# Canadian Forces Track Russian Subs as New Cold War Brews Under the Atlantic



## Eye In The Sky (15 Nov 2017)

op:

Article Link

Canadian Forces Track Russian Subs as New Cold War Brews Under the Atlantic 

*NATO forces are reporting Russian submarine activity not seen “since the days of the Cold War.”*

Ian Keddie
Nov 15 2017, 4:24pm

Under the waves of the Atlantic Ocean a new front line has emerged as a resurgent Russia tries to exert its influence on the global stage. Russian submarines have been challenging NATO in the biggest increase of underwater military activity since the height of the Cold War.


Submarines from NATO and the Soviet Union vied for control of strategically critical parts of the Atlantic Ocean throughout the course of the Cold War but the collapse of communism left Western navies as the dominant force for the last 25 years as Russia’s navy decayed from lack of investment. Western military attention shifted away from the seas and expensive anti-submarine warfare capabilities took a backseat to a new era of threats. Under Vladimir Putin and a long period of economic growth in the early 2000s, Russia reinvested in the military and the Russian Navy began to extend its reach into the Atlantic Ocean once again

Russian activity in the Atlantic has been on the rise for a number of years and the British First Sea Lord, Admiral Sir Philip Jones, acknowledged the threat in a message to the Royal Navy in January 2017: “In northern Europe and the Baltic, we are responding to the highest level of Russian naval activity since the end of the Cold War.” Jones’ comments echoed those of his colleague Vice Admiral Clive Johnstone, the head of NATO’s maritime forces, who stated in 2016 that his NATO forces report “more activity from Russian submarines than we’ve seen since the days of the Cold War.” The head of the US Navy’s Sixth Fleet, Vice Admiral James Foggo III called this the start of “The Fourth Battle of the Atlantic,” referencing past submarine battles from WWI, WWII, and the Cold War.

NATO, therefore, is clearly aware of the growing problem but Western forces are stretched thin with global commitments and years of defence cuts. The UK has lacked a Maritime Patrol Aircraft since the Nimrod MR2 was retired in 2010 and the replacement P-8 Poseidon will not enter service until at least 2019. Sudden submarine activity in waters around the British Isles has prompted the UK to use patrol aircraft from Canada, France and the United States to track the vessels. A Royal Canadian Navy submarine was re-tasked from a NATO exercise to track Russian submarine activity last year in a move that was called “historically significant” by Rear Admiral John Newton, commander of Maritime Forces Atlantic.

The head of the Russian Navy, Viktor Chirkov, has admitted that Russian submarine patrols have grown 50 percent since 2013 and the surge in activity has grown as part of Russia’s latest military adventures. The invasion of Crimea in 2014 and the more recent intervention in Syria has led to a steady stream of Russian ships and submarines transiting through the North Sea en route to the Western Mediterranean to conduct missile strikes.

In October 2017, then UK Defence Secretary Sir Michael Fallon, cited Russian activity in an address to the House of Commons Defence Committee, and called for spending on capabilities to address the threat. “We have seen an extraordinary increase in Russian submarine activity over the last couple of years in the North Atlantic,” he said. NATO’s acknowledgement of the changing situation prompted it to restore anti-submarine warfare to its list of 16 priority capabilities for the Alliance at the 2014 NATO summit in Wales and the last week’s NATO Defence Minister meeting came with the announcement of plans for a new command structure, set to re-establish an Atlantic Command “to ensure that sea lines of communication between Europe and North America remain free and secure. This is vital for our transatlantic Alliance.”

As increased Russian activity continues to pressure Western militaries, Atlantic countries should pay heed to warnings of dwindling ship numbers and capabilities in their navies. Canada is choosing a Halifax-class frigates replacement next year in the biggest defence procurement project the country has ever undertaken and the UK has started to build eight new ASW Type 26 frigates. Combined with attack submarines and Maritime Patrol Aircrafts, these new frigates will be the backbone of NATO’s anti-submarine warfare capability in the North Atlantic for decades to come. 

