadian waters to do so and the second question, is a nation truly sovereign if it can’t go to parts of its territory at anytime, in any manner, when others can and most likely do?



It took us 20 years to get these ones operational. We'll be talking about Fusion reactor powered subs by the time the CAF looks at a replacement.


----------



## Uzlu

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Does "could be used" mean "no one else is doing this now" or "yet"...and if so, the question is 'why not'?


If I am not mistaken, all nuclear-powered attack submarines in use today use high-powered pressurized-water reactors.  Why not use low-powered reactors?  If you are an admiral, why would you replace your submarines that can maintain a constant, say, 25 to 35 knots with submarines that are much slower?





> If we aren't willing to pay for things like AIP, or even new(er) classes of SSKs...doesn't that indicate the GoC wouldn't venture into the SSn world either?


Correct.  The problem is probably more political than technical.  Trying to find a Canadian politician with backbone is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.





> * I think there are other than US/UK nuc boats in the arctic...


Putin probably agrees with you.





			
				Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them.


Maybe there is a reason.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine#American_opposition


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them.



If you want to ignore "reality in all of history to this point in time", there sure, there is no reason.

Live in reality man.  There is no government that is going to cut all the social program funding, or raise taxes, to get us kit like the Virgina's or Astute's.  The US went to Virgina's and Improved LAs mainly because they couldn't afford the number of Seawolf hulls they thought they could or wanted.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We could buy nuke subs without the refueling facilities, but you be dependent on the host country providing access to their. You would lose some control over them. I suspect both France and UK would be happy to sell us Nuke attack subs (UK based on the Astute class) and provide refueling as required. It would still require modifying our sub support units with some specialized gear I suspect. Just image the bluehairs in Esquimalt and Victoria if a Nuke boat was stationed there  8)


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:
			
		

> If I am not mistaken, all nuclear-powered attack submarines in use today use high-powered pressurized-water reactors.  Why not use low-powered reactors?



Few reasons.  

1) SLOWPOKE reactors and other low-powered reactors are excellent for research purposes (or were) but are terrible for power generation from an efficiency point of view.  Just compare output to size to requirements for submarines.  They can also only provide heat which then needs a stirling engine to convert that heat into power.  The efficiency losses are significant and a stirling engine is relatively noisy.  At best they can provide the equivalent of trickle recharge power to a submarine.  The space that a reactor would take up would be better putting more (modern) batteries for longer submerged durations.

2) The only AIP system that is reliable for under ice purposes is an nuclear reactor.  This is because it has power to spare, which can then be used for O2 production should a submarine be unable to surface, and also to deal with fires underwater.  No nation who is not suicidal operates non-nuclear AIP under ice.   Unless there is a some new energy source nuclear is and always will be the only option for under ice operations.  It just isn't even close to meeting submarine safety requirements otherwise.

3)The SLOWPOKE reactor idea is an old unproven idea.  There have been no trials, minimal research and no attempts at proving that this might work.  It would take a decade or more of research before the technology is even considered for installation.  And we have no history of submarine design.  If you think CSC is expensive, then try this project out.


----------



## STONEY

During later part of the eighties there were in fact two separate Canadian companies conducting studies/research into AMPS   for both Canadian and Dutch Navy Slowpoke types of power for submarines that went on for several years. I have copies of  Canada's Navy Annual from that period that includes photo's of engineering mock-ups supplied by one of the companys in a advert for there product. What ever happened to all this effort I don't know if it was because of funding cuts or it was impractical .  They claimed it would provide a speed of 6-8 kts limited only by the endurance of the crew which was given as 28 days at the time for a 2000 ton boat.

Cheers


----------



## Eye In The Sky

This was forwarded to me yesterday, a short video on Dynamic Manta 2018 .  

* who are we paying to make these things and can we make sure they have grade 12 or use a spellchecker?  

** too bad they tainted the LRP part with those west coast guys  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The speaking is terrible, can they not find people who speak normally and don't sound like robots? Some good footage though.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I'm pretty sure they were reading from a "PAO approved" script.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

https://twitter.com/MARPAC_FMARP/status/976210323341389824/photo/1

HMCS Chicoutimi is returning home tomorrow after six months away patrolling in the Asia-Pacific. Chicoutimi visited Hawaii, Guam, and Japan during a historic deployment.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

CBC Video Link - Inside A Top Secret Canadian Submarine

Published on Feb 6, 2018

CBC News has gotten an exclusive look inside a top-secret Canadian submarine — so secret, we can't even tell you exactly where the submarine was when we got inside. The HMCS Chicoutimi is deep in the Pacific Ocean, within a few days' sail of the Korean Peninsula. Its task: to monitor supplies going into North Korea.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Could these be from Nucs surfacing...

http://www.newsweek.com/arctic-ocean-nasas-operation-icebridge-mysterious-ice-holes-896488


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Not the best photo, and not much info on it that I could find (time of day, slant angle, etc) but my quick thoughts are, the holes and area immediately around them appear sunken/depressed, not raised.  I could be wrong, but the 'hole' part seems lower than the outer surrounding areas.  The areas around the darker, what appears to be lower 'holes' aren't close to the shape of a sub hull.   If it 'was' from fairweather/sails punching thru, nothing else appears to have disturbed the ice at all;  part of the reason for doing this is to demonstrate the ability to launch telephone poles - hard to do if only the sail is thru.   :2c:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Could these be from Nucs surfacing...
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/arctic-ocean-nasas-operation-icebridge-mysterious-ice-holes-896488



I am no expert, but they look an awful lot like seal blow holes. They keep them open all winter so they can breath while hunting.


----------



## Czech_pivo

They look to be very big to be blow holes for seals, don’t they?


----------



## Czech_pivo

https://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&biw=1024&bih=666&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=qzLdWvmRCoG4jwSI2qyADg&q=seal+blow+holes+in+the+ice&oq=seal+blow+holes+in+the+ice&gs_l=mobile-gws-img.3...49389.52302..52570...0....219.1298.6j4j1..........1..mobile-gws-wiz-img.OItTkHHreu4%3D#imgrc=gAR2FBk7Ch3kNM:&isa=y


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Well there's no scale with the picture.  I look out windows and operate EO/IR cameras (and have in the Arctic) and judging distance and size can be difficult with zero references.  If there was a skidoo, or a person, or anything for scale, that would help.

Here's some pics of US and UK boats punching holes in ice.  https://army.ca/forums/threads/126514/post-1529056.html#msg1529056


----------



## daftandbarmy

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Could these be from Nucs surfacing...
> 
> http://www.newsweek.com/arctic-ocean-nasas-operation-icebridge-mysterious-ice-holes-896488



Polynya?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynya


----------



## Czech_pivo

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Well there's no scale with the picture.  I look out windows and operate EO/IR cameras (and have in the Arctic) and judging distance and size can be difficult with zero references.  If there was a skidoo, or a person, or anything for scale, that would help.
> 
> Here's some pics of US and UK boats punching holes in ice.  https://army.ca/forums/threads/126514/post-1529056.html#msg1529056



I agree that not having any of scale to reference makes it a guessing game but after looking at some of the pics with the Nucs tower just punching through the ice there are similarities. 
https://www.facebook.com/pacific.command/photos/a.10157635426277588.1073742047.61575637587/10157635437017588/?type=3&theater


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The article specifies that the pictures were taken early the same month (April of this year).

You may see in the picture, near the bottom, that a fourth similar hole has already re-closed, and looking to the left, that two much smaller hole appear to have existed then re-closed. It's a grouping.

I would like to propose another possible cause: On April 1, 2018, Chinese space station Tiangong 1 came crashing to earth from a generally polar orbit. This could just be a crash site of some of its parts. You never know where when they crash in the oceans, but investigating the bottom of the area in the picture would permit confirmation - or not - of my hypothesis.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The article specifies that the pictures were taken early the same month (April of this year).
> 
> You may see in the picture, near the bottom, that a fourth similar hole has already re-closed, and looking to the left, that two much smaller hole appear to have existed then re-closed. It's a grouping.
> 
> I would like to propose another possible cause: On April 1, 2018, Chinese space station Tiangong 1 came crashing to earth from a generally polar orbit. This could just be a crash site of some of its parts. You never know where when they crash in the oceans, but investigating the bottom of the area in the picture would permit confirmation - or not - of my hypothesis.



The timing of the above occurring also lines a bit nicely with 2 US and 1 Brit nuclear sub teaming up for drills in the arctic -

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/politics/uss-hartford-nuclear-submarine-arctic/index.html

All three seem to line up nicely.  The article does say that its was a 5 week training time period....


----------



## Czech_pivo

Funny how the CBC only publishes this article 2 months after the training session occurred.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/canadian-submarines-not-part-of-international-arctic-under-ice-exercise-1.4699208


----------



## dimsum

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Funny how the CBC only publishes this article 2 months after the training session occurred.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/canadian-submarines-not-part-of-international-arctic-under-ice-exercise-1.4699208



The CBC writes an article lamenting how we don't have Nuc subs, never mind that the infrastructure would be pretty extensive since we don't have servicing, maintenance, etc for them.  If Canada were to have them, I'll be $ that there would be articles protesting that we do.  

We just can't win.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, at least they found another "Arctic Sovereignty and Security" expert than prof Michael Byers. Kudos for raising their game!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

HMCS Windsor in the Med https://www.facebook.com/CRCN.CMRC/videos/2012672805650615/


----------



## daftandbarmy

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The CBC writes an article lamenting how we don't have Nuc subs, never mind that the infrastructure would be pretty extensive since we don't have servicing, maintenance, etc for them.  If Canada were to have them, I'll be $ that there would be articles protesting that we do.
> 
> We just can't win.



'Pig Boats' hunt Nukes.... just sayin'


----------



## MarkOttawa

See these accounts of the Mulroney government's quixotic effort to acquire SSNs in late 1980s, mainly to boost "Arctic sovereignty"--but terribly expensive, domestically contentious (USN also strongly opposed) and then Cold War started ending:

1) By US DoD official at the time:
  


> TAKING A DIVE FOR A FRIEND--THE DECISION [by Ronald Reagan, who Mulroney got on with very well] TO TRANSFER NUCLEAR SUBMARINE TECHNOLOGY TO CANADA
> http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a437607.pdf



2) By Canadian academic:



> Sovereignty, Security and the Canadian Nuclear Submarine Program
> http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo8/no4/lajeunes-eng.asp



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

Thank you for providing this document for reading!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Czech_pivo: pleasure is mine.  Yet another of our wonderful procurement escapades, though more overly-ambitious than most .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

A lot of the content in the articles still rings true today - we do shop out the enforcement of our sovereignty to the US in the Arctic.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As we are finding out, having someone else do our sovereignty protection, comes at a price.


----------



## Dale Denton

Probably doesn't belong in this thread, but perhaps with all that's going on in the news lately, would there be a slight revisit to a 'Canada-class'?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I doubt right now our political leaders are interested in even thinking about a new class of diesel-electric subs, much less anything nuclear powered. We should be talking about a replacement program now, so we would be building new subs as the Victoria class gets to old. But I suspect we will wait to the last minute and then go through our normal procurement debacle routine.


----------



## Dale Denton

Guessing here, but if they will be add-ons to the shipbuilding program. Maybe to whichever shipyard is in the gov'ts favour that could start building these in the 2030s. 

Loved those articles attached earlier. Building the first ship in Europe so Canadian builders would learn, then copy in Canada like they tried to do again with the FREMM.

Colin, you smell a European shift in procurement coming?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The US does not build DE subs, so the likely contenders would be the French, Japanese or Germans. The French proposal might be wrapped up in with the Aussies, as their new subs will be very close to our specs. Since we would be order no more than 5, it would be highly unlikely and not economical to build them here. Sub building is a niche market and very specialized. Canada does build subs, but all 1-15 person subs for commercial and tourism. The tourist version have not been built since the 90's either.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I don’t want to sound reactionary, but I think given the current circumstances, we shouldn’t count on the US for any part of our defence. I’d also maybe send a message by dropping the F-35 and F-18 out of the fighter competition. I’d also let it be known that the Navantia bid for CSC is being favoured over the other bids due to its lack of American technology/ownership.


----------



## GR66

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I don’t want to sound reactionary, but I think given the current circumstances, we shouldn’t count on the US for any part of our defence. I’d also maybe send a message by dropping the F-35 and F-18 out of the fighter competition. I’d also let it be known that the Navantia bid for CSC is being favoured over the other bids due to its lack of American technology/ownership.



The US is and will continue to be Canada's largest trading partner and most important ally.  We share the top half of the continent and that's not going to change.  Getting our knickers in a knot and pushing back against Trump will only hurt ourselves.  We should stay the current course.  Continue to push and argue for open trade and close cooperation between our countries and use strategic and proportional tarrifs in response to Trumps actions which put the maximum pressure on those members of the US Congress and Senate who can influence Trump most.  

Trump is a temporary phenomenon...8 years is his maximum shelf life, but we'll be neighbours as long as we both exist.  Keep it calm and polite but firm.  We're a wealthy country and can weather this Trump storm even if it hurts.  When he's gone we'll face the challenges that the next US leader poses for us.


----------



## Swampbuggy

GR66 said:
			
		

> The US is and will continue to be Canada's largest trading partner and most important ally.  We share the top half of the continent and that's not going to change.  Getting our knickers in a knot and pushing back against Trump will only hurt ourselves.  We should stay the current course.  Continue to push and argue for open trade and close cooperation between our countries and use strategic and proportional tarrifs in response to Trumps actions which put the maximum pressure on those members of the US Congress and Senate who can influence Trump most.
> 
> Trump is a temporary phenomenon...8 years is his maximum shelf life, but we'll be neighbours as long as we both exist.  Keep it calm and polite but firm.  We're a wealthy country and can weather this Trump storm even if it hurts.  When he's gone we'll face the challenges that the next US leader poses for us.



I know and I hate all this tension between the two. But, I think giving them the idea that we aren’t afraid to move forward with procurement that doesn’t involve their defence firms, may give them pause. If Lockheed suddenly finds itself shut out of multiple billions of dollars in Canadian defence procurement, maybe their bigwigs start shaking some trees and get Trump to listen to reason. Unfortunately the only way we may be able to get our point across is to hit them in the pocketbook. I’m not a big fan of walking away from our neighbours, but it may be time to step up our game a little. Besides, in the case of the Navantia bid for CSC, we’d be tightening our bonds with Australia and I think that’s a worthy goal too.


----------



## Rifleman62

Do you think Swampbuggy that Canada, alone, can defend itself? Do you think the US has confidence that Canada, alone, could defend itself? 

We are a buffer state. The US needs to defend Canada, to enhance the defence of the continental US.  Canada does not see the need to defend itself, so the US does it.

Canada and the G7 has been under the protective wing of the US since 1945, funded by the US taxpayer. 

Now if Canada wanted to be in the position to have a credible defence, the government now and the future would spend big Cdn taxpayer bucks procuring equipment and raising soldiers, sailors and airmen. And, it would buy equipment etc offshore even, without setting up new industries such as shipyards.

When that happens, and the US becomes confident in our ability, then you can speak about walking away from our US neighbours.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Do you think Swampbuggy that Canada, alone, can defend itself? Do you think the US has confidence that Canada, alone, could defend itself?
> 
> We are a buffer state. The US needs to defend Canada, to enhance the defence of the continental US.  Canada does not see the need to defend itself, so the US does it.
> 
> Canada and the G7 has been under the protective wing of the US since 1945, funded by the US taxpayer.
> 
> Now if Canada wanted to be in the position to have a credible defence, the government now and the future would spend big Cdn taxpayer bucks procuring equipment and raising soldiers, sailors and airmen. And, it would buy equipment etc offshore even, without setting up new industries such as shipyards.
> 
> When that happens, and the US becomes confident in our ability, then you can speak about walking away from our US neighbours.



Whoa, whoa, whoa!! If you reread my comments you’ll see that I said we “shouldn’t count on the US”, and that we should find a way to send our message effectively, and maybe that’s by exploring other ways/sources of procuring equipment. Furthermore, Canada isn’t alone regardless of the what takes place vis a vis America, unless you think NATO washes its hands of us over a North American trade war, particularly when the President has gone out of his way to alienate them too. It’s the US that’s embracing isolationism, not the rest of the G7 or NATO. Regardless, Trump is right that the other nations should start pulling their own weight and we can start doing that, even if it means buying our goods elsewhere. IMHO


----------



## CBH99

I agree with Swampbuggy -- a few big contracts going to European firms, and not the likes of Boeing or Lockheed Martin, and you'll some some massive pressure from within their military industrial complex to have better trading relations.  We can't even fathom, let alone underestimate, the amount of power their military industrial complex has in the halls of Washington.  

