# Submarines - Victoria class, the past, the present and beyond....



## Boudreas (14 Mar 2009)

I have read some very interesting things concerning the highs and the lows of sub service. I have read horror stories about being out to sea almost non stop (the 80's) and glamour stories about docking in Hawaii for a week on training all the while being paid... The life sub-surface sounds like a match made in heaven for a young person looking for adventure...

From what I understand say you are an MARS officer, you finished your phase four training. Is it at this point you can request sub service or do you have to hope your stationed on a sub?

What was working on subs like for Officers and NCM's before the (new)-used Victoria Class subs? What was a tour like and how long was the duration? How long for fun at ports and how often did you port? What was the pay like compared to Sailors not on subs?

Beyond that, what is serving on the Victoria class subs like? Are the tours different today then in the past 20 years? 

And of course what does the future look like for Canada and subs? Will I see us bringing in any brand new super subs along the lines of the US fleet or is that just dreaming...

Thanks and looking forward to your responses... I think If I was starting BMOQ today it would probably be 6 or 7 years before I ever served on a sub but dare to dream...


----------



## Galahad (14 Mar 2009)

Have you ever been on a sub? I hope you are less than 5'6"...

Not to mention that if they start the engines and the valves don't open properly the whole crew could be killed.

So yeah, its just a big holiday being on a sub.

I was on HMCS Chicoutimi dockside for about an hour and I will never get in a sub again, but thats just me. Although I'm sure there will be people with other opinions here...


----------



## aesop081 (14 Mar 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> So yeah, its just a big holiday being on a sub.





			
				Galahad said:
			
		

> Although I'm sure there will be people with other opinions here...



And maybe...just maybe...those people with opinions will actualy have served on a submarine. Unlike you.

There is the lane you are in and then there is the lane you should be in.


----------



## Boudreas (14 Mar 2009)

HAHAHA... A holiday is not exactly what I envision.... Thats funny...


----------



## Galahad (14 Mar 2009)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> And maybe...just maybe...those people with opinions will actualy have served on a submarine. Unlike you.
> 
> There is the lane you are in and then there is the lane you should be in.



Then by all means let them speak up. Everything I said was in the context of what I know, so take that at face value.

Have you ever served on a sub?


----------



## aesop081 (14 Mar 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> Have you ever served on a sub?



Nope. I search for them, localize them, track them and attack them but dont serve on them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Mar 2009)

I hunt them (submarines, that is), so let me weigh in...

In my experience, there are only two types of people who I have met that have served on submarines- those who never want to step onboard a sub again and those who wouldn't do anything else.  So far, the second type have far outnumbered the first- but I have not exactly conducted a scientific survey.  

There are actual submariners on the board- I'm sure they will be along shortly.


----------



## Galahad (14 Mar 2009)

I would agree about there being two kinds of people with regards to subs.

There's nothing wrong with being in either group, no question, I'm sure there are very good people on both sides. All I know is that in my (admittedly very brief) time on the sub, I found that it was not for me.

Boudreas, I'd bet that if you toured one of  the subs, you'd be able to decide pretty fast whether it is for you or not.

To each his own...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Mar 2009)

Why don't you sit in the corner and put yourself on listen/silence concerning this matter and listen to people that have more TI than you do walking the earth.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Mar 2009)

Boudreas said:
			
		

> what is serving on the Victoria class subs like?



Galahad....

The above quote was the general question asked by the OP. Having toured the burned out hull of a submarine for an hour in drydock doesnt qualify you to answer in any way shape or form. We have several current and former submariners on this site so STFU.


----------



## Galahad (14 Mar 2009)

I'm sorry, but I don't recall reading on the forum rules that only people with thousands of posts and years of service were allowed to have an opinion.

What I said was based on my experience, which I didn't exaggerate on in any manner.

If you haven't served on a sub either then why do you keep posting if you are not  making any attempt to answer his question either. At least I have him some information based on my experience, which is more than you have done.


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Mar 2009)

I've been on the O-Boats before does that make me a master of the subs ........ I think not.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Mar 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> If you haven't served on a sub either then why do you keep posting



I'm not commenting on the OPs question, i'm commenting on you.


> which is more than you have done.



I've toured Oberon-class SSKs 3 times and a Los Angeles-class SSN once......i win.


----------



## Galahad (14 Mar 2009)

I meant that my trying to post information was more than you had done, I never admitted to having lots of experience, far from it, I specifically stated what my experience was up front.

All I'm saying is why don't you post some of your useful information based your experience, instead of criticizing me for not knowing as much as you?


----------



## aesop081 (14 Mar 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> All I'm saying is why don't you post some of your useful information



Because i dont know what fucking life on a sub is like since i never served on one.........get it ?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Mar 2009)




----------



## Boudreas (14 Mar 2009)

Hrm,

I'm 6'2. I never thought of that. Is there a height restriction? It would be terrible not being able to stand up straight...


----------



## Galahad (14 Mar 2009)

Couldn't tell you, all I know is that there was nowhere on the sub that I could stand up anywhere close to straight, and I am 6'2" myself.