The Royal Navy’s nuclear powered Astute-class attack submarines are entering service at present and will provide a formidable counterpart to Russian equivalents but the RCN has suffered years of problems with the four conventionally powered (SSK) Victoria-class submarines. A recent report called for a future fleet of 12 new SSKs for Canada, with some estimations putting the price at $50 billion. Canada should take the warnings over the Russian submarine threat seriously as it plans the future of the Royal Canadian Navy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll add MPAs to the last line as well.  Not some cheaper, "can't carry ordinance" hand-me-down or a unmanned platform.  And in more numbers than the RCAF fleet is now.   :2c:

The Victoria class stuff in the last para is kind of a red herring IMO;  diesel boats aren't going to be used against a nuc for blue water ASW.

Regardless, the Russian fleet is capable, growing and active...

Oscar II class







Yasen class






Borei class


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Nov 2017)

Eye In The Sky:

Earlier, Russian SSN cruise missiles threat:



> USN “Admiral Warns: Russian Subs Waging Cold War-Style ‘Battle of the Atlantic’”–and RCN?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/mark-collins-usn-admiral-warns-russian-subs-waging-cold-war-style-battle-of-the-atlantic-and-rcn/
> 
> NATO and Russian Sub Threat: World Needs More Canada
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum (15 Nov 2017)

EITS:

Everyone here knows that Canada will get what is politically best for....someone.  That "someone" probably isn't "the Canadian military" or even "Canadian government".


----------



## dapaterson (15 Nov 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> EITS:
> 
> Everyone here knows that Canada will get what is politically best for....someone.  That "someone" probably isn't "the Canadian military" or even "Canadian government".



I for one look forward to the P3 Aurora fleet being replaced by Dash 8 100s bought used from Air Canada, with the sensor suite consisting of GoPro cameras sold by a reseller out of Tadoule Lake MB with repair service provided by dogsled...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Nov 2017)

Haven't you all heard? ASW is dead....

 :


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2017)

The nasty response would be to ask how many Virginia class submarines we want to buy from the United States in order to meet the challenge. Given the escalating threats in all three oceans, we would probably need 12 Virginia class boats to cover our AO......


----------



## Sub_Guy (16 Nov 2017)

The Aurora replacement has already been purchased.

The new FWSAR bird can perform nearly all the tasks that the CP-140 does.

We’ll just add a few more with an ASW capability.


----------



## YZT580 (16 Nov 2017)

The only thing it lacks is the speed and range to get into the NA patrol area.  Other than that it is a great aircraft.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Nov 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The Aurora replacement has already been purchased.
> 
> The new FWSAR bird can perform nearly all the tasks that the CP-140 does.
> 
> We’ll just add a few more with an ASW capability.



Hand grenades/seal bombs they can fling out the back?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Nov 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The Aurora replacement has already been purchased.
> 
> The new FWSAR bird can perform nearly all the tasks that the CP-140 does.
> 
> We’ll just add a few more with an ASW capability.



Please...no.  Let's get *real* MPAs.  Not baby ones.  

Not that this *really* will matter to me...I'll be CRA when the SGOD is put to rest.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Nov 2017)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The only thing it lacks is the speed and range to get into the NA patrol area.  Other than that it is a great aircraft.



Where are we putting the search and kill stores?  Like I said..."just say no" to baby MPAs.  Ask the Turks what kind of legs they get out of the CASA 235s...and how fast they can get ONSTA compared to a P8...

Uhh...speed and range (and endurance) are kind of important things for ASW...saying "the only thing it lacks is speed and range" about a MPA is like saying a tank "only lacks mobility and firepower".


----------



## dimsum (16 Nov 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> The Aurora replacement has already been purchased.
> 
> The new FWSAR bird can perform nearly all the tasks that the CP-140 does.
> 
> We’ll just add a few more with an ASW capability.