They can, and I'll passively and carefully suggest already have, had a big influence on what countries the US goes to WAR with.  That's how much power they have.  

They spread jobs all over the country, so a lost contract is sure to effect people in every state.  This is done very strategically, and wields them an unfair & unGodly amount of power in places where they shouldn't have any.


88 Rafale jets ordered instead of the F-35?  A CSC accepted bid in favour of European firms that shuts out a lot of American industry?  An AD system from Israel/Europe, instead of a US firm?  European missiles for future CSC instead of American missiles, to go with the European ships?

Just one or two of those contracts going to Europe due to Trump's souring of relations would have a MASSIVE lobby in Washington putting a MASSIVE amount of pressure on Trump to fix things.  


**I read somewhere recently an article written by a senior American officer, similar to recent articles posted on these forums, about how spending more $$ on the American military doesn't actually equate to a better fighting force.  There is so much waste inside the Pentagon that any massive injections of cash actually have a very minimal affect on improving the military's readiness, due to a huge chunk of it going to the military industrial complex.  Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Grumming, and 2 shipyards effectively ate about 30% of the DOD budget every year, and that budget is now approx. $700B all in.  

These companies don't want to miss out on contracts and big business, and they won't let many slip through their fingers before they put their foot down in Washington.


----------



## YZT580

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I agree with Swampbuggy -- a few big contracts going to European firms, and not the likes of Boeing or Lockheed Martin, and you'll some some massive pressure from within their military industrial complex to have better trading relations.  We can't even fathom, let alone underestimate, the amount of power their military industrial complex has in the halls of Washington.
> 
> quote]  I wouldn't bet on it.  If the military has so much influence why is it that we are buying used Australian F18's?
> The CS100 issue with Boeing demonstrated that Boeing military couldn't even pressure Boeing corporate to change its mind.
> 
> For decades both ourselves and continental Europe of been nothing but leeches sucking as much cash and support from the US as we can get away with.  And then we bitch because someone has finally called us out on it.  Trump spelled it out when he started.  2% for defence.  Put up or shut up.  We didn't and now he has clamped down on trade.  Cause and effect?  Quite possibly.


----------



## CBH99

I agree with you wholeheartedly, we get by on the bare minimum & the only time we seemed to take defense seriously was during Afghanistan.  (Not getting political, but during those years we did receive new C-130J, C-17, Leopard 2, LAV 6.0 order, TAPV order, CH-147 order, 2000+ truck order near the end, and lots of temporary kit for deployment, etc)

I don't disagree at all that we've been leaches.  One could also argue though that most of the military action undertaken by Canada & Europe has been in support of US wars, but that's a discussion for another thread.


To respond to what you said - I believe it's because 18 aircraft just didn't matter enough.  It wasn't a huge order, and the production line for Super Hornets just keeps getting longer & longer as every year the US Navy orders more & more.  Even Congress adds more aircraft to the aircraft on order, both meeting & exceeding the requests in the Unfunded Priorities List each year.  (You want 16 additional Super Hornets on-top of your current order?  Here, have 18 instead!)

So 18 Super Hornets doesn't really matter a ton when you have 25+ aircraft on order every year, and have an order list several years long as it is.  

If that order was 88 Super Hornets, all of a sudden being turned into 88 Rafale - then I think it would have been a different story.

Also, Boeing shot themselves in the foot on the commercial side with that hissy fit.  I hope some advisors lost their jobs.  They very easily could have partnered with Bombardier & built the aircraft under license, since that was a big chunk of their argument.  

Instead, Airbus comes in and partners with Bombardier, and builds the aircraft at their plant in the US - effectively curtailing Boeing's whole effort, when Boeing could have easily just done that in the first place.  

So they lost the sale of 18 Super Hornets, and lost the potential sale of the CS100 to several commercial airlines, all because the top brass didn't have the cognitive focus to think about their options before flapping their gums.  Poor business decisions on their part, all around.


----------



## Karel Doorman

This might be of interest too,for a possible replacement(when time comes,for the Victoria's),as known,there are a few Navies in NATO that require a sub(DE)which can be deployed "worldwide",and the Dutch Navy is one of them(3)besides,Canada and Australia. 



			
				Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> exciting news for us the proposed design from Damen/Saab has been revealed,for the Walrus replacement. 8)
> 
> Saab-Damen presents design of the replacement Walrus-class class submarine
> 
> http://nlnavy.damen.com/saab-damen-presents-design-replacement-walrus-class-submarine/


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

The design would likely need to be stretched to improve endurance, would it not?


----------



## Karel Doorman

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The design would likely need to be stretched to improve endurance, would it not?



Yes,it will be(from what i heard) about 70-75 mtrs long.And about 3000 tonns ,diameter 8 meters.Boat will have 2 decks.crewsize will be between 34-42.6 Torpedo tubes(0.53 meter) and 1 Multi Mission Lock(1.5 meter )so 7 tubes.The Multi Mission Lock is a special tube(A-26 has it too),will be used to launch drones,divers,special ops,etc,while moving or when resting on the sea bottem.What is not known yet,is the fact wheteher it will be a single hull or double hull(wich the Walrus has).Has to be able to at least dive as deep as the Walrus can(wich is more then 300 meters)Cost estimates vary between 900 and 1 billion Euros a copy.The RNLN will order 4(if this design is the final and winning design),also in the "race" are DCNS(but probably too big and costly)and TKMS,not much known about those designs,preferred design is the SAAB-DAMEN design.


----------



## Dale Denton

Is there an AIP system in use today that could have to endurance to get us under the ice and further north? What is required to punch through and surface like in the ICEX?

Reading the wiki on AIP and came across this:



> Air-independent propulsion is a term normally used in the context of improving the performance of conventionally propelled submarines. However, as an auxiliary power supply, nuclear power falls into the technical definition of AIP. For example, a proposal to use a small 200 kilowatt reactor for auxiliary power -styled by AECL as a "nuclear battery"- could improve the under-ice capability of Canadian submarines.[12][13]



Links:
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/NB_02.pdf
https://books.google.ca/books?id=UrgWiHhaHVEC&pg=PA363&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## Underway

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Is there an AIP system in use today that could have to endurance to get us under the ice and further north?



Yep.  It's called nuclear power.   :nod:


----------



## Swampbuggy

I was under the impression that endurance wasn’t the only reason why a nuclear powered sub was the preferred choice for under ice operations. I believe I read somewhere that it also had something to do with changing out the air onboard the boat in case of a fire, when the submarine isn’t somewhere it can surface?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I was under the impression that endurance wasn’t the only reason why a nuclear powered sub was the preferred choice for under ice operations. I believe I read somewhere that it also had something to do with changing out the air onboard the boat in case of a fire, when the submarine isn’t somewhere it can surface?



That's affirm. As a result of having nuclear reactor on board, Nuke boats are equipped so they can generate their O2, scrub their CO2, and produce their own fresh water in large quantities. All things classic propulsion boats, including those with other forms of AIP have a harder time doing, or can't do at all.


----------



## Dale Denton

Is it possible to strengthen a DE/AIP hull so that it could push through the ice? Howcome a US/UK nuclear sub can do this but ours can't?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Part of it is if something goes wrong, a nuke sub generally has lots of continuous power to draw upon, whereas a AIP equipped DE sub only has a very limited amount of power to call upon. The ice sheet can be quite complex underneath and could trap a sub if they are not careful.


----------



## Karel Doorman

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Is it possible to strengthen a DE/AIP hull so that it could push through the ice? Howcome a US/UK nuclear sub can do this but ours can't?



Think it has to do with which material is used to build the sail,but could be wrong(maybe not strenghted/armoured)to do so.


----------



## Good2Golf

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Is it possible to strengthen a DE/AIP hull so that it could push through the ice? Howcome a US/UK nuclear sub can do this but ours can't?



Because of the 22nd element...


----------



## Swampbuggy

So, really, if Canada were to take a serious interest and want to be able to assert our sovereignty over the Arctic, it leaves the nation with 2 very expensive options. Either we bite the bullet and go all in on SSN’s, including developing a training system for nuclear sailors or we seed the Arctic Ocean with hydrophones, forward deploy MPA’s all over and have sufficient quantities of AIP D-E SSK’s to run picket at key entry and exit points. I’d almost think the SSN purchase would be more economical and useful. That’s a tough sell to politicians, flower children and taxpayers, though.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> So, really, if Canada were to take a serious interest and want to be able to assert our sovereignty over the Arctic, it leaves the nation with 2 very expensive options. Either we bite the bullet and go all in on SSN’s, including developing a training system for nuclear sailors or we seed the Arctic Ocean with hydrophones, forward deploy MPA’s all over and have sufficient quantities of AIP D-E SSK’s to run picket at key entry and exit points. I’d almost think the SSN purchase would be more economical and useful. That’s a tough sell to politicians, flower children and taxpayers, though.



Well i'm not Canadian,but from what i heard,SSN will never happen.So what should happen(in my humble opinion)is that Canada should(really)buy 8 new subs(4 on east coast and 4 an west coast),but Canada/RCN will be lucky if they get 4 replacements when the time has come to buy/build new ones.


----------



## Dale Denton

I can understand the publics attitude towards nuclear back when the Canada-class was being considered, as Chernobyl was fresh in their memories. Maybe public attitudes have changed slightly, if people were educated that we have Trump/USN acting as a bodyguard of our own territory.

I can't even imagine how things would've been different if we bought 6 French/UK SSNs in the early 90s...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well we would get taken a lot more seriously


----------



## Karel Doorman

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well we would get taken a lot more seriously



Think that that will not be the only reason,but i could be wrong.(having SSN'S i mean),but it helps.Think it's a combination of what you have,training,experience, and how you are willing to use it


----------



## Swampbuggy

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> Well i'm not Canadian,but from what i heard,SSN will never happen.So what should happen(in my humble opinion)is that Canada should(really)buy 8 new subs(4 on east coast and 4 an west coast),but Canada/RCN will be lucky if they get 4 replacements when the time has come to buy/build new ones.



I agree. I think 8 is an attainable and useful number of SSK’s for the RCN. I’d even consider a stepped approach where all the VIC’s were out of Esquimalt and 4 new in Halifax for a period. Regardless, I’m dubious as to how serious the GoC really is about the Arctic. I’m often left with the feeling that they’d much rather look like they were doing something than actually doing something. And for that reason, I’d put money on not seeing an SSN in the RCN in my lifetime.


----------



## Underway

Going from the problems the UK is having just keeping their boats crewed it's probably lucky in many ways we don't have nuke boats.  They are using civilians for watches alongside because there are not enough sailors trained to do reactor watch.  Which of course leads to a whole other set of problems regarding showing up to work with a few wets, or just getting annoyed with the supervisor and calling in sick because you can an are unionized....

The cost and irritation would perhaps be too much for us.  You think protests against Kinder Morgan are bad....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Arctic has few voters, so when it comes time to dole out money, the Arctic is far, far away.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> *Game changing mast installation underway on submarines*
> _Peter Mallett, Staff Writer_
> 
> _HMCS Corner Brook_ will become the first of the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) four Victoria-class submarines to be equipped with a new modern mast system.
> 
> The hunter-killer submarine is currently stationed in the purpose-built repair facility dock at Victoria Shipyards as workers from Babcock Canada install the L3 Calzoni Universal Modular Mast (UMM). The system, similar to the one fitted in U.S. Navy Virginia-class submarines was acquired under the U.S. Foreign Military Sales program.
> 
> Masts are vital to the functioning of any submarine. In Canada’s diesel-powered subs they provide air supply, communications, radar, and periscope capability.
> 
> Lieutenant-Commander Darryl Gervis, RCN Deputy Director Submarine Combat Systems, says the new technology puts Canada’s submarine program on a new course.
> 
> “This is a game changer,” said LCdr Gervis, referring to the current technological shortfall for Canadian subs, which is the lack of a reliable high-speed satellite data link.
> 
> “What the Universal Modular Mast [when coupled with the Protected Military Satellite Communication PMSC antenna] will do is provide near real-time high-speed [antenna] communications with the shore. This will allow for improved picture and video transmission, and quicker transmission of messages, and therefore reduce counter-detection opportunities as the submarine will spend less time with its mast out of the water.”
> 
> The new equipment will also include the ability to  “plug-and-play” a Communications Intercept Suite antenna that will provide the class that capability. This is because the Universal Modular Mast has two multi-purpose ports – like data ports on a computer. This will enable other antennas and intelligence-gathering equipment to be swapped in and out to better suit the needs of a specific deployment or changing technology.
> 
> Here in Esquimalt, Deputy Commander – Operations of Canadian Submarine Force, Commander Mike Mangin is encouraged by the upgrade and says the Universal Modular Mast with Protected Military Satellite Communication will bring Canadian submarine communications capabilities into the modern era.
> 
> “It improves the Victoria class as an intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance platform,” said Cdr Mangin. “It increases our utility so much, the upgrades to the comms fit that UMM enables could be compared to using an old dial up modem to one of today’s high-speed modems.”
> 
> _Corner Brook_ travelled from its home port of Halifax for the contractor conducted extended docking work period and is expected to be completed in 2020. Work is expected to commence on the UMM install in _HMCS Chicoutimi_ in 2019, with subsequent work to be performed on _HMCS Victoria_ and _HMCS Windsor_.
> 
> The plan is to have all four submarines retrofitted with the new equipment by 2026.



http://www.lookoutnewspaper.com/game-changing-mast-installation-underway-submarines/


----------



## daftandbarmy

OceanBonfire said:
			
		

> http://www.lookoutnewspaper.com/game-changing-mast-installation-underway-submarines/



mmmmm.... I like Calzone!


----------



## MilEME09

By 2026? By then we might get only a bit more life squeezed out of them. They need full on replacement started now so that the new subs can hopefully come online in time.


----------



## daftandbarmy

OceanBonfire said:
			
		

> http://www.lookoutnewspaper.com/game-changing-mast-installation-underway-submarines/



I'm wondering if it helps to publish the technical capability upgrades of our submarines?

Loose lips (used to) sink ships, right?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

We do it with other assets as well;  everything about the Aurora upgrade project, including what sensors were installed, comms, etc was all made open source including the iBLOS (interim Beyond Line Of Sight) kit that was installed for OP IMPACT.

FWIW, this wasn't the first time it (comms upgrade) had been open source info.  

From this article:  https://ml-fd.caf-fac.ca/en/2018/05/13938

WARSHIPS International Fleet Review Special Correspondent Guy Toremans interviews the commander of the Royal Canadian Navy’s submarine force and learns how its boats are a significant strategic maritime security asset. After a turbulent introduction into Canadian service they are now demonstrating an ability to deploy around the world.

HMCS Corner Brook is currently at Victoria Shipyards Co. Ltd in Esquimalt, undergoing an Extended Docking Work Period (EDWP) under the Victoria In-service Support Contract with Babcock Canada Inc. She is due to return to operational service in 2019.

Corner Brook’s EDWP includes replacement of external structures and the sonar bow dome, a combat system upgrades, the ability to fire Mk48 Mod 7AT heavyweight torpedoes, BQQ-10 sonar suite, a modern satellite communications system and communications intercept capabilities.

This article was published in the June 2018 edition of WARSHIPS International Fleet Review magazine. Used with kind permission of the author, magazine Editor and publisher. For more on that publication visit www.warshipsifr.com


----------



## Swampbuggy

Work on HMCS CORNER BROOK to be completed in 2020, while work on HMCS CHICOUTIMI to start in 2019. So back to having two unavailable for awhile then. That’s the trouble with only having 4 boats, maintenance takes half of your force sometimes.


----------



## Underway

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I'm wondering if it helps to publish the technical capability upgrades of our submarines?
> 
> Loose lips (used to) sink ships, right?



It's not a big deal in that the exact capabilities of that equipment are still secret.  There's also the reasoning that our lips are not loose enough with regards to the submarines.  Unless we do good public education the subs will be sunk by our own government, which is their greatest threat at the moment.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The Corner Brook was supposed to be finished refit in 2018.  Then they said 2019 and now they are saying 2020.

Does the boat actually work still or is it totally knackered from the collision a few years ago and the Navy/Govt isn't saying anything about it?