B-but it's not made by Bombardier   :

Maybe the P-8 can be the "interim MPA" until that happens


----------



## dapaterson (17 Nov 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> B-but it's not made by Bombardier   :
> 
> Maybe the P-8 can be the "interim MPA" until that happens



We'll restart the Dash-8 100 line...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (17 Nov 2017)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> We'll restart the Dash-8 100 line...



I wouldn't be too surprised if an enterprising Bombardier sales rep hasn't already made a Gucci ppt showing a C-series in the MPA role...


----------



## dapaterson (17 Nov 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I wouldn't be too surprised if an enterprising Bombardier sales rep hasn't already made a Gucci ppt showing a C-series in the MPA role...



I was deliberate in my choice of airframe...


But taking a C300 and adding fuel you'd likely have a comparable range to the P8.  Maybe hire PAL Aerospace to do a prototype, pay them ridiculous amounts to lease the first one, then build a few dozen for Canada and sell to other nations, at a lower cost than the P8...


----------



## Sub_Guy (17 Nov 2017)

It’s already out there.  The Swordfish MPA is based on the Bombardier Global 6000 jet.

http://saab.com/globalassets/publications-pdfs/support-and-services/mpa/swordfish_mpa_datasheet_may-2017_web.pdf


----------



## GR66 (17 Nov 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> It’s already out there.  The Swordfish MPA is based on the Bombardier Global 6000 jet.
> 
> http://saab.com/globalassets/publications-pdfs/support-and-services/mpa/swordfish_mpa_datasheet_may-2017_web.pdf



Perfect. Order twelve to go along with and supplement an Aurora replacement (P-8 or future C-Series with internal stores bay if it ever materializes) and we’re beginning to take defence of our coastline seriously.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2017)

I'm rather surprised that the option of UAV's hasn't popped up yet (as a perennial favourite of futurists and cost cutters everywhere)


----------



## Ping Monkey (17 Nov 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm rather surprised that the option of UAV's hasn't popped up yet (as a perennial favourite of futurists and cost cutters everywhere)




[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]The development of an ASW-capable RPA has been in stages of development for a while.  The ongoing challenge has been how to modify the aircraft to carry an appropriate amount of sonobuoys (_and weapons_), and what to do with the enormous amount of sonobuoy data once it's received by the RPA.

As luck has it, the MQ-9 just recently had a significant leap in success processing sonobuoys (dropped by a helicopter for the trial), and then retransmitting that data back to a ground station via BLOS channel.  [/font]https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/uv-online/mq-9-successfully-used-during-us-naval-exercise/

The next logical step is to get the airframe capable to carry small-size sonobuoys which Ultra Electronics (and a few others) are all working on.  Their vision of an under-wing sonobuoy carrier is highlighted here:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzlTkXR9BEU

All in all, industry development processes are very much underway. (Some of it happening here in Kanata!)  While I would love to see DND/CAF get in on this action, I won't hold my breath.   :not-again:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (17 Nov 2017)

Actually a fleet of small AUV's operating in the choke points would be better, they patrol those areas using passive and active means , pop to the surface and announce a suspicious contact. You can have local communities service the AUV's for the basic bits like fuel or batteries.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Nov 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually a fleet of small AUV's operating in the choke points would be better, they patrol those areas using passive and active means , pop to the surface and announce a suspicious contact. You can have local communities service the AUV's for the basic bits like fuel or batteries.



Or crowd source the equivalent of modern day 'pirates', who'd jump at the chance of engaging in some sub-hunting fun


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Nov 2017)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Actually a fleet of small AUV's operating in the choke points would be better, they patrol those areas using passive and active means , pop to the surface and announce a suspicious contact. You can have local communities service the AUV's for the basic bits like fuel or batteries.



Negative, Colin.

You detect, track and identify in advance of, though near,  getting to the actual choke point. The actual choke point, where sea room is minimized and escape routes more limited is kept for the actual hunt and kill box.

Actually, I just re-read your post and ... double negative on that.

Simply, here's why. In the air, wether a MPA or a UAV, the idea is pinpoint locate then hunt to kill. The AUV's you propose are for early detection and general tracking. We already have that, from WWII and with improvements ever since: It's called SOSUS nets. And you don't have to have anything pop up and announce: there are human operators monitoring the actual system directly and in real-time. 

And they happen to be located in small communities, like Shelburne, where they do help the economy with their "basic bits" purchases such as fuel, food and board.  ;D


----------



## Eye In The Sky (17 Nov 2017)

SOSUS (called something else now), like all things I'll lump into "TASW assets" have been scaled back because the Cold War ended and the *threat* 'went away'...IMO, it didn't just like the nuclear threat didn't go away (the weapons were still there, afterall).

Now...Russia (and others possibly) are increasing their fleets and capabilities..and the overall question is "can NATO respond".  ASW is an expensive game, and politicians control the pursue strings.

How many Virgina's were built, how old are the 688Is...how many P-8s are replacing the US P-3 fleet...these are fairly important questions to think about.  Our caps are (not sure how many serviceable)CPFs with AirDets and tails, 14 MPAs and 3 snorters.  We are miniscule compared to the US, but we still bring those assets to the table.


----------



## Sub_Guy (18 Nov 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How many Virgina's were built, how old are the 688Is...how many P-8s are replacing the US P-3 fleet...these are fairly important questions to think about.  Our caps are (not sure how many serviceable)CPFs with AirDets and tails, 14 MPAs and 3 snorters.  We are miniscule compared to the US, but we still bring those assets to the table.



The plan for the P8 was never to be a 1 for 1 replacement for the P3, they are utilizing the Triton as well.  I read an article recently on how the P8 was going to be used primarily for ASW whereas the Triton would most likely be used for all other tasks.  Which makes sense when you think about it.  

As for the using a UAV for ASW, it’s a good idea, however it won’t replace the manned aircraft (not in the near future).  At best it’ll augment the MPA.

How does the UAV handle active processing?  Odds are that we will be using active. Could it handle 32+ DICASS?  The extended passive ranges with newer processor tends to be against older targets.  Active is the sensor of choice.  I may be off in my thinking, but I feel that if anything significant kicked off we’d most likely lose satellite communications.  

The primary task of ASW is to find submarines and send them to the bottom.  That’s it.  We are a few years away from a UAV lobbing sonos and dropping torps.



			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Or crowd source the equivalent of modern day 'pirates', who'd jump at the chance of engaging in some sub-hunting fun



With the amount of fully trained Acoustic operators in the CP-140 fleet, this might be an option.  We’ve (jokingly of course) threw this idea around, retire and setup our own “acoustics for hire” business.


----------



## GK .Dundas (18 Nov 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Sadly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Declaration_Respecting_Maritime_Law
> There's always someone ruining our fun . :'(
> 
> The plan for the P8 was never to be a 1 for 1 replacement for the P3, they are utilizing the Triton as well.  I read an article recently on how the P8 was going to be used primarily for ASW whereas the Triton would most likely be used for all other tasks.  Which makes sense when you think about it.
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Nov 2017)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> With the amount of fully trained Acoustic operators in the CP-140 fleet, this might be an option.  We’ve (jokingly of course) threw this idea around, retire and setup our own “acoustics for hire” business.



Why not? Lots of 'knuckle dragging door kicker' types have already done that and, for arguably much less strategically important duties.


----------



## dimsum (18 Nov 2017)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Why not? Lots of 'knuckle dragging door kicker' types have already done that and, for arguably much less strategically important duties.



Well, they'd also need to get some Pilots, NASOs, Navs, FEs and Techs to....hey, wait a minute....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Nov 2017)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Well, they'd also need to get some Pilots, NASOs, Navs, FEs and Techs to....hey, wait a minute....



 :nod:

something like this...https://army.ca/forums/threads/126791/post-1507636.html#msg1507636


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2017)

If there is a serious proposal to use UAVs for sub hunting or ASW in the current environment, I suspect it would be as a sort of wingman for the manned aircraft, carrying extra sensors and possibly weapons to augment the manned airframe, cover a larger search box or provide triangulation by seeking the target from different angles to more closely pinpoint the position.