----------



## FSTO

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Work on HMCS CORNER BROOK to be completed in 2020, while work on HMCS CHICOUTIMI to start in 2019. So back to having two unavailable for awhile then. That’s the trouble with only having 4 boats, maintenance takes half of your force sometimes.



This has been the plan all along.
2 operational
1 going into EDWP
1 coming out of EDWP

It would be nice to have 6 boats but that would take some knowledge of Naval strategy within our governments...........


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FSTO said:
			
		

> This has been the plan all along.
> 2 operational
> 1 going into EDWP
> 1 coming out of EDWP
> 
> It would be nice to have 6 boats but that would take some knowledge of Naval strategy within our governments...........



CANSUBFOR calls it 2+1+1 right?


----------



## YZT580

And there were only 4 to begin with or does Australia have a couple we could pick up on the cheap?  Adding another two would mean an orphan fleet of two and the associated extra costs involved.  Better to plan to buy 6 next time or maybe 8 so we can cut two and show how we are saving money.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Apply for 8, hope to get 6, with 2 in maintenance/upgrade, 2 in training state and 2 operational. That would work.


----------



## FSTO

YZT580 said:
			
		

> And there were only 4 to begin with or does Australia have a couple we could pick up on the cheap?  Adding another two would mean an orphan fleet of two and the associated extra costs involved.  Better to plan to buy 6 next time or maybe 8 so we can cut two and show how we are saving money.



No the four we received from the UK were unique to the UK. The Aussies had the Collins Class SSK which had their own teething problems. They are getting replaced by a new sub.

Once upon a time the UK/Canada/Australia all had Oberon Subs. But they are all gone now.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Our future choices are:

French/Aussie 

Japanese

Stretched German

I suspect the first 2 will meet our needs, the Stretched German one might be on the small side.


----------



## dapaterson

Colin P said:
			
		

> Our future choices are:
> 
> French/Aussie
> 
> Japanese
> 
> Stretched German
> 
> I suspect the first 2 will meet our needs, the Stretched German one might be on the small side.



You left out "used subs from the West Edmonton Mall".


----------



## Karel Doorman

Colin P said:
			
		

> Our future choices are:
> 
> French/Aussie
> 
> Japanese
> 
> Stretched German
> 
> I suspect the first 2 will meet our needs, the Stretched German one might be on the small side.




You forgot the A-26 ER. 

And i think(only a personal thought)that the Shortfin will be to big/expensive for Canada.


----------



## Uzlu

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> And i think(only a personal thought)that the Shortfin will be to big/expensive for Canada.


Yes, it is big and expensive.  But it also appears to be a very impressive design.  https://www.naval-group.com/en/news/dcns-unveils-smx-ocean-a-new-blue-water-ssk-with-expanded-capabilities/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If our government had large balls, order 6 French Nuclear attack subs. France does all of the refueling and disposal. Other maintenance is done in Canada. Do not use an ITAR equipment in them if possible. We then told everyone including the US that we are serious about our sovereignty and Canada suddenly becomes a real player on the board. We would need 6 just to keep 2 subs on ops, 2 in training/workup and 2 in overhaul.


----------



## CBH99

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You left out "used subs from the West Edmonton Mall".




Those were taken out of service years ago.  Unfortunately.  =(


----------



## Colin Parkinson

https://bcbooklook.com/2014/10/20/top-secret%C2%AD-we-built-submarines-in-burnaby/

https://aquaticasubmarines.com/

https://ise.bc.ca/

these were built in Vancouver as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis_Submarines


----------



## dapaterson

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Those were taken out of service years ago.  Unfortunately.  =(



You mean like the Upholders


----------



## MarkOttawa

It should be recognized that with the very expensive new fighter (and likely some other aircraft types eventually) and CSC procurements no gov't will want to spend money on new subs for a long time to come (if ever); by that time there should be some new models on the market.  In any event no gov't is going to go nuclear-powered.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

As i said that have to have balls and fairly large ones at that.........  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Colin P said:
			
		

> If our government had large balls, order 6 French Nuclear attack subs. France does all of the refueling and disposal. Other maintenance is done in Canada. Do not use an ITAR equipment in them if possible. We then told everyone including the US that we are serious about our sovereignty and Canada suddenly becomes a real player on the board. We would need 6 just to keep 2 subs on ops, 2 in training/workup and 2 in overhaul.



Any particular reason you picked French ones over, say, the Astute class or something?


----------



## Karel Doorman

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Any particular reason you picked French ones over, say, the Astute class or something?



That(the seemingly French preference),and the thing about "going nuclear"(but could be wrong here.   ) even the Australians don't go "there"(it's because it's very expensive and you"ll need a big budget to do so,and this is where things go "wrong",),besides the political will(of which there's very little)to do so,

Again,my thoughts, are that if(and when)Canada should decide to replace the "Vics",they will probably go the "conventional"route,as will we here in the Netherlands.(along with the Australians),both of these countries are in the proces of replacing their sub fleet,We have to decide what we will be getting(probably the A-26 ER),the Australians will get the Shortfin.(only question is when)

I think (but again,my thoughts)Canada will look towards what Australia(but this option is probably to costly) and the Neteherlands are doing,because(and this is the simple fact of the matter)those are the only "NATO"(Australia isn't,but "NATO and Australia signalled their commitment to strengthening cooperation.) members with conventionals that have "long legs"(and Canada needs and wants the same)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Any particular reason you picked French ones over, say, the Astute class or something?



Less ITAR issues and less chance the US could interfere.


----------



## Dale Denton

Why not 6 A26's? Have the option of VLS/TLAMs. Seem to be lots of advances in Japan with their batteries too. Tack on 6 orders once Sweden is partly done with building their 2. Build them over their, add a maintenance contract with a Cdn yard.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Do we want true *bluewater* boats, or just littoral/coastal ones more suited for the stuff in close to Canada?  I think that is the first question...what do we want to do with them.  That should help determine #s and class.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> *Refit to put Victoria-class sub at 'cutting edge' of technology*
> 
> Wells Gaetz, CTV Vancouver Island
> Published Monday, January 21, 2019
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _HMCS Corner Brook, the navy's workhorse submarine, is undergoing a massive retrofit at the Esquimalt Graving Dock. Jan. 21, 2019. (CTV Vancouver Island)_
> 
> HMCS Corner Brook, a long range hunter-killer Canadian submarine, is in dry dock undergoing a complete overhaul in Esquimalt.
> 
> The Victoria-class submarine is halfway through its retrofit, barely recognizable, shrouded in scaffolding and protective wrap.
> 
> Once completed, the sub will be outfitted with state-of-the-art technology and will better able to patrol Canadian coastlines.
> 
> CTV News was able to get a look at the project Monday, which is halfway to completion.
> 
> "Corner Brook will essentially be a brand new submarine," said Cmdr. Mike Mangin. "So this really puts the Victoria-class submarines at the cutting edge of submarine technology."
> 
> The upgrades include a new mast system and military satellite communications antenna.
> 
> Following the refit, the sub is estimated to be back in service for another 15 years. The work should be complete by early 2020.



https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/hunter-killer-sub-hmcs-corner-brook-undergoes-massive-retrofit-1.4263103


----------



## MilEME09

15 years? I wonder if the pressure hull can take another 15 years of wear and tare.


----------



## larry Strong

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> 15 years? I wonder if the pressure hull can take another 15 years of wear and tare.



Do the hulls have a shelf life? Are they governed by a formula using the depths sailed and the time spent at such depths. or something to that effect?


Asked by a landlubber....   


Cheers
Larry


----------



## Edward Campbell

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Do the hulls have a shelf life? Are they governed by a formula using the depths sailed and the time spent at such depths. or something to that effect?
> 
> 
> Asked by a landlubber....
> 
> 
> Cheers
> Larry




Great question!

I see that (just some?) aircraft carriers have a design life of 50 years and that the venerable B-52, which was designed and went into initial production in the 1950s might still be flying in 2050!

How long can a submarine be kept in service? Is there one key 'driver' to establish service life?


----------



## Uzlu

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> How long can a submarine be kept in service?


_Ohio_ is to be retired in 2029—about forty-eight years after commissioning.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Great question!
> 
> I see that (just some?) aircraft carriers have a design life of 50 years and that the venerable B-52, which was designed and went into initial production in the 1950s might still be flying in 2050!
> 
> How long can a submarine be kept in service? Is there one key 'driver' to establish service life?



Hopefully, I do not stray too far outside of my lane, but I have been led to believe that it is a function of what kind of steel that was used in the construction of the pressure hull (strength vs brittleness), how many cycles to depth the submarine has had and what how much life the through hull fittings have left (they are replaceable, but each have finite lives measured in 'x' years (not cycles to depth). The submarine hull must every 5 years (IIRC) be assessed and either it gets a new dive certificate or it does not and work has to be done to fix the problem (every problem can be fixed, if you have an unlimited budget, which Canada does not have).

In short, there is not an easy answer to that question.

That is my (probably shaky) understanding of submarine fatigue life, assembled over several years and many beers. I am more than willing to be corrected on any point, by those more knowledgeable than I.


----------



## Journeyman

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ….assembled over several years and many beers.


Hey, I recognize the methodology.    :nod:

   :cheers:


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Do we want true *bluewater* boats, or just littoral/coastal ones more suited for the stuff in close to Canada?  I think that is the first question...what do we want to do with them.  That should help determine #s and class.



The nice thing about the A26 is that it comes in three different versions; one version is designed for littoral operations, and the other two for oceanic and oceanic extended range operations. So you could buy two/three different subs, which would have some common components, which would cut down on training costs.


----------



## Uzlu

> Canadian navy pressing ahead on life extensions for submarines
> 
> OTTAWA — The Department of National Defence is pushing ahead with plans to extend the lives of Canada's submarine fleet, with the head of the navy hoping some work will start in the coming months.
> 
> The movement comes as countries around the world have stepped up investments in their submarine and anti-submarine fleets to protect their waters — and operate in waters not under their control.
> 
> Canada's four Victoria-class submarines have a troubled history since they were bought second-hand from Britain in 1998, with successive governments investing hundreds of millions of dollars in constant repairs and upgrades.
> 
> But in an interview with The Canadian Press, Royal Canadian Navy commander Vice-Admiral Ron Lloyd said the diesel-powered submarines — HMCS Chicoutimi, Victoria, Corner Brook and Windsor — have finally turned a corner.
> 
> Lloyd specifically pointed to HMCS Chicoutimi's having recently spent 197 days in the Pacific and Asia even as HMCS Windsor was patrolling the Mediterranean with NATO as proof the submarines are living up to their potential.
> 
> "The fact we had two boats concurrently deployed, if that doesn't speak to the success of the program, I don't know what does," said Lloyd, who will retire from the military later this year after three years as navy commander.
> 
> The clock has been ticking on the four vessels: without upgrades, the first of the submarines will reach the end of its life in 2022, according to documents obtained through access to information, while the last will retire in 2027.
> 
> But the Liberals' defence policy promised to extend the lives of the vessels and Lloyd said defence officials are now working through the details to make sure they can continue to operate into the 2030s.
> 
> More extensive work is expected to start in about three or four years but Lloyd said efforts are underway to start implementing some minor upgrades by March.
> 
> Exactly how much upgrading all four submarines will cost remains uncertain, but Lloyd said the figure that officials are working with is about $2 billion.
> 
> Some experts have previously called for Canada to consider new submarines, rather than extending the lives of the ones it has, but the government has said upgrading the Victoria-class ships is more "prudent."
> 
> Other experts have said the country doesn't need such expensive vessels. But many other countries around the world are investing in submarine and antisubmarine fleets. NATO has specifically raised concerns about Russian submarines in the North Atlantic, while Canadian frigate commanders patrolling in the Atlantic and Mediterranean have reported more foreign submarines in recent years.
> 
> "The most proliferated weapon system right now on the planet are submarines," Lloyd said. "They by themselves can impact the outcome of a battle space. And so putting a submarine into a body of water instantly changes the calculus that are currently operating in those bodies of water."
> 
> Aside from upgrading its submarines, the Canadian military has started to return to its Cold War role as a leader in antisubmarine warfare in the North Atlantic by upgrading its frigates and maritime patrol planes and adding new maritime helicopters.


https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/01/22/canadian-navy-pressing-ahead-on-life-extensions-for-submarines/#.XEhnl_x7nUJ


----------



## suffolkowner

I think part of a submarine's life is determined by whether or not the pressure hull has been cut and rewelded? 
Or is that just for the diving depth?


----------



## Dale Denton

Can someone explain why it costs $2 Billion to extend the life of just 4 ships? Aren't new SSKs about $1 Billion each already?Why not just start a competition now? 

Could almost copy the Attack Class competition, with the one change being additional length/designed for future modifications (adding cells, additional batteries, etc..).


----------



## YZT580

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Can someone explain why it costs $2 Billion to extend the life of just 4 ships? Aren't new SSKs about $1 Billion each already?Why not just start a competition now?
> 
> Could almost copy the Attack Class competition, with the one change being additional length/designed for future modifications (adding cells, additional batteries, etc..).


  Except we still need to complete a mid-life overhaul to get our current fleet to last until the new boats are commissioned.  That process, if started today, would require at least 10 to 15 years before the first one was ready for use and that is pre-supposing that they get the competition right first time.   do you want to put any money on that happening?


----------



## Loch Sloy!

New SSKs could be purchased for more like $500 million (assuming they were purchased off the shelf- which I suppose would never happen) so for the price of the upgrade we could likely buy 4 brand new boats incorporating all the latest AIP tech... 2 Billion dollar upgrade program is beyond stupid, its also quite likely how it will play out.  :


----------



## Karel Doorman

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Can someone explain why it costs $2 Billion to extend the life of just 4 ships? Aren't new SSKs about $1 Billion each already?Why not just start a competition now?
> 
> Could almost copy the Attack Class competition, with the one change being additional length/designed for future modifications (adding cells, additional batteries, etc..).



That's a lot,for example here in the Netherlands "the extend life program"(IPW)for the 4 Walrusses will cost about 100 million,this includes:

Op 13 mei 2013 ondertekende de Defensie Materieels Organisatie (DMO) het contract met Imtech Marine Netherlands voor het Instandhoudingsprogramma Walrusklasse, of IP-W. Daarmee ging het project ook officieel van start. De vier boten worden gedurende zeven jaar gemoderniseerd. Het programma behelst:

• conservering van de drukhuid (nieuw verfsysteem en herstel drukhuid)-repairs pressure hull and a new paint
• vervanging van een aantal verouderde sensoren (sonar, navigatieperiscoop)-new sonars,optronical mast,(etc)
• verbeterde communicatiesystemen, zowel intern als extern (datalink, satcom)-upgraded/modernized communicationsystems
• vervanging van Gipsy door nieuw Combat Management System (CMS)-New Combat System
• aanpassingen aan een aantal platformsystemen (bijv. de luchtmonitoring)-New sensors,for example air quality monitors

Plus an extra 100 million for the modernisation/upgrading for the Mk 48 Torpedoes.(for better possibillities/use in shallow waters)

So in total about 200-250 million,for the 4 subs.

Program started in 2013 and will end in 2019(all should be done by then,last one is now in,btw)

Now "life"will be extended to about 2025.(then the new subs will/should start to come into service)


----------



## suffolkowner

Maybe the refit is a complete rebuild a sort of my grandfather's axe situation as it is often easier to get a repair budget through than new capital?

I think a refit is necessary anyways as neither the Dutch or Australian projects are anywhere near ready. What hot or warm SSK lines are running now?

Soryu mk2 Japan
KSS-III      South Korea
Scorpene   France
S-80         Spain
U-218       Germany

We would have to move lightning quick from a procurement standpoint to choose one of the above designs


----------



## JMCanada

My first choice would be Soryu, but japanese may be reluctant to export their technology. Then the german type 212 -CD , with extended range compared to the standard version, might fit RCN needs.


----------



## Karel Doorman

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Maybe the refit is a complete rebuild a sort of my grandfather's axe situation as it is often easier to get a repair budget through than new capital?
> 
> I think a refit is necessary anyways as neither the Dutch or Australian projects are anywhere near ready. What hot or warm SSK lines are running now?
> 
> Soryu mk2 Japan
> KSS-III      South Korea
> Scorpene   France
> S-80         Spain
> U-218       Germany
> 
> We would have to move lightning quick from a procurement standpoint to choose one of the above designs



You forgot Sweden's A-26,which are being build(1st of 2) as we speak(Oceanic Version) :nod:

And true,first projects that will be started are the 12 MCM ships(replacement Tripartite class,decision probably next month or so,on which design is chosen),Belgium leads in this project,after that (probably in the 

next few months also)a decision will be made on which design is chosen to replace the ASW/GP frigates.(Netherlands leads)and will be a class of 4(to start with,possibly an option for 2 more for the 

Netherlands),shortly after that(thinking around May),the winning design for the new sub will be chosen,so busy times for the Dutch Navy.

Also an extra CSS(Combat Support Ship) will be build,and joining the Navy around 2021/22(decision has been made about that one)

Basically modernising 3/4 of our Navy.


----------



## suffolkowner

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> You forgot Sweden's A-26,which are being build(1st of 2) as we speak(Oceanic Version) :nod:
> 
> And true,first projects that will be started are the 12 MCM ships(replacement Tripartite class,decision probably next month or so,on which design is chosen),Belgium leads in this project,after that (probably in the
> 
> next few months also)a decision will be made on which design is chosen to replace the ASW/GP frigates.(Netherlands leads)and will be a class of 4(to start with,possibly an option for 2 more for the
> 
> Netherlands),shortly after that(thinking around May),the winning design for the new sub will be chosen,so busy times for the Dutch Navy.
> 
> Also an extra CSS(Combat Support Ship) will be build,and joining the Navy around 2021/22(decision has been made about that one)
> 
> Basically modernising 3/4 of our Navy.



Thanks I didn't realize the A26 was that far along, delivery scheduled for 2022, just in time to start building new subs for Canada!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Unfortunately we 'upgrade' everything, even if that means it costs more in the long run.  We've done it with fighters, MPAs, and are doing it with the Victoria class.  

It is the Canadian way (based off the past "how we've done things" since...when CANEUR closed, or probably even before that!).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

https://saab.com/naval/submarines-and-surface-ships/submarines/submarines/


----------



## Uzlu

> DND extends life of submarine escape suits beyond expiry date as fleet shows its age
> 
> *Liberals plan to modernize and sail the navy's 4 aging submarines until 2040
> *
> The Canadian navy's stock of survival suits, which allow submariners to escape in an emergency from a sunken boat, has been thrown a lifeline after much of the equipment had reached its expiry date, federal documents reveal.
> 
> The critical safety suits give stranded crew members the ability to ascend from a depth of 183 metres and protect against hypothermia.
> 
> They even inflate into a single-seat life raft once on the surface.
> 
> The orange whole-body suits were part of the original equipment aboard the Victoria-class submarines, diesel-electric boats originally built for the Royal Navy and purchased from Britain in the late 1990s.
> 
> Documents obtained by CBC News show there was concern among naval engineers, in late 2016, that many of the suits had passed or were about to pass their best-before, safety dates.
> 
> A spokeswoman for the Defence Department said a decision was made to extend the life of suits while the federal government procures new ones — a process that is ongoing.
> 
> There is no threat to safety, said Jessica Lamirande.
> 
> "The service life extension was approved based on successful, rigorous testing at the Naval Engineering Test Establishment on a representative sample of suits that had passed their intended service lives," said Lamirande, in a recent email.
> 
> "Testing consisted of detailed visual inspection, leakage tests, and functional testing."
> 
> *Fleet sailing until 2040*
> 
> But defence experts say it is a small project that speaks volumes about the Liberal government's plan to modernize and keep operating the four submarines until 2040, a proposal that was articulated in the latest defence policy.
> 
> Retired commander Peter Haydon, who also taught defence policy at Dalhousie University in Halifax for years, said keeping submarine replacement parts and equipment in the system has been an ongoing headache for the navy, dating back to the 1980s.
> 
> However, the bigger concern is: As the boats age, the strength of their pressure hulls declines.
> 
> The  government plans to modernize the boats, but Haydon said that's fine for the electronic and other components.
> 
> "You can modernize most things, but you can't modernize the hull, unless you build a new hull," he said.
> 
> *Pressure to buy new*
> 
> The Senate and House of Commons defence committees have recommended the government begin exploring options now for the replacement of the submarines, which took years to formally bring into service after they were purchased.
> 
> The government, in its response to a committee report last fall, argued it is already fully engaged building Arctic patrol ships and replacements for frigates and supply ships.
> 
> Buying new submarines is a topic that has been debated behind the scenes for a long time at National Defence with one former top commander, retired general Walt Natynczyk ordering — in 2012 — a study that looked at the possible replacements.
> 
> University of British Columbia defence expert Michael Byers has been quoted as saying he's worried Canada "will lose its submarine capability through negligence rather than design," noting that it is politically more palatable to refurbish the underwater fleet rather than endure a painful procurement process.
> 
> "They're running a risk with the lives of sailors, the older these vessels get in an extremely dangerous environment, especially when they're submerged," said Byers, who pointed to the loss of the Argentine submarine San Juan and its crew of 44 in 2017.
> 
> "I would be more comfortable with a decision to buy a new fleet submarines than the current path that we're on. I have been skeptical as to whether we need submarines, but better a new fleet than send our sailors to sea in these old vessels."
> 
> Since Canada does not have the technology, nor has it ever constructed its own submarines, the federal government would be required to go overseas to countries such as Germany or Sweden to get them built.
> 
> *Restricted diving*
> 
> In the meantime, Haydon said he's confident ongoing maintenance and the stringent safety standards among Western allies will keep the Victoria-class submarines in the water and operating safely.
> 
> He cautions, however, like Canada's previous submarines retired in the 1990s, the Oberon class, the older the current fleet gets, the more their diving depth will eventually have to be restricted.
> 
> As the hull and its valves weaken, the less pressure they can sustain.
> 
> Lamirande said the navy has enough escape submarine suits whenever it deploys, and she emphasized it never goes to sea with "expired" equipment.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarine-escape-suits-1.5036007


----------



## NavyShooter

I will observe that the Sub Escape Suits are, I believe, a First Level System.  

The inspection and testing that they would have undergone to get recertified and shelf life extended by the Life Cycle technicians would have been very thorough, and any rubber seals found degraded when tested in the durometer would have been redirected into the disposal stream instead of renewing the shelf life on them.

NS


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The good thing about the sub buy is that they won't be built here. We should buy into another build *cough Aussie, cough* and keep the changes minimal.


----------



## Lumber

> *Fire breaks out aboard hunter-killer submarine drydocked at CFB Esquimalt*



https://globalnews.ca/news/5120237/esquimalt-submarine-fire/

This is all bad and all, but what I'm really interested in is this part:



> HMCS Corner Brook has been at the base for an extended docking work period since January 2015, with an expected completion date of 2020.



A 5 year extended work period? How long would it take to build a similar size submarine from scratch? Honestly, I wish I understood what the hell goes on at FMF (and at the same time, for my sanity's sake I'm glad that I don't).


----------



## Stoker

Lumber said:
			
		

> https://globalnews.ca/news/5120237/esquimalt-submarine-fire/
> 
> This is all bad and all, but what I'm really interested in is this part:
> 
> A 5 year extended work period? How long would it take to build a similar size submarine from scratch? Honestly, I wish I understood what the hell goes on at FMF (and at the same time, for my sanity's sake I'm glad that I don't).



Actually I read something online about 2021. Its much easier to repair or overhaul something than paying capital costs for new ones. Any maintenance for submarines is involved and expensive.


----------



## garb811

Don't forget there are some unique issues to this one related to hitting the ocean floor...


----------



## Lumber

garb811 said:
			
		

> Don't forget there are some unique issues to this one related to hitting the ocean floor...



Technically, it hit the ocean _side_. ;D


----------



## Thumper81

FMF has nothing to do with Corner Brook.  That one is all Babcock.




			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> https://globalnews.ca/news/5120237/esquimalt-submarine-fire/
> 
> This is all bad and all, but what I'm really interested in is this part:
> 
> A 5 year extended work period? How long would it take to build a similar size submarine from scratch? Honestly, I wish I understood what the hell goes on at FMF (and at the same time, for my sanity's sake I'm glad that I don't).


----------



## Lumber

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> FMF has nothing to do with Corner Brook.  That one is all Babcock.



Good to know! Thanks. <turns and stares judgingly at Babcock>


----------



## Uzlu

> 'Good life' still left in Canada's submarines, says Navy commander
> 
> OTTAWA — Canada’s top sailor says there is still “good life” left in the navy’s submarines and that he expects them to be able to operate until the 2030s.
> 
> Royal Canadian Navy commander Vice-Admiral Art McDonald says this can be done with some modest investments, an assertion that comes as the four subs have spent most of the year being docked for extended maintenance.
> 
> McDonald says there have already been some upgrades to the vessels as part of normal maintenance and that the navy is now looking at larger improvements to boost their lifespan and make them more accommodating to crew members.
> 
> Officials have previously pegged the cost of upgrading the submarines at around $2 billion.
> 
> The Conservatives and some experts have been calling on the federal government to buy new submarines to replace the Victoria-class vessels, which Canada purchased secondhand from Britain in 1998.
> 
> McDonald also says he is “comfortable” with having only one temporary supply ship to support naval operations overseas, despite another slip in the scheduled delivery of two permanent supply vessels that are being built in Vancouver.


https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/good-life-still-left-in-canadas-submarines-says-navy-commander


----------



## Czech_pivo

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/good-life-still-left-in-canadas-submarines-says-navy-commander



The article clearly shows that having only 4 subs means not being able to have any at all ready to deploy or on station and having to wait 2yrs between missions. This strongly suggests that 7-8 are likely needed, optimally 8-10.
Y


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> The article clearly shows that having only 4 subs means not being able to have any at all ready to deploy or on station and having to wait 2yrs between missions. This strongly suggests that 7-8 are likely needed, optimally 8-10.


The Senate of Canada recommends twelve.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> The article clearly shows that having only 4 subs means not being able to have any at all ready to deploy or on station and having to wait 2yrs between missions. This strongly suggests that 7-8 are likely needed, optimally 8-10.
> Y



If we reduce both our surface fleet and out submarine fleet, then yes we can "comfortably operate with one AOR"


----------



## Uzlu

Colin P said:
			
		

> If we reduce both our surface fleet and out submarine fleet, then yes we can "comfortably operate with one AOR"


Vice-Admiral McDonald may fear a second Resolve-class ship.  What if, after a second Resolve-class ship is ordered, the government of Canada cancels Preserver?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Uzlu said:
			
		

> The Senate of Canada recommends twelve.



Yes, I remember that report. Twelve would be optimal, spreading accordingly across both coasts. Would love to see us piggyback with someone (Australia?) else and their purchase order. Not sure if the Dutch or the Norwegian subs would be robust enough for our needs.  

I wish some party would just stand up and act like a responsible adult when it comes to our responsibilities within North America and within NATO.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Vice-Admiral McDonald may fear a second Resolve-class ship.  What if, after a second Resolve-class ship is ordered, the government of Canada cancels Preserver?



That I get, but there is an excellent argument for 3-4 AOR's anyways.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> That I get, but there is an excellent argument for 3-4 AOR's anyways.



If we build 15 CSC and 6 AOPS (forget the Kingston's as I'm pretty sure they don't get re-fueled by the AOR's and the Vics), then there certainly is an excellent argument for 3-4 AOR's. 

As recent as 1984 the RCN had a strength of "24 destroyers and frigates, four submarines, 12 mine clearance vessels, three support ships, 18 long range patrol aircraft, 18 medium range patrol aircraft and an unspecified number of maritime helicopters."

Fast forward 35yrs and what do we have - no destroyers, 12 frigates, 4 subs (all in maintenance now and none on patrol or available for patrol), 12 coastal 'defence' ships, 18 long range patrol aircraft (the exact same aircraft listed above), eventually 28 maritime helos and a leased AOR.

So our fleet has been cut by 60%, (during which time our population grew by 50%) and we still have 3 oceans to defend/patrol and we have an emerging threat to our east and a diminished threat to our west. 

Why do none of the adults in the political parties bring out the facts during these discussions?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> If we build 15 CSC and 6 AOPS (forget the Kingston's as I'm pretty sure they don't get re-fueled by the AOR's and the Vics), then there certainly is an excellent argument for 3-4 AOR's.
> 
> As recent as 1984 the RCN had a strength of "24 destroyers and frigates, four submarines, 12 mine clearance vessels, three support ships, 18 long range patrol aircraft, 18 medium range patrol aircraft and an unspecified number of maritime helicopters."
> 
> Fast forward 35yrs and what do we have - no destroyers, 12 frigates, 4 subs (all in maintenance now and none on patrol or available for patrol), 12 coastal 'defence' ships, 18 long range patrol aircraft (the exact same aircraft listed above), eventually 28 maritime helos and a leased AOR.
> 
> So our fleet has been cut by 60%, (during which time our population grew by 50%) and we still have 3 oceans to defend/patrol and we have an emerging threat to our east and a diminished threat to our west.
> 
> Why do none of the adults in the political parties bring out the facts during these discussions?



The *RCN* didn't have any long range patrol aircraft in 1984 and still doesn't to this day.  Neither does the RCN have any maritime helicopters; they are RCAF aircraft.

Of the fleet of 18 Aurora's, 14 are still in service and have been upgraded extensively thru ASLEP and AIMP, with Block 4 to begin rolling out to the fleet soon.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The *RCN* didn't have any long range patrol aircraft in 1984 and still doesn't to this day.  Neither does the RCN have any maritime helicopters; they are RCAF aircraft.
> 
> Of the fleet of 18 Aurora's, 14 are still in service and have been upgraded extensively thru ASLEP and AIMP, with Block 4 to begin rolling out to the fleet soon.



I should have been clearer, my fault, as there wasn't a RCN or RCAF in 1984, but the CAF - Canadian Armed Forces.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The *RCN* didn't have any long range patrol aircraft in 1984 and still doesn't to this day.  Neither does the RCN have any maritime helicopters; they are RCAF aircraft.
> 
> Of the fleet of 18 Aurora's, 14 are still in service and have been upgraded extensively thru ASLEP and AIMP, with Block 4 to begin rolling out to the fleet soon.



Semantics!  Everyone knows you're just a sailor in blue EITS!


----------



## Swampbuggy

I think there's going to be a meeting in the middle on subs, if anything at all. I doubt the RCN will ever see a 12 sub fleet and 4 is too small. I imagine 7-8 subs will be the max. That's not a bad number, when the Navy has made due with 3 or 4 for decades and it certainly opens up some more options. As for AOR's, my personal feeling is that you can't have too many support/logistics ships. They can be sent on their own to help out an Allied task force, or to a HADR situation, or to serve as part of a RCN operation. A relatively small navy like Germany has something like 11 replenishment vessels, for instance. I don't think that's where the RCN needs to be, but 4 is appropriate.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Semantics!  Everyone knows you're just a sailor in blue EITS!



But...but...the only sailors that get hotels are submariners when they're alongside.   :'(


----------



## Czech_pivo

Along the same vein - Australia and their 12 new subs -

"Australia’s $90bn naval shipbuilding plan faces critical skills shortages that could set back the delivery of Australia’s next-­generation submarines, frigates and patrol boats in a threat to ­national security."

 "the construction of 12 new Attack-class submarines and nine Hunter-class frigates at Adelaide’s Osborne shipyards would create huge demand for skilled welders, but Australia had “only a veneer of welders with significant ship welding experience”.

"The number of welding supervisors and inspectors trained to international standards had been in steady decline since 2012, he said, while the quality of Certificate III apprentices being produced in Australia “is totally unacceptable and not of the required standards for the defence industry”.

"It attributed the poor forecasts to the small pool of secondary school students with sufficient maths and science achievements, the lack of awareness of maritime engineering specialties, and difficulties in attracting mainland students to the Tasmanian-based institution. It called on the government to consider offering HECS concessions for students “linked to the critical skills shortages for naval shipbuilding”.   ------- And the Australians aren't even talking about 'gender-parity' in the jobs being created, they have basic issues with fundamental education being the stumbling block.


https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/dearth-of-vital-skills-a-risk-to-90bn-ship-building-plans/news-story/bb0ee4933be689fa0ba7b6189d568fd2


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I think there's going to be a meeting in the middle on subs, if anything at all. I doubt the RCN will ever see a 12 sub fleet and 4 is too small. I imagine 7-8 subs will be the max. That's not a bad number, when the Navy has made due with 3 or 4 for decades and it certainly opens up some more options. As for AOR's, my personal feeling is that you can't have too many support/logistics ships. They can be sent on their own to help out an Allied task force, or to a HADR situation, or to serve as part of a RCN operation. A relatively small navy like Germany has something like 11 replenishment vessels, for instance. I don't think that's where the RCN needs to be, but 4 is appropriate.