The manned aircraft might need an extra operator to manage the data and provide the shoot/don't shoot decision making if it is armed. I don't see autonomous sub hunters in this generation of UAV's


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Nov 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Please...no.  Let's get *real* MPAs.  Not baby ones.
> 
> Not that this *really* will matter to me...I'll be CRA when the SGOD is put to rest.



Develop a system-of-systems, which could include some slower/lower eyes, but ensure you have some of these (Canadian Aerospace-friendly) bad boys! (I counted 4 x Mk.54s on it + 2 Harpoons)  Then you could change your username to _Eyes and Fists in the Sky_ (EITS > EFITS).   :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Nov 2017)

My concern with torps on wings relates to temps.  The 54 uses otto like the 46, and our bombbay is temp controlled.

I just think our fleet is and will be so small, we need it to be "all singing and dancing".


----------



## daftandbarmy (19 Nov 2017)

Tangent: Argentina could use a little sub-tracking help right now:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/19/missing-argentina-submarine-sent-seven-failed-satellite-calls-search


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Nov 2017)

Re: the article..there's a sub lost at sea with all hands right now and they take the time in the article to post the picture/mention the "1st female officer in their fleet" on the boat stuff?  WTF about the rest of the crew?

This PC crap is really starting to go way fuckin' too far.


----------



## dimsum (19 Nov 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If there is a serious proposal to use UAVs for sub hunting or ASW in the current environment, I suspect it would be as a sort of wingman for the manned aircraft, carrying extra sensors and possibly weapons to augment the manned airframe, cover a larger search box or provide triangulation by seeking the target from different angles to more closely pinpoint the position.
> 
> The manned aircraft might need an extra operator to manage the data and provide the shoot/don't shoot decision making if it is armed. I don't see autonomous sub hunters in this generation of UAV's



I can't see the powers that be allowing autonomous release of weapons.  Too much political fallout, loss of positive control, etc.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Nov 2017)

Plan "B" seems to be the deployment of swarms of small sensor vehicles like undersea "gliders"

Long article here: http://www.basicint.org/sites/default/files/BASIC_Hambling_ASW_Feb2016_final_0.pdf


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Nov 2017)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> SOSUS (called something else now), like all things I'll lump into "TASW assets" have been scaled back because the Cold War ended and the *threat* 'went away'...IMO, it didn't just like the nuclear threat didn't go away (the weapons were still there, afterall).
> 
> Now...Russia (and others possibly) are increasing their fleets and capabilities..and the overall question is "can NATO respond".  ASW is an expensive game, and politicians control the pursue strings.
> 
> How many Virgina's were built, how old are the 688Is...how many P-8s are replacing the US P-3 fleet...these are fairly important questions to think about.  Our caps are (not sure how many serviceable)CPFs with AirDets and tails, 14 MPAs and 3 snorters.  We are miniscule compared to the US, but we still bring those assets to the table.



They tried recently putting some into the arctic recently to track mammals, the ice took them out, I don't think people appreciate how deep some of the ice goes.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Nov 2017)

True enough Colin. But submarines in the Arctic are only a strategic problem, not a tactical threat.

So long as there is ice in the Arctic, only nuclear subs can go there. Boomers can use it as a hiding/staging ground, and they can only be taken out by hunter-killer nuclear boats. 

As for Russian hunter-killer nuclear subs, they may transit through the Arctic to get where they may, but while up there, pose no threat to the SLOC's. The place to intercept them remains where they can come out of the Arctic, namely the GIUK gap or the Labrador basin where barrier ops can be set up.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (21 Nov 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> As for Russian hunter-killer nuclear subs, they may transit through the Arctic to get where they may, but while up there, pose no threat to the SLOC's.



With things like the NWP opening up at least part of the year and all that...this may change in the future...

We do not have the ability to track 'stuff' under ice and we 'own' lots of places covered in ice.  *scratches head*.  That makes sense.


----------