Not an expert on naval warfare;  wouldn't an oiler be an 'easy target' and one adversaries would want to sink some ordinance into, especially if they knew you only had a handful'ish?

I get that we're part of an Alliance, etc but...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I think there's going to be a meeting in the middle on subs, if anything at all. I doubt the RCN will ever see a 12 sub fleet and 4 is too small. I imagine 7-8 subs will be the max. That's not a bad number, when the Navy has made due with 3 or 4 for decades and it certainly opens up some more options. As for AOR's, my personal feeling is that you can't have too many support/logistics ships. They can be sent on their own to help out an Allied task force, or to a HADR situation, or to serve as part of a RCN operation. A relatively small navy like Germany has something like 11 replenishment vessels, for instance. I don't think that's where the RCN needs to be, but 4 is appropriate.



We also need to remember that when the RCN had Oberon's, they were all positioned on one coast, the Atlantic.  Also only three were ever in operation, one was tide up for alongside training and a fifth was cannibalized for spares.

We were also morbidly slow to the Submarine game.  The Oberon's were only conceived as training vessels for the surface fleet at first and it was only in the 80s that they began upgrading them for frontline service.

It's clear the security situation has changed but the CAF has always been resistant to change with the times.  We will have the Victoria Class for at least a decade longer (probably more) and the Government will continue to be reactive rather than proactive.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not an expert on naval warfare;  wouldn't an oiler be an 'easy target' and one adversaries would want to sink some ordinance into, especially if they knew you only had a handful'ish?
> 
> I get that we're part of an Alliance, etc but...



This is why you organize your ships in to task groups with screens and guards.  Ships like Frigates and Destroyers exist to protect your High Value Ships i.e. Carriers & Supply Ships which usually sit in the centre of your task group.

Of course in the Canadian context, we are supposed to be able to form a task group but we have no AAW Destroyers anymore so no real Air Defence capability.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Of course in the Canadian context, we are supposed to be able to form a task group but we have no AAW Destroyers anymore so no real Air Defence capability.



This was what I was homing on, with the trailing "I know we are part of an Alliance but...".

 ;D

But, IMO, more importantly...



> We will have the Victoria Class for at least a decade longer (probably more) and the Government will continue to be reactive rather than proactive.



This is the currently accepted COA (and, again IMO, not to be tied only to the current Liberal government...) and not limited to our Submarine force.  

I have what I consider to be very legitimate concerns over a military that can't keep simple items like lightweight thermal headgear and rescue tools/survival knifes in sufficient quantities to meet operational requirements.  If we can't do 'toques and knives' very well, I suspect things like submarines will be...difficult.


----------



## daftandbarmy

One reason for our 'under appreciation' of submarine warfare might be our focus on developing capabilities that are at odds with the more usual forms of general war, where subs are essential, e.g.,:

"No longer will the Canadian Forces be fixed on preparing for conventional, nation-state versus nation-state conflict. Now and for the
foreseeable future, the fight against the bear will be the exception. Instead, we will shift focus to dealing with failed and failing states and their inherent complexities. The fight against the ‘ball of snakes’ will be the norm."

- Brigadier-General Wayne Eyre

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/301/286/hill.pdf

A heavily armed stabilization force doesn't need more submarines, it needs more nation state 'stabilizers'....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

As a mere tactical level/line sqn operator, that stuff is all well above my pay grade and focus level.   8)


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> One reason for our 'under appreciation' of submarine warfare might be our focus on developing capabilities that are at odds with the more usual forms of general war, where subs are essential, e.g.,:
> 
> "No longer will the Canadian Forces be fixed on preparing for conventional, nation-state versus nation-state conflict. Now and for the
> foreseeable future, the fight against the bear will be the exception. Instead, we will shift focus to dealing with failed and failing states and their inherent complexities. The fight against the ‘ball of snakes’ will be the norm."
> 
> - Brigadier-General Wayne Eyre
> 
> https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/301/286/hill.pdf
> 
> A heavily armed stabilization force doesn't need more submarines, it needs more nation state 'stabilizers'....



I think it has more to do with our political masters and Canadian Society being fundamentally at odds with our military doctrine and the way we fight.

Specifically, Offensive Action.

It's why not only do we have trouble justifying Submarines, we also don't seem to want Armed UAVs, Attack Helicopters, Tanks, Offensive Cyber Capabilities, Fighter-Bombers, Naval Land Strike, Mine Warfare, putting missiles and bombs on CP140s, etc.  

I think submarines can be a profoundly useful tool against non-state actors.  They can find and locate insurgent activity without being detected and are a powerful and robust ISR platform. They can also, if properly equipped, provide a strike function.  The British, Americans and Russians have all demonstrated this capability in contemporary conflict.  The Russians having most recently used SLCMs on targets in Syria, launched from the Mediterranean.    

The Israelis also use submarines against Non-state actors and rumour has it some of the supposed Israeli "air strikes" in Syria and elsewhere were actually carried out by the Israeli Submarine Service.

You could in theory in the future have a small Canadian Naval Task Group in the Mediterranean with 2xType 26, A Resupply Ship and a Submarine.  Equipped with UUVs, UAVs, SLCMs, etc.  This could provide a very robust and powerful strike force.  Paired with a SOTF and an ATF based around a Six Pack of F35, Armed UAVs, CP140s (armed of course).  You've now got a potent force for conducting kinetic operations.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Not an expert on naval warfare;  wouldn't an oiler be an 'easy target' and one adversaries would want to sink some ordinance into, especially if they knew you only had a handful'ish?
> 
> Sure, but don't you need them? Also, it's a way for "Canada to be back" by sending them off to allied exercises, NATO patrols etc without tying up a frigate. In other words, buys goodwill?
> 
> I get that we're part of an Alliance, etc but...


----------



## JMCanada

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> ... I doubt the RCN will ever see a 12 sub fleet and 4 is too small. I imagine 7-8 subs will be the max. That's not a bad number ...



I partially agree. However i would rather prefer the 8-to-10 window.
Ideally with 10 units there may be 3 subs per ocean plus one under long, planned,  overhaul. Yet I would suggest to have  those 10 split as 6+4, with the last four as an Arctic oriented sub-class in terms of longer submerged endurance/range at the cost, for instance, of relinquished land-attack or SOF deployment capabilities.

That being said, as RAN is in the way of doubling the number of subs, from 6 to 12, shouldn't we expect the RCN to at least double from 4 to 8? That is my minimum minimorum (minimum out of the minimals).


----------



## Sub_Guy

JMCanada said:
			
		

> That being said, as RAN is in the way of doubling the number of subs, from 6 to 12, shouldn't we expect the RCN to at least double from 4 to 8? That is my minimum minimorum (minimum out of the minimals).



Come on now, that’s not how we work.  With each big purchase we cut back.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Come on now, that’s not how we work.  With each big purchase we cut back.



So that means that we scrap the entire Kingston class and replace the 12 with the 6 AOPS, correct?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Come on now, that’s not how we work.  With each big purchase we cut back.



Didn't we pay extra money to have the weapons pylons taken off our CP140s?  That's Canadian Logic right there, pay more for less capability!

I can picture discussions in Ottawa concerning the Saudi LAV deal being similar:

"OMG, we didn't realize the Saudis were going to use those Armoured Vehicle thingys for their intended purpose!?"


----------



## Sub_Guy

I did hear we paid to have the laser designator removed from the camera on the Aurora.

I don’t know if it is true or not, but life would have been much easier with it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

The new buzzterm seems to be _'fitted for, but not with'_.

Canada has the 140 pylons and at least 1 aircraft had them installed in recent years (never carried stores on them though, AFAIK).  Re: the MX-20 and removing the LD...yup.  We are good at watering down our already small capabilities.   :not-again:  

Kind of embarrassing to be ONSTA/ONTGT and have a strike asset ask you for your code...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The new buzzterm seems to be _'fitted for, but not with'_.
> 
> Canada has the 140 pylons and at least 1 aircraft had them installed in recent years (never carried stores on them though, AFAIK).  Re: the MX-20 and removing the LD...yup.  We are good at watering down our already small capabilities.   :not-again:
> 
> Kind of embarrassing to be ONSTA/ONTGT and have a strike asset ask you for your code...



This is my point, what sort of logic is this?  There is none, it's illogical to own a strike platform and then take away its ability to strike.


----------



## dimsum

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> The new buzzterm seems to be _'fitted for, but not with'_.



That's not a new buzzterm.  I vaguely remember the MCDVs "fitted for, but not with", a bow thruster.  They were already pretty manoeuvrable, if slow, but a bow thruster could have let them slide sideways (or so I was told) while departing or coming alongside.


----------



## Stoker

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That's not a new buzzterm.  I vaguely remember the MCDVs "fitted for, but not with", a bow thruster.  They were already pretty manoeuvrable, if slow, but a bow thruster could have let them slide sideways (or so I was told) while departing or coming alongside.



Thats an accurate statement.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> This is my point, what sort of logic is this?  There is none, it's illogical to own a strike platform and then take away its ability to strike.



Well, as you know, in the Infantry we have a bayonet but it's really weak and breaks all the time. This makes it useless for it's intended purpose i.e., stabbing people to death in an adrenaline fuelled frenzy.

Maybe they are just being more realistic and decided it was 'all or nothing'....


----------



## MilEME09

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632



> All four of Canada's submarines were tied up last year for repairs and maintenance — news that has the opposition Conservatives questioning whether the Liberal government can keep the second-hand fleet afloat for another two decades.



Gee its almost as if we need more,and new subs


----------



## Navy_Pete

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That's not a new buzzterm.  I vaguely remember the MCDVs "fitted for, but not with", a bow thruster.  They were already pretty manoeuvrable, if slow, but a bow thruster could have let them slide sideways (or so I was told) while departing or coming alongside.



As a trainee, spent about a week hanging around MOG5, so went down to poke around an uncrewed MCDV (think it was parked before going to a docking). Was on my own, and when I got to the bow thruster compartment spent about 30 minutes looking for the bow thruster in a mostly empty compartment about 20' long.  Eventually gave up and asked someone because I felt like a failure for not being able to recognize it, but was a good way to sear 'fitted for not with' into my mind forever. Think there was space for it, but no mounts or hull penetrations. The azipods make it pretty maneuverable, but with a bow thruster they could just slide sideways, so pretty handy if you need to stay in a specific spot while maintaining your heading.  Also great for parking.

We have all kinds of systems that are 'mission fits' that there is just enough for one or two deploying ships, which is pretty dumb if we ever go to war, as they are generally pretty important in a warzone.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632
> 
> Gee its almost as if we need more,and new subs



*In response to a written question before Parliament, the Department of National Defence said the boats "spent zero days at sea" in 2019, but three of the four would return to service at some point this year.*

 :Tin-Foil-Hat: Not much of a deterrent...

-
*...a written statement recently put before the House of Commons indicates the navy wants to keep the boats "operationally effective until the mid-2030s."...*

Maybe "operationally effective in 2020" is a more realistic goal to aim for at this point??


----------



## Jarnhamar

At least if our submarines aren't sailing then they're not catching fire right?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> At least if our submarines aren't sailing then they're not catching fire right?



"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for." John A. Shedd


----------



## Colin Parkinson

To be fair the year before they really pushed these boats.


----------



## Czech_pivo

:dontfeedmods:





			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> To be fair the year before they really pushed these boats.



We pushed two of the four, as only two were in the water in 2018. The other two weren’t in the water at all in 2018 or 2019.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> :dontfeedmods:
> We pushed two of the four, as only two were in the water in 2018. The other two weren’t in the water at all in 2018 or 2019.



But that's always been the plan.  My understanding is the plan was to have one submarine available in 2019 but then the Navy made a conscientious decision to sail both boats hard in 2018 which resulted in us having none available now.

Corner Brook also caught fire during welding which delayed its return to service further. 

Basically, with only four boats, you will always have a boom and bust cycle if you try and sail submarines simultaneously on both coasts for extended periods of time.


----------



## Uzlu

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Basically, with only four boats, you will always have a boom and bust cycle if you try and sail submarines simultaneously on both coasts for extended periods of time.


Any navy that wants at least one submarine deployed at all times, requires a minimum of five submarines in the fleet.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Any navy that wants at least one submarine deployed at all times, requires a minimum of five submarines in the fleet.



Kind of sucks that we’re a 3 ocean country.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Kind of sucks that we’re a 3 ocean country not equipped or funded properly and struggle to keep a single sub in the water at all, let alone 1 on each coast.



FTFY   ;D


----------



## MarkOttawa

Also it would seem the current sub refits are not the serious and very costly--$1.5/$3B-- modernization that then-Navy head VADM Norman said in 2016 was needed to keep the boats really useful until mid-30s:
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/edmonton-journal/20160620/281797103286477

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> FTFY   ;D



I luv ya man - 
I’m on this sight to better understand the issues all of you are facing daily so that I can speak out and advocate to the elected officials and general public. 

Without a doubt more is needed.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Any navy that wants at least one submarine deployed at all times, requires a minimum of five submarines in the fleet.



 :nod:

This is compounded by the fact our two fleets are separated by about 6000km of land mass in between them.  

In all reality, if we wanted a continuous submarine presence on both coasts simultaneously, we would need 8-10 boats.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> This is compounded by the fact our two fleets are separated by about 6000km of land mass in between them.
> 
> In all reality, if we wanted a continuous submarine presence on both coasts simultaneously, we would need 8-10 boats.



Just order a bunch from the US and ask BC to pick up the tab again  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_CC-1


----------



## Navy_Pete

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> This is compounded by the fact our two fleets are separated by about 6000km of land mass in between them.
> 
> In all reality, if we wanted a continuous submarine presence on both coasts simultaneously, we would need 8-10 boats.



Not sure about the west coast, but we're running out of jetty space as it is in Halifax, so aside from the vessels, both bases would need an upgrade/expansion.  If we ever go nuclear, would need new facilities outside of populated areas all together to get the security cordon set up.


----------



## Dale Denton

Is this possible for us to do this so we could operate in the arctic during different seasons and further? Instead of blowing holes too shoot, use them to breathe instead?

*Russian submarines to get unguided shells to break ice*



> The new projectiles are tested on submarines of Borey-class project 955 and Yasen-class project 885, sources in the Defense Ministry said. The unguided rocket-propelled munitions confirmed the ability to break any ice drift. The projectiles are necessary to ensure underwater missile launches and to surface floating rescue capsules and evacuate a crew in distress. Submarines can engage the projectiles under ice and in a surfaced position, the sources said.




https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2020/january/7985-russian-submarines-to-get-unguided-shells-to-break-ice.html




			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Not sure about the west coast, but we're running out of jetty space as it is in Halifax, so aside from the vessels, both bases would need an upgrade/expansion.  If we ever go nuclear, would need new facilities outside of populated areas all together to get the security cordon set up.



Hate to shamelessly plug my ideas, but if we tacked on to a Virginia-lite program (details below), they could theoretically and temporarily placed in an already secured USN yard.

- Buy an American Virginia-Class SNN, take away some capabilities (SDV, less VLS tubes for example).
- They have expertise in design, building, maintaining them. Have existing global infrastructure and support available.
- Buys much goodwill with US relations, giving us a political 'chip' to use for another issue we want their support on. 
- The CDN$ going to them may likely buy the political class off in terms of the US not wanting us to have SNNs.
- Have the US yard set up/support a small shop in Canada (partnership with Davie?), set them up as an apprentice the larger US firm.
- Send RCN teams to USN yards to learn the new trade. 
- 'Lease' a slip in a Pacific/Atlantic USN yard.
- Will never happen.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Not sure about the west coast, but we're running out of jetty space as it is in Halifax, so aside from the vessels, both bases would need an upgrade/expansion.  If we ever go nuclear, would need new facilities outside of populated areas all together to get the security cordon set up.



Chances of them stationing the East Coast AOPS out of St. John's? instead of Halifax?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Did they sell off jetty space in HFX? At one point all 4 280’s, 6-8 steamers, PRE, PRO, all 3 O boats, Cormorant and a whack of other smaller ships were based there, with room for whole visiting fleets such as NATO  standing forces.


----------



## GR66

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Hate to shamelessly plug my ideas, but if we tacked on to a Virginia-lite program (details below), they could theoretically and temporarily placed in an already secured USN yard.



Even with nuclear power plants being the best solution to providing lots of carbon-free electricity to combat climate change, nobody in power is willing to face the anti-nuclear backlash by suggesting we build more nuclear power plants.  If THAT is a no-go then purchasing nuclear powered "war machines" will never, ever, EVER happen.  No point even wasting any more keystrokes dreaming about the idea regardless of any possible merit.

 :2c:


----------



## Cloud Cover

Ontario and I believe Saskatchewan are investing in new nuclear technology research for power. But you’re right, Canada will never have a nuclear powered “anything” in its military. 
Is there an actual plan to replace the submarine fleet. My last understanding is that project does not exist.


----------



## stoker dave

I will further add that to operate nuclear powered vessels, it is absolutely essential to have 100% compliance with all documented procedures at all times.  That is the ONLY way to assure the safety of the vessel. 

DND does not have the necessary culture of "procedural compliance" to safely operate nuclear powered vessels.  A prime example is the incident involving a smoke detector in the wardroom.  If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor.


----------



## Cloud Cover

stoker dave said:
			
		

> I will further add that to operate nuclear powered vessels, it is absolutely essential to have 100% compliance with all documented procedures at all times.  That is the ONLY way to assure the safety of the vessel.
> 
> DND does not have the necessary culture of "procedural compliance" to safely operate nuclear powered vessels.  A prime example is the incident involving a smoke detector in the wardroom.  If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor.


Fucking A. 
Milpoints inbound.


----------



## daftandbarmy

stoker dave said:
			
		

> I will further add that to operate nuclear powered vessels, it is absolutely essential to have 100% compliance with all documented procedures at all times.  That is the ONLY way to assure the safety of the vessel.
> 
> DND does not have the necessary culture of "procedural compliance" to safely operate nuclear powered vessels.  A prime example is the incident involving a smoke detector in the wardroom.  If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor anything....



FTFY


----------



## midget-boyd91

stoker dave said:
			
		

> I will further add that to operate nuclear powered vessels, it is absolutely essential to have 100% compliance with all documented procedures at all times.  That is the ONLY way to assure the safety of the vessel.
> 
> DND does not have the necessary culture of "procedural compliance" to safely operate nuclear powered vessels.  A prime example is the incident involving a smoke detector in the wardroom.  If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor.



Zzzinggg!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Is this possible for us to do this so we could operate in the arctic during different seasons and further? Instead of blowing holes too shoot, use them to breathe instead?
> 
> *Russian submarines to get unguided shells to break ice*



I wouldn't want to be on a SSK that relied on that...and, tactically...well.


----------



## CBH99

Not a bad idea if you need to break through the ice, but can't find a suitable spot?  Or need to break it up a bit more to be safe?

From the crew rescue capsule perspective, it seems to make sense.  Especially if their focus is clearly arctic operations in this case.



I know nothing about submarines other than the basics - doesn't seem like a bad option to have if need be though?


----------



## Underway

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Did they sell off jetty space in HFX? At one point all 4 280’s, 6-8 steamers, PRE, PRO, all 3 O boats, Cormorant and a whack of other smaller ships were based there, with room for whole visiting fleets such as NATO  standing forces.



They just created more jetty space with the new NJ jetty.  Ships we have now are larger, 
[/quote]there is still space alongside one of the 3 sides of NF which isn't used much.  Also the jetty at the Dockyard annex isn't used anymore for ships as it's in need of significant upgrade/repair.  That used to be used quite a bit for the smaller vessels if I read the old photo's correct.



			
				stoker dave said:
			
		

> If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor.



Like the hasty generalization and genetic fallacies I see.  One does not follow the other.  I know plenty of officers who follow the rules to their detriment and the detriment of their subordinates, come hell or high water.


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Not a bad idea if you need to break through the ice, but can't find a suitable spot?  Or need to break it up a bit more to be safe?
> 
> From the crew rescue capsule perspective, it seems to make sense.  Especially if their focus is clearly arctic operations in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> I know nothing about submarines other than the basics - doesn't seem like a bad option to have if need be though?



I wonder... how big is the dems kit for blowing the blinds?


----------



## Sub_Guy

This only makes sense to get missiles up and on their way

Crew rescue?  I can’t see it.  How can the boat be in such bad shape that I need to leave, but at the same time it’s still in good enough condition to launch this projectile to blow the ice.  

What happens when I get to the roof?  I’ll look like Wile E Coyote, encased in a block of ice.    

As for Jetty space.  Does anyone have any photos from MARCOT ‘98?  Halifax was jammed packed.  We also had the Winnipeg as they were part of the NATO fleet at the time.


----------



## Navy_Pete

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Did they sell off jetty space in HFX? At one point all 4 280’s, 6-8 steamers, PRE, PRO, all 3 O boats, Cormorant and a whack of other smaller ships were based there, with room for whole visiting fleets such as NATO  standing forces.



Halifax will have 3-5 AOPS, 7 frigates , JSS, 6 MCDVs, plus the tugs and other auxiliary ships. Unless most of the fleet is out and about, that's a lot of ships that are doubled up, and the further you are from FMF, the less work you get done, so there is a lot of shuffling them around. At some point CSC will start rolling in too, so unless some of the frigates start 'self retiring' not going to get any better.

Ships used to be gone a lot longer at a time, which was more feasible with baseline refits. With the condition based maintenance you have a lot more repairs during the operational bit, and because we are trying to stretch our 3rd line budget, a lot gets downloaded into SWPs (or doing without while in service). Unless you are in HR, not uncommon to be bouncing around with the bare minimum in some areas, and thanks to the risk assessments, you can always talk until it's blue and carry on. That effectively makes the dockyard annex and the shearwater jetties unusable for anything more than short stops as ships need all the dockyard jetty time they can get for repairs/PM.

We also do clever things like sending the bulk of the active fleet out at once, then having multiple SWPs at the same time, so pretty good at not evenly loading maintenance demands at the FMF.  Hopefully things have gotten better in the last few years, but even with EHM data showing pumps/motors were starting to fail, wasn't able to get things replaced until they actually failed, and even then it was on a triage basis.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Halifax will have 3-5 AOPS, 7 frigates , JSS, 6 MCDVs, plus the tugs and other auxiliary ships. Unless most of the fleet is out and about, that's a lot of ships that are doubled up, and the further you are from FMF, the less work you get done, so there is a lot of shuffling them around. At some point CSC will start rolling in too, so unless some of the frigates start 'self retiring' not going to get any better.
> 
> Ships used to be gone a lot longer at a time, which was more feasible with baseline refits. With the condition based maintenance you have a lot more repairs during the operational bit, and because we are trying to stretch our 3rd line budget, a lot gets downloaded into SWPs (or doing without while in service). Unless you are in HR, not uncommon to be bouncing around with the bare minimum in some areas, and thanks to the risk assessments, you can always talk until it's blue and carry on. That effectively makes the dockyard annex and the shearwater jetties unusable for anything more than short stops as ships need all the dockyard jetty time they can get for repairs/PM.
> 
> We also do clever things like sending the bulk of the active fleet out at once, then having multiple SWPs at the same time, so pretty good at not evenly loading maintenance demands at the FMF.  Hopefully things have gotten better in the last few years, but even with EHM data showing pumps/motors were starting to fail, wasn't able to get things replaced until they actually failed, and even then it was on a triage basis.



I've asked this previously, but what about the option of basing the East Coast AOPS (3 of them, as I assume that the other 3 will be on the West Coast), out of St. John's?  That would save 2 days sailing time up to the Arctic and then base the 2 CCG AOPS's out of St. John's as well.  That would free up a fair amount of space, leaving room for the 8 CSC's, the 6 Kington's, 2 Vic's, OAR and the various tugs in Halifax.


----------



## daftandbarmy

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I've asked this previously, but what about the option of basing the East Coast AOPS (3 of them, as I assume that the other 3 will be on the West Coast), out of St. John's?  That would save 2 days sailing time up to the Arctic and then base the 2 CCG AOPS's out of St. John's as well.  That would free up a fair amount of space, leaving room for the 8 CSC's, the 6 Kington's, 2 Vic's, OAR and the various tugs in Halifax.



Or Nanisivik?  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanisivik_Naval_Facility


----------



## Spencer100

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Or Nanisivik?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanisivik_Naval_Facility



It was down graded to a refueling station.  But I bet stationing crews there would wonders for pers retention!


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I've asked this previously, but what about the option of basing the East Coast AOPS (3 of them, as I assume that the other 3 will be on the West Coast), out of St. John's?  That would save 2 days sailing time up to the Arctic and then base the 2 CCG AOPS's out of St. John's as well.  That would free up a fair amount of space, leaving room for the 8 CSC's, the 6 Kington's, 2 Vic's, OAR and the various tugs in Halifax.



My first thought is the cost of the 'support and maintenance' of having them not co-located with the rest of CANFLTLANT.  Shore offices, main facility (1st line?)...I've been to the Armouries a few times in St John's while flying out of Torbay;  is there any room in that bldg to support some of the admin/log side?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> It was down graded to a refueling station.  But I bet stationing crews there would wonders for pers retention!



Way better to train locals (who need the jobs) and rotate staff through with an option for volunteer posting.


----------



## Spencer100

I don't think anyone lives there at all


----------



## Colin Parkinson

On the other side of the Island at Arctic Bay


----------



## Navy_Pete

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> My first thought is the cost of the 'support and maintenance' of having them not co-located with the rest of CANFLTLANT.  Shore offices, main facility (1st line?)...I've been to the Armouries a few times in St John's while flying out of Torbay;  is there any room in that bldg to support some of the admin/log side?



The ISSC contract for AOPS/JSS is set up on them being based in Halifax/Esquimalt, so there would be a not insignificant cost to changing that, as their local supply chains, trainers and maintainers will be based there.  A lot of it will just be typical stuff through existing subcontractors, but that wouldn't be a small change, as they've been ramping up for the last few years, and have a number of local companies as established subs.  That takes time to get the contract terms nailed down, and also requires the right skillsets available in the local market, so it's not an easy shift.

AOPS/MCDVs might be easier to park over at the dockyard annex or shearwater (if the jetties and local facilities were fixed up) from a maintenance perspective, as it would be civvies driving somewhere either way for the most part.  The FMF portion for maintenance of those ships is relatively minimal, so will be curious to see what they do over the next decade. Not sure if they even have fully working jetty hookups etc over there (or at all the existing jetties in the dockyard).

Subs are pretty maintenance intensive, so can't see them not being parked within a close walk of FMF. Also don't see us ever getting nuclear subs for the previously stated reasons from other posters, so probably just going to have to live with crowded dockyards.  Every cold move has big impacts on work though, so it's a bit of a fine line to walk.


----------



## NavyShooter

I will observe that the new jetty that was built in HMC Dockyard over the past couple of years is very close to the ISI shipyard facility...but there's a big building in the way called the BoatShed...the same boatshed that was just condemned a little while ago...the same boatshed that, if it was torn down would let a road and gate be built leading directly from ISI to the new jetty...which would make it really convenient for ISSC staff to enter/exit to fix the AOPS....but I'm sure that ST(A) moving out the other year was just a coincidence...right?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The ISSC contract for AOPS/JSS is set up on them being based in Halifax/Esquimalt, so there would be a not insignificant cost to changing that, as their local supply chains, trainers and maintainers will be based there.  A lot of it will just be typical stuff through existing subcontractors, but that wouldn't be a small change, as they've been ramping up for the last few years, and have a number of local companies as established subs.  That takes time to get the contract terms nailed down, and also requires the right skillsets available in the local market, so it's not an easy shift.



Thoughts if the ISSC contract will be expanded to include the 2 CCG AOPS's? If that's the case, then does the argument to base them out of Halifax hold true as well?


----------



## a_majoor

A bit sideways to the topic, but a new generaton of AIP fuel cells has been developed in France. Assuming the Victoria'c continue in service, this looks like a possible upgrade at some future refit:

https://strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20200213.aspx



> *Submarines: Second Gen AIP*
> ﻿
> February 13, 2020: A French firm (Naval Group, formerly DCNS) has successfully tested what it calls FC2G (Fuel Cell 2nd Generation) AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) system for 18 days in a mock-up of the complete system in an 8 meter long circular structure identical to the space it would occupy in a submarine. The FC2G performed efficiently for three weeks. This test will be repeated several times as preparations are made to install FC2G in a submarine. The FC2G is safer, more efficient and easier to operate than earlier fuel cell AIP systems, including the widely used DCNS first-generation AIP.
> 
> *Fuel cell tech has been around for decades, long enough to become a proven technology. But fuel cells require dangerous fuels like hydrogen. Hydrogen is currently stored in cylinders outside the pressure hull of the sub. FC2G eliminates that with a two-stage system that extracts hydrogen from diesel fuel, which is also used for the sub’s diesel engines and purifies the hydrogen to a very high degree. The high-quality hydrogen gets more electricity out of the standard fuel cell technology. At the same time, the need for hydrogen storage is eliminated because only as much hydrogen is obtained from diesel fuel as would be in the sub if the hydrogen were brought in from external storage tanks. The oxygen is obtained from the same supplies used for the crew to breathe while submerged.*
> 
> FC2G also operates more quietly and expels fewer byproducts from the sub. While hydrogen is a widely used industrial product, diesel fuel is even more widely available and much safer to handle. FC2G also generates more electrical power than older AIP systems of similar size and weight. FC2G also uses more efficient control software and hardware. That means the entire FC2G system requires only one sailor to monitor it.
> 
> The developer has a lot of credibility because many subs already use the older DCNS AIP designs. China and Russia are still struggling to get first-generation fuel cell tech working in their subs. Boats that use fuel cells also have diesel engines that power the subs while on the surface or just below the surface using a snorkel to obtain fresh air and expel diesel fumes. There are also storage batteries to provide some submerged operations if the fuel cells are not working.
> 
> Japan is working on making lithium batteries safe enough to use in subs. Lithium is more efficient than current batteries used in subs but  also bursts into flames under some conditions. There are also new, more efficient and safer, battery tech working in the lab. All this stuff will eventually be available for subs while right now a new generation of AIP is ready to go.
> 
> More efficient AIP means there will be more non-nuclear subs, which cost about a quarter what a nuclear sub goes for, which means even quieter and hard to find subs at sea.


----------



## JMCanada

In Spain two companies are competing to provide the reformation system for spanish S80 AIP submarine. Tecnicas Reunidas and Abengoa. It is expected that the winner will be announced this month, bets are in favour of the first one.

Both reformators produce hydrogen from bio-ethanol to feed the fuel cells. Both have been developed in full scale.

A third spanish company, Sener, has also worked on bio-ethanol reformers for land-based military applications, as well as they are working with German TKMS on a methanol reformer to feed the fuel cells for their submarines.

A Ballard's fuel cell plus a spanish reformer might be the solution for a Canadian submarine.

This sentence may be misleading: "The developer has a lot of credibility because many subs already use the older DCNS AIP designs". AFAIK DCNS has never delivered any single submarine based on fuel cell technology. Their previous AIP designs are based on MESMA (steam turbine).


----------



## JMCanada

JMCanada said:
			
		

> In Spain two companies are competing to provide the reformation system for spanish S80 AIP submarine. Tecnicas Reunidas and Abengoa. (...)
> 
> A Ballard's fuel cell plus a spanish reformer might be the solution for a Canadian submarine.



And the winner is... Abengoa group.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/03/navantia-development-of-s80-submarines-aip-system-completed/
...............
More:  There is an interesting article on the Canadian Naval Review website: "A Canadian Hybrid Submarine Design: A Case for the Slowpoke-2 Reactor".

https://www.navalreview.ca/2020/02/a-canadian-hybrid-submarine-design-a-case-for-the-slowpoke-2-reactor


----------



## OceanBonfire

> *Deployment of Canadian navy submarines on hold due to COVID-19*
> 
> VICTORIA -- What was meant to be a “milestone” return to sea for Canada’s military submarines in 2020 is now on hold amid the novel coronavirus pandemic.
> 
> Two Royal Canadian Navy submarines were due to embark this spring and summer after a nearly two-year deployment gap for the sub fleet. But now, the submarines HMCS Victoria and HMCS Windsor will remain in port for the foreseeable future as work to return the vessels to sea is put on hold.
> 
> “Further maintenance is required before they can be deployed,” said National Defence spokesperson Jessica Lamirande on Monday. “However, in order to ensure the health and safety of our Defence team, work on board submarines was put on pause during this pandemic.”
> 
> HMCS Victoria completed dive trials in February at its home port of Esquimalt, B.C., after six years of maintenance and upgrades since her last outing. The navy was planning to deploy the Victoria this spring with a new sonar array and battery.
> 
> Its departure was to be followed this summer by the deployment of HMCS Windsor from Halifax after the completion of extensive work in drydock. Once at sea, the Windsor was to test-fire a new heavyweight torpedo system slated for rollout across the Canadian sub fleet.
> 
> With both subs deployed by summertime, the navy was planning to get a third – HMCS Corner Brook – ready for sea trials off Vancouver Island later this year.
> 
> Having three of Canada’s four military submarines operating simultaneously would mark “a historical milestone,” said Maritime Forces Pacific spokesperson Capt. Jenn Jackson in February.
> 
> All of Canada's second-hand military subs have been grounded since 2018, when HMCS Windsor and HMCS Chicoutimi were last deployed.
> 
> “The intent is to return the submarines to sea as soon as maintenance is completed,” Lamirande said.
> 
> The National Defence spokesperson declined to comment on whether the return would come fast enough for the navy to meet its prior commitment to send a submarine to the multinational Exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) off Hawaii this summer.
> 
> National Defence said in a statement that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) remains committed to participating in “a significant way” at RIMPAC, the largest international maritime exercise in the world.
> 
> On April 29, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet announced that RIMPAC 2020 would be an abbreviated version of years past in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The biennial exercise, which typically runs from June to August and features events at sea and onshore, will this year run from Aug. 17 to Aug. 31 and feature at-sea training only.
> 
> “The CAF are in close communication with our U.S. counterparts, and are currently evaluating options to adapt our participation accordingly,” said National Defence in a statement Monday.
> 
> “Participation in RIMPAC will balance the requirement to complete critical tasks and high readiness training in support of planned operations, with the requirement to protect the health and safety of our personnel.”
> 
> 
> https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/deployment-of-canadian-navy-submarines-on-hold-due-to-covid-19-1.4936328


----------



## MilEME09

> Having three of Canada’s four military submarines operating simultaneously would mark “a historical milestone,” said Maritime Forces Pacific spokesperson Capt. Jenn Jackson in February.



Given how long it has been since we purchased these subs, I feel like such a mile stone should of happened sooner.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m almost certain we had 3 subs at sea back when the Chicoutimi caught fire.  

The Victoria, Windsor and Chicoutimi were all out.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not really, DH.

One boat was in long overhaul, to bring the fire control/torpedo suite to Canadian standard, two more boats were operational. Then, Chicoutimi was just being taken over from the Brits and being driven home (that lasted a whole three days) so it could go straight into long refit to bring her up to the same standard as the other boats (as the first Upholder, she had, ironically enough, an electrical system that was not weather protected  to the same standard as the other three boats of the class and was to be brought up to that standard, which would have averted the very electrical event that caused the fire).

So while we had three days with three boats "at sea", Chicoutimi was not an operational boat. I believe the "milestone" being mentioned here is for three boats operational at the same time.

We have to be careful here, contrary to milEME's apparent chagrin over the long time elapsed. With four diesel electric boats, what can be expected operationally is two boats operational at a time, with a third in surge from time to time. The main reason we can have three operational now - for a little time - is simply the fact that we just got a reasonably long pause in sub operations that makes this surge possible for a short bit of time (don't get used to it, it won't last more than, at most, one year).


----------



## daftandbarmy

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Not really, DH.
> 
> One boat was in long overhaul, to bring the fire control/torpedo suite to Canadian standard, two more boats were operational. Then, Chicoutimi was just being taken over from the Brits and being driven home (that lasted a whole three days) so it could go straight into long refit to bring her up to the same standard as the other boats (as the first Upholder, she had, ironically enough, an electrical system that was not weather protected  to the same standard as the other three boats of the class and was to be brought up to that standard, which would have averted the very electrical event that caused the fire).
> 
> So while we had three days with three boats "at sea", Chicoutimi was not an operational boat. I believe the "milestone" being mentioned here is for three boats operational at the same time.
> 
> We have to be careful here, contrary to milEME's apparent chagrin over the long time elapsed. With four diesel electric boats, what can be expected operationally is two boats operational at a time, with a third in surge from time to time. The main reason we can have three operational now - for a little time - is simply the fact that we just got a reasonably long pause in sub operations that makes this surge possible for a short bit of time (don't get used to it, it won't last more than, at most, one year).



And, I assume, if there is a sudden and pressing operational requirement we might see the flood gates of cash open wide to get them all up to tip top shape pretty fast.

Just because a sub, or any other warship, is out of the water doesn't mean it's not a threat.


----------



## Underway

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And, I assume, if there is a sudden and pressing operational requirement we might see the flood gates of cash open wide to get them all up to tip top shape pretty fast.
> 
> Just because a sub, or any other warship, is out of the water doesn't mean it's not a threat.



It's all about the SUBSAFE program.  Those boats are regularly gone over with a fine-tooth comb to find any defects. Testing and examining the equipment and hull take time, and then any repairs take time which of course then have to undergo the same testing/inspection again.  If the subs were newer then the whole process would probably be faster (less stress fractures in the structures etc...).  It's like an old aircraft.  The older it gets the more hours of maintenance are required per hour in the water.

Of course you can accept the risk and put the boat in the water.  But we are not at war, and have no submarine related strategic emergencies.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> *It's the mileage, not the years: Military says it plans to keep subs afloat past retirement dates*
> 
> _Conservative critic says maintenance plan ignores fact that not everything on a submarine can be replaced_
> 
> 
> The Canadian navy has found a very creative way to keep its second-hand submarines afloat until the late 2030s and early 2040s — a plan that emphasizes maintenance over age in predicting how long the vessels can remain seaworthy.
> 
> The plan — according to a newly-released briefing note prepared in the run-up to the release of the Liberal government's marquee defence policy — would not see HMCS Victoria decommissioned until the end of 2042, giving the warship over 45 years service in Canada.
> 
> That estimate does not include the time the boat served with Britain's Royal Navy, which would add at least a decade to its working life.
> 
> The retirements of the other submarines — HMCS Chicoutimi, HMCS Windsor and HMCS Corner Brook — would be staggered throughout the 2030s, with Windsor being the first to go in 2033.
> 
> "The [Victoria Class Submarines] are a well-designed and solidly constructed class of modern conventional submarines that have had an unusual life since entering service with the [Royal Navy] in the early 1990s," said the August 2016 briefing analysis, recently obtained by Conservative Party researchers. "'While chronologically 20 years older, they have not been operated extensively during that time."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The boats were first constructed for the Royal Navy in the 1980s, but Britain decided to sell them when the government of the day made the policy decision to operate only nuclear-powered submarines.
> 
> One aspect of the Liberal defence policy, released in June 2017, that has puzzled military experts and opposition critics alike was its assumption that the submarines — which have had a tortured technical history that includes one fatal fire — will remain in service until at least the 2040s.
> 
> The briefing note spells out in detail — and for the first time publicly — how the navy intends to squeeze more life out of boats it was supposed to start retiring in four years.
> 
> It was originally envisioned, the briefing said, that the Victoria-Class submarines would retire one at a time, beginning in 2024.
> 
> The report argues it is possible to operate the submarines beyond their expected working lives if the military assesses the "material state" of each boat rather than following "a simplistic calendar driven" evaluation of their operational condition.
> 
> In others words, the report argues that what matters most is not how old the submarines are, but rather how hard have they been driven and how well have they been maintained.
> 
> The submarines operate on what's called a "6-2 schedule" — six years of service at sea followed by two years of deep maintenance before returning to duty.
> 
> The briefing note proposes that the boats do nine years of service and then go into a longer refurbishment of up to three years. The submarines would need a full life-extension overhaul in addition to the extended maintenance plan.
> 
> As evidence to support the plan, the briefing note to senior defence officials pointed to a 2013 study of the Victoria-Class submarines — which said that "although there are numerous technical and supportability challenges, there was no single obstacle precluding a life extension of up to 12 years."
> 
> 
> *'Lower expectations'*
> 
> The briefing offers one note of caution, however: "It is reasonable to assume that operational availability will decrease as the submarine ages."
> 
> The briefing note predicted higher maintenance and sustainment costs as the boats get older. To save money, it said, the navy might have to lower expectations of what the boats can do.
> 
> The existing plan "assumed that there would be no relaxation of operational performance requirements, although in fact some discretion by the Operational Requirements Authority in this regard may be feasible as a cost saving measure," said the note.
> 
> Conservative defence critic James Bezan said he was astounded by the plan to stretch out the operational life of the subs. He said he doesn't blame the naval planners who drew up the document — but he does hold the Liberal government accountable, arguing it must have ordered the Department of National Defence to give it some justification for putting off the purchase of new submarines.
> 
> "It is ridiculous," Bezan said. "There was potential for some political direction on how this was written."
> 
> In an interview with CBC News at the end of last year, the commander of the navy, Vice-Admiral Art McDonald, defended the plan to extend the life of the boats, saying he had full confidence in the "pretty resourceful and capable" submarine engineering community.
> 
> The defence policy, he said, "directed us to operate and modernize" the submarine fleet and he's confident it can be done safely.
> 
> "We know there is still excellent life in the Victoria-class submarine," McDonald told CBC News. "I've seen that personally as an outsider who has come into the program and taken a look at it."
> 
> The focus of the subs' modernization project — which was in the early stages of being developed when the pandemic hit back in late winter — will be on survivability and making the submarines more livable for crew members.
> 
> "We're going to be able to operate those boats into the 2030s, but to do that we have to continue with the routine investments we've made and modernize, as was directed" by the defence policy, McDonald said.
> 
> 
> *Not everything can be replaced*
> 
> A series of assessments was conducted between 2008 and 2014. The defence department's naval board, which is charged with planning the future shape of the fleet, met in November 2014 to study the life expectancy of the second-hand boats.
> 
> "While it is considered unrealistic to predict the material state of 40-year-old platforms, 20 years into the future, certain items such as the pressure hull and main motor will require additional monitoring and maintenance above the current regime, since unpredicted degradation in such areas may not be cost effective to repair and mitigate," said the 2016 briefing note.
> 
> And that's the problem with the life-extension plan, said Bezan: some key parts of a submarine — such as the pressure hull and the engines — can't be upgraded. He also pointed to how the submarine fleet had "zero days at sea" in 2019 because all of the vessels were tied up for maintenance.
> 
> The analysis, Bezan said, shows that the Liberal government should immediately begin looking for a replacement for the submarines — something the previous Conservative government was in the process of doing when it was defeated in 2015.
> 
> The options that were discussed before the election, he said, included partnering with the Australians — who were in the process of acquiring their own submarine replacements — or buying an off-the-shelf design for inclusion in the federal shipbuilding strategy. None of those ideas got very far before the election, he added.
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-forces-navy-submarine-1.5665020


----------



## Dale Denton

I'm sorry if im overly critical of serving members, but why has nobody in the Navy spoken out about this terrible error in abiding by a political judgment that lacks common sense? Having continuously deteriorating ships at sea for long cannot be safe. What if we were to use these in a war in the 2030s, would these even be effective? Isn't the cost of keeping and sourcing parts for an old sub more expensive than a new one? 

If i'm selling a 55 Chevy that's been sitting in a field for 20 years, I don't get to call it a 75 Chevy... Laying up saves some extra years in its life i'm sure, but not _that _many. Just tell Dad to stop being such a cheapskate and buy a new car, he can afford it...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if im overly critical of serving members, but why has nobody in the Navy spoken out about this terrible error in abiding by a political judgment that lacks common sense?



Maybe they are, but it's behind closed doors and 'being taken into account' by the gov't...


----------



## CBH99

Not trying to sound rude or aggressive, just asking for a very blunt 'No BS' assessment from someone in the know.  (Obviously without violating anything OPSEC related)

Some sources indicate that with the extensive maintenance and upgrades the boats have received, they are an extremely good boat for their type, etc.

Other sources, some of which were on this forum, indicate that they were among some of the easiest boats they've ever found/tracked.


^^ I realize there are a variety of factors that can go into the above such as crew training, timing, sheer luck, etc etc.



*Question is - are these boats as quiet & capable as the Navy says?  Or, would they find themselves lacking if we end up in a shooting war?*


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I won't try to answer CBH99's question. All I can say is that in the 1980's under British management, they were as hard to find as any diesel boat out there.

What I do note, however is that the briefing paper talks about retiring the first boat in 2033. That's 12/13 years away only. To do so means that we MUST start project office and replacement program NOW! That's how much lead time you need to go through all the hoops and have time to build and evaluate the first replacement vessel.


----------



## Sub_Guy

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Other sources, some of which were on this forum, indicate that they were among some of the easiest boats they've ever found/tracked.
> 
> 
> ^^ I realize there are a variety of factors that can go into the above such as crew training, timing, sheer luck, etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> *Question is - are these boats as quiet & capable as the Navy says?  Or, would they find themselves lacking if we end up in a shooting war?*



I’ll just throw my experience out there in regards to searching/tracking the Vic class.

On the Block 2 Aurora it was a challenge, but then again it was a challenge to track any submarine passively.  

However that all changed with the Block 3.  I’ve tracked plenty of submarines, and out of all the diesels I’ve tracked, the Victoria was the loudest/least challenging (ranges that would make your jaw drop).  That being said there are so many variables to consider, the water profile, bottom topography, sonobuoy depths, ambient noise in the water, crew training, RCN vessels running over your search pattern, etc..  Maybe the Swiss cheese holes lined up in my favour every time I flew on a Vic? 🤷🏼‍♂️ 

The Aurora (and Cyclone) have, what I consider, one of the most advanced ASW suites out there, so our job is pretty easy. Do our adversaries possess similar tech? Who knows? I suspect they do. It’d be hard to say how the Vic would perform in a shooting war, but I think they would probably fair pretty good, they are capable and our most important/valuable naval asset. I could be biased, but I don’t think our potential adversaries are as well trained as we are.

I’ll also throw this tidbit in. The CP-140 ASO performs one job, hunting boats, that’s it, that’s all they do. They are highly skilled in the fine art of hunting subs, probably more so than the surface sonar types in the RCN. 

The quietest boat I’ve encountered? Ula..


----------



## Lumber

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> That being said there are so many variables to consider, the water profile, bottom topography, sonobuoy depths, ambient noise in the water, crew training, RCN vessels running over your search pattern, etc..  Maybe the Swiss cheese holes lined up in my favour every time I flew on a Vic? 🤷🏼‍♂️



Well how the bloody else are we suppose to practice close-in ASW, hmm?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Not trying to sound rude or aggressive, just asking for a very blunt 'No BS' assessment from someone in the know.  (Obviously without violating anything OPSEC related)
> 
> Some sources indicate that with the extensive maintenance and upgrades the boats have received, they are an extremely good boat for their type, etc.
> 
> Other sources, some of which were on this forum, indicate that they were among some of the easiest boats they've ever found/tracked.
> 
> 
> ^^ I realize there are a variety of factors that can go into the above such as crew training, timing, sheer luck, etc etc.
> 
> 
> 
> *Question is - are these boats as quiet & capable as the Navy says?  Or, would they find themselves lacking if we end up in a shooting war?*



I have worked against Victoria’s twice, in a Sea King. In both cases, they easily evaded me. For comparison, I have worked 688Is where they threw everything at me but the kitchen sink and I maintained contact. In other words- in ASW, sometimes it is your day and sometimes it is not.


----------



## Ping Monkey

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Not trying to sound rude or aggressive, just asking for a very blunt 'No BS' assessment from someone in the know.  (Obviously without violating anything OPSEC related)
> 
> Some sources indicate that with the extensive maintenance and upgrades the boats have received, they are an extremely good boat for their type, etc.
> 
> Other sources, some of which were on this forum, indicate that they were among some of the easiest boats they've ever found/tracked.
> 
> 
> ^^ I realize there are a variety of factors that can go into the above such as crew training, timing, sheer luck, etc etc.
> 
> 
> *Question is - are these boats as quiet & capable as the Navy says?  Or, would they find themselves lacking if we end up in a shooting war?*


I'll echo DH's comments.

The answer largely depends on who the adversary is.  Platform/Systems/Tactics/Acoustic Intel/Crew readiness, will all be factors in the recognition differential of the operator's ability to detect any submarine.

My opinion:  Yes Victoria class boats are still very capable, modern submarines that remain a powerful asset in the RCN fleet.  A small Diesel-Electric submarine operating on battery power is still one of the most difficult targets to detect/track in the ocean.  If it doesn't want to be found, it probably won't.  

Often working together with DH, I've also exercised with Victoria class boats using both legacy CP140 (1980s-era) and modern CP140M (2000s-era) systems.  Using our legacy system, and even with the benefit of having thorough acoustic intel, I had difficulty detecting it.  Even if it was detected, it would be a challenge to track for an extended period.

For a variety of reasons, things got *a lot* easier with the vastly more modern CP140M acoustic system.  The demonstrated RCAF ASW capabilities are getting a tremendous amount of (well deserved) global attention for their performance and acoustic data collects.   Knowing that, I don't think that RCAF experiences are common... yet.

I strongly believe that the Victoria class remains a good 'above average' SSK, and its most recent updates will ensure it remains relevant for the near future.  Altogether, if I was onboard an allied HVU, I'd be happy knowing a VIC was helping protect the area.  And if I was on an adversarial vessel, I'd have reservations about traversing through a region where a known Victoria class is on patrol.


----------



## MilEME09

While capable by what you are all saying, is it really a good idea long term, to extend the life to the late 2030s/early 2040s without discussing replacement? Given how long we take to procure equipment, subs will have to be off shore. Should we not be discussing replacement now so boats are in the water by the time the vics reach end of life?


----------



## CBH99

By planning ahead, and keeping it as simple as possible, we could in theory replace the submarine fleet with new boats when they retire, for a pretty reasonable price.

It doesn't have to be a hugely complicated or expensive process.  We don't need to start/stop/start/stop/start/stop/start/stop (I'm not exaggerating, i.e., fighter replacement) a competition, and we can narrow it down to a few classes that would suit our new needs.

Plug into an existing production line (or one that will be existing when the time comes) - and have the boats built with any Canadian modifications required, while being built.  Not sailed here and retrofitted after the fact.  (Weapon systems, computer systems.)

*Make it clear to anybody who raises the question - no, submarines can't be built domestically.  And it makes zero sense to build up the domestic submarine manufacturing capability for a mere 4 boats, possibly 6 if our currency is strong.  Domestic build is a non-starter, and not a conversation even worth having.  The Canadian public will forget all about the issue in a few days, when the media tell them to think about something else.*



We'd have new boats, for a reasonable cost, ready to go.  Keep it simple.   :2c:


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> in ASW, sometimes it is your day and sometimes it is not.



My last CASEX with a Vic, we caught them in the SNORT at night (RISER), banked into the homing, gained EOIR contact 2 seconds later, and held contact with them at leisure til FINEX.

What would that have looked like if they'd been secured from that evolution and on battery?  Who knows...

When discussing survivability in a shooting war, etc...that might come down to a discussion of (1) tactics (2) tasks and (3) command decisions.  1 is easy to discuss, 2 and 3 feed into the 'variables' that are quite hard to predict IMO.  



			
				Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The CP-140 ASO performs one job, hunting boats, that’s it, that’s all they do. They are highly skilled in the fine art of hunting subs, probably more so than the surface sonar types in the RCN.



100%.  

I've wondered more than once what would the results look like if our collective RCAF and RCN assets worked together more often and more closely...


----------



## Weinie

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I’ll also throw this tidbit in. The CP-140 ASO performs one job, hunting boats, that’s it, that’s all they do. They are highly skilled in the fine art of hunting subs, probably more so than the surface sonar types in the RCN.



What about their role in Iraq?


----------



## Eye In The Sky

In Iraq and Syria, they did all of the "AES Op" jobs except RADAR/IFF and ESM and maybe Crew Lead.  I had ASOs on all of the crews (3) I deployed to HappyLand with.


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> In Iraq and Syria, they did all of the "AES Op" jobs except RADAR/IFF and ESM.  I had ASOs on all of the crews (3) I deployed to HappyLand with.



Wish they would outfit them for a anti shipping role say for the Arctic.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Wish they would outfit them for a anti shipping role say for the Arctic.



ASOs or Auroras?   ;D


----------



## dimsum

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Wish they would outfit them for a anti shipping role say for the Arctic.



Or, like the way the USN, RAAF, RNZAF, ROKN, JMSDF... used them.  

We're one of the few militaries with P-3 variants that don't have armament on the wings.


----------



## Stoker

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Or, like the way the USN, RAAF, RNZAF, ROKN, JMSDF... used them.
> 
> We're one of the few militaries with P-3 variants that don't have armament on the wings.



Yes I heard that planes had the hardpoints for them but were removed and due to wing warping they cannot be installed easily, pity if that's true.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Yes I heard that planes had the hardpoints for them but were removed and due to wing warping they cannot be installed easily, pity if that's true.



I can't speak for the entire fleet, but I've seen the hardpoints installed on Canadian 140s in the recent (last 5 years) past.  Not sure if the warping issue was dealt with during ASLEP.

But...we're deviating off track a wee bit I think.


----------



## Stoker

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I can't speak for the entire fleet, but I've seen the hardpoints installed on Canadian 140s in the recent (last 5 years) past.  Not sure if the warping issue was dealt with during ASLEP.
> 
> But...we're deviating off track a wee bit I think.



Agreed


----------



## Underway

Not taking away from the CP-140's.  Amazing and exciting upgrades.  I'm a huge fan of the new capabilities.  However, it is important to differentiate (for the non navy/airforce types) between catching a sub on EX vs in the wild so to speak.  When you know there is a sub, the area to look for it is limited, and in some cases, the mission profile of the sub (you can extrapolate based on the exercise) the submarine loses its strategic surprise/initiative, which is probably its most important trait.  This is generally what happens in an exercise.

If you don't know a sub is there, what it is doing and haven't had a sniff it's very hard.  That's why submarines are strategic weapons.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Underway said:
			
		

> Not taking away from the CP-140's.  Amazing and exciting upgrades.  I'm a huge fan of the new capabilities.  However, it is important to differentiate (for the non navy/airforce types) between catching a sub on EX vs in the wild so to speak.  When you know there is a sub, the area to look for it is limited, and in some cases, the mission profile of the sub (you can extrapolate based on the exercise) the submarine loses its strategic surprise/initiative, which is probably its most important trait.  This is generally what happens in an exercise.
> 
> If you don't know a sub is there, what it is doing and haven't had a sniff it's very hard.  That's why submarines are strategic weapons.



You aren’t wrong.

Although the CP-140 has, on more than one occasion (in a non-exercise environment), gotten things back on track. As you know, we usually have a good idea where the bad guys are, quite often that’s enough to generate contact. NATO does a decent job of keeping Ivan honest.

The assets we use to keep tabs submarines is astounding, they are the ultimate war machine. Which is why the Victoria is very relevant.


----------



## OceanBonfire

HMCS Windsor has undocked:





























> https://www.facebook.com/Maritime.Forces.Pacific/posts/3539655252735124
> 
> https://twitter.com/MARPAC_FMARP/status/1291771967545081857
> 
> https://twitter.com/Hawkins_Sailor/status/1291685030004236291
> 
> https://twitter.com/Hawkins_Sailor/status/1291750772405927937


----------



## suffolkowner

New batteries for the subs

https://asiapacificdefencereporter.com/pmb-defence-wins-contract-for-canadian-subs/


----------



## Eye In The Sky

I welcome any spending of $$ on keeping our SSKs capable!


----------



## CBH99

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I welcome any spending of $$ on keeping our SSKs capable!




Amen!!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I welcome any spending of $$ on keeping our SSKs capable!



Yes we may need them sooner than expected. I hope to see another couple of long deployments again. Really pisses me off when they get slagged for everything that went wrong and then those same people have no idea what they have done since.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sea trials continue HMCS Victoria

https://www.facebook.com/notes/royal-canadian-navy/hmcs-victoria-returns-to-sea-stronger-than-ever-with-new-battery-and-sonar/10158825265588270


----------



## Dana381

Great to see her back at sea!  :cdnsalute:


----------



## MilEME09

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canadian-navy-submarine-docked-extra-year-after-leak-found-1.5240329

Another set back, this time mistakes by the contractor


----------



## Ping Monkey

War Zone picking up the story too.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/38369/the-saga-of-this-long-busted-submarine-is-an-example-of-how-sad-canadas-tiny-sub-fleet-is


----------



## FM07

HMCS Victoria is in the water as part of Task Group Exercise 21-01 along with two frigates and 2 MCDVs. 









						The role of the Task Group Commander
					

Capt(N) Scott Robinson, who is the Deputy Commander for Canadian Fleet Pacific, is the Task Group Commander for Task Group Exercise (TGEX) 21-01




					www.lookoutnewspaper.com
				




Pretty great to see it operating! BZ


----------



## Czech_pivo

Not sure if this belongs here or not, but since we've been talking about the Aussie French Subs....









						Government submarine contract sunk and unlikely to resurface
					

The submarine deal France proudly called 'the contract of the Century' appears to have collapsed, reports Alan Austin.




					independentaustralia.net


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:


> Not sure if this belongs here or not, but since we've been talking about the Aussie French Subs....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Government submarine contract sunk and unlikely to resurface
> 
> 
> The submarine deal France proudly called 'the contract of the Century' appears to have collapsed, reports Alan Austin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> independentaustralia.net


Not everyone, it appears, believes it is that bad.  https://www.aumanufacturing.com.au/...arine-construction-project-by-gregor-ferguson


----------



## MilEME09

Navy submarine suffered long-term damage to ballast tank from errant test: report
					

An internal Defence Department report has pulled back the curtain on the damage caused by an errant test on one of Canada's four submarines last year, suggesting some of the damage is permanent and could continue to pose a risk over the long term.



					www.ctvnews.ca
				




HMCS Corner Brooks damage to her ballast tank determined to be Beyond economical repair. That is a heavy risk to assume depending on the damage. If she can't sail again safefy she might become a training ship.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Conclusion of a piece at the excellent US site, _The Drive's_ "War Zone"--good luck with any government finding the money to buy replacements any time in the foreseeable future, what with CSC and new fighter:



> Canadian Submarine Bedeviled By Accidents For A Decade Is Finally Back In The Water​
> Canada’s tiny submarine fleet has been in sad shape for years. Now with the return of HMCS _Corner Brook_ that could start to change.​
> ...
> The COVID-19 pandemic further complicated things and, although _Victoria_ returned to the fleet _last_ September, _Corner Brook_ faced more delays. As of April this year, both _Windsor_ and _Victoria_ were in the water undergoing post-work testing, suggesting the program may, finally, have turned a corner. There seems to be some uncertainty when work on _Chicoutimi_ might be completed, however, evidenced by the RCN’s stated aim of “having three of four submarines” back in service in the near-term.
> 
> That aspiration might also be challenged by the age of the submarines, with the oldest, _Victoria_, due to reach the end of its planned service life next year. A life-extension program costing roughly $1.5 billion would be required to keep the class active into the late 2030s or early 2040s. While that may not sound such a lot, it’s a significant figure in a country where annual defense spending for 2019-20 was estimated at around $26.5 billion, total. The life-extension program would equate to more than 5 percent of the entire defense budget.
> 
> It wouldn’t be altogether surprising if the Canadian government decides the funds for submarine life-extension could be better spent elsewhere. Regardless, Canada has already invested more than a billion dollars in the submarines in the past 20 years, with very little return so far. Submarines are also not the only area where Canada is struggling to modernize, with the saga of acquiring new fighter jets another prominent big-ticket example.
> 
> The RCN’s requirement for a submarine of any kind is meanwhile clear, with the strategic importance of the nearby Arctic region steadily growing and with highly advanced Russian submarines increasingly active in the North Atlantic. The result has been a revival of submarine and anti-submarine warfare across NATO, something that Canada is keenly aware of. That said, just four submarines for a country like Canada with maritime interests in the Atlantic, the Pacific, and the Arctic, as well as responsibilities as part of NATO, is an extremely small force — even if they do all work.
> 
> That Ottawa is willing to invest in high-end naval capabilities is clear by looking at its ambitious next-generation frigates, based on the British Type 26 design, which will be among the most heavily armed warships of their size.
> 
> It remains to be seen whether Canada will opt to persist with its trouble-prone _Victoria_ class or if it will decide to invest in a new design offering better reliability and capabilities, although, so far, there doesn’t appear to be any active movements toward acquiring new submarines. Once the RCN finally has three subs back in regular service, the defense ministry might be better able to make a decision on that front.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Royal Canadian Navy
> 
> HMCS Corner Brook transported on the lift barge Seaspan Careen._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian Submarine Bedeviled By Accidents For A Decade Is Finally Back In The Water
> 
> 
> Canada’s tiny submarine fleet has been in sad shape for years. Now with the return of HMCS Corner Brook that could start to change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com


 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We could slowly phase them out and bring in a new class of subs concurrently. Move the Victoria's to one coast and start the new Class on the other. If we bought into someone else build we could either alternate new builds if there are no changes or have ours tacked on near the end of their build program. The Taigei-Class look quite promising, although I suspect we would want US designed weapon systems.
Another option is to buy the Soryu class subs used from the Japanese, although they will generate the same "Used sub debacle" stories.


----------



## Underway

Right now given that we are looking at a Life Extention to bring them to the 2035 timeframe (give or take) base on what I've read in the press.  If that's the case there is only one submarine program that may meet a replacement in time that would match Canadian requirements for the most part. (long range, warm and cold waters, probably 3000+ tones)

That's the Dutch replacement program.  The Australian one is experiencing some significant delays.  The Dutch are looking to replace four submarines which means we could get into their production line much quicker than Australia's.  The Dutch, given their reputation, will build quickly and efficiently.

What I don't know but would like to find out is how much of a submarine build is "blue sky" aka put equipment in before you enclose the space.  If the submarine can be built for the most part in the Netherlands but combat systems can be integrated in Canada that would be the best of both worlds. It certainly helps that the Netherlands uses the Mk 48 torpedo for the Walrus class, indicating to me that they are likely to continue on that path with a new sub.


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:


> The Dutch are looking to replace four submarines which means we could get into their production line much quicker than Australia's.  The Dutch, given their reputation, will build quickly and efficiently.


Will their submarines be built in the Netherlands?  I thought that Rotterdamsche Droogdok Maatschappij, the company that built the _Walrus_-class submarines, no longer exists.


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:


> Will their submarines be built in the Netherlands?  I thought that Rotterdamsche Droogdok Maatschappij, the company that built the _Walrus_-class submarines, no longer exists.


From what I have found online it looks like each of the main bidders has partnered with a Dutch shipbuilder.  However, given how the Dutch do things I wouldn't be surprised if the  hull was built somewhere else and then the platforms/modules were installed in the Netherlands.

I've snipped the following infographic from the Saab bid webpage as an example.  This is one way Canada could increase its involvement in a build program for Canadian content.  Ship the hull from in from somewhere else and then insert the modules inside.  It would certainly simplify the specialized equipment needed to build a submarine.


----------



## Uzlu

> Canada’s most modern submarine returns to the water
> 
> _Corner Brook_ was in an Extended Docking Work Period (EDWP) since 2015 in Esquimalt. Repairs included damage caused by a grounding in 2011 along with other more intrusive maintenance routines that can only be conducted in a long maintenance period in dry dock.
> 
> The EDWP also included several notable upgrades such as a new communication mast called the Universal Modular Mast, which allows high-speed, highly-secure, jam-resistant satellite communications with shore. It also received the BQQ-10 sonar suite. The difference between the BQQ-10 and the previous 2040 sonar suite range from a significant increase in the amount of processing that occurs after data is received from a Victoria-class submarine sonar systems to how that information is displayed to the operators.
> 
> _Corner Brook_ is now able to fire the Mk48 7AT torpedoes, a significant upgrade to the current weapon, the Mk48 4M.
> 
> In addition to these upgrades, and separate from the work conducted on _Corner Brook_ during this period, is the Victoria-class Modernization (VCM) effort, which aims to ensure the submarines remain operationally relevant until the mid-to-late 2030s.











						Canada’s most modern submarine returns to the water
					

When Her Majesty’s Canadian Submarine (HMCS) Corner Brook began its undocking on June 13, it became the most modern submarine in the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN).




					www.lookoutnewspaper.com


----------



## calculus

Latest on the Victoria class modernization:









						Canada seeking new torpedo countermeasures for military submarines
					

The Canadian navy is on the hunt for a new system to defeat hostile torpedoes as it works to extend the life of its four Victoria-class submarines through the mid-2030s.




					vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca


----------



## 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
				




the Dutch program moves on while we wait on our possible replacement


----------