----------



## medicineman (14 Mar 2009)

Boudreas said:
			
		

> Hrm,
> 
> I'm 6'2. I never thought of that. Is there a height restriction? It would be terrible not being able to stand up straight...



There will likely be a minimum height restriction - your arms need to be long enough to move from one emergency breathing hose link to another, so people below 5' should not apply. As for max height, well a friend of mine was a NWT and about 6'5" and they wanted him to volunteer for the O Boats - there was alot less room on them...

MM

PS - If all goes according to plan, I'm going to the Vic, am about 6'2" and a good number of the guys there are around my height.

MM


----------



## Nfld Sapper (14 Mar 2009)

Watch out for those pesky knee knockers then.


 ;D


----------



## Boudreas (14 Mar 2009)

That's great news and congratulations....


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (14 Mar 2009)

Boudreas said:
			
		

> I have read some very interesting things concerning the highs and the lows of sub service. I have read horror stories about being out to sea almost non stop (the 80's) and glamour stories about docking in Hawaii for a week on training all the while being paid... The life sub-surface sounds like a match made in heaven for a young person looking for adventure...



The 80's?! We were doing close to 230 days a year at sea in the 90's. 

Generally, when you pull in to a port you spend about 5 days alongside. You're normally on duty aboard the boat one of those days, and in a hotel ashore the rest. You're normally given whatever the daily government rate is for food etc for all five days, and your hotel is paid for. After that, you're on your own. Here's a hint: Buy a large pizza. The rest you can spend on beer.

All this of course is subject to change. Or a whim of the clerks/SupplyO. The clerks are on the list of the top 3 people never to annoy on your boat. Just keep in mind you're pulling down extra sea pay as Sub Allowance, and if you're qualified, SubSPA. That's a fair chunk of change.




> What was a tour like and how long was the duration?



You sailed for a patrol. The boat broke down. You came back in...and stayed alongside while it was being fixed. Then you sailed again. Then it broke again..And so on.....Insert a foreign port every few months.



> And of course what does the future look like for Canada and subs? Will I see us bringing in any brand new super subs along the lines of the US fleet or is that just dreaming...



The CF needs around 30 billion/year. It's getting around 20 billion/year. I'm thinking yu're just dreaming, but that's just me.



> Thanks and looking forward to your responses... I think If I was starting BMOQ today it would probably be 6 or 7 years before I ever served on a sub but dare to dream...



Remember...it's just like camping.


----------



## Boudreas (15 Mar 2009)

Thank you for your detailed answer...

I am very excited about the challenge of becoming a MARS Officer in the Canadian Navy. This really is an invaluable source of information (for the most part)...

Thanks again.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2009)

a bit about "Beyond"

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/gear_supercavitation.html



> _Your squadron of jet fighters is madly circling and swooping over the Pacific Ocean, giving supersonic chase to an enemy you can’t see. You didn’t sign up with the Air Force for this -- hunting at Mach 2 for a supersonic submarine that at any moment can make a mockery of your efforts by diving, idling and waiting you out until it is only the vapor in your fuel tanks and failing momentum that keeps you aloft. And then he’ll take off again like a bat out of hell…_
> 
> The technology that may make such a high-speed vessel possible is called supercavitation, essentially creating a gas bubble around all but the very nose of a projectile – and perhaps one day a vessel – to virtually eliminate water drag. Mastery of supercavitation could turn the quiet chess game of submarine warfare we know today into a mirror image of the hyper-kinetic world of aerial combat. Imagine warships and submarines sending swarms of super-fast mini-subs streaking against each other in dogfights tearing through the darkest canyons of the ocean in future wars over seabed oil drilling or mining.
> 
> ...



Supercavitating torpedoes have been demonstrated, as well as various other weapons using this principle (supercavitating bullets and projectiles fired by gunns or cannons), so future planners will have to be aware and think about how to deal with this. An actual supercavitating submarine is decades away, though...(maybe about when another funding surge happens)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Mar 2009)

Something like this would be monstrously noisy. And require a monstrous amount of power. Also, supercavitation weapons (so far) have to be unguided because there is simply no method of "seeing" and tracking their targets through the supercavitation effect.  It is a bit double edged.


----------



## Galahad (15 Mar 2009)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Something like this would be monstrously noisy. And require a monstrous amount of power. Also, supercavitation weapons (so far) have to be unguided because there is simply no method of "seeing" and tracking their targets through the supercavitation effect.  It is a bit double edged.



Sure would be loud, you could hear it across the Atlantic, kind of defeats the purpose of a submarine, stealth.

Also, supercavitation would be much more difficult for a sub, since it depends on the depth. The deeper the sub, the larger the difference between ambient pressure and vapor pressure, thats why subs can go faster at depth without cavitating.


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Mar 2009)

Boudreas said:
			
		

> I'm 6'2. I never thought of that. Is there a height restriction? It would be terrible not being able to stand up straight...



I am a tall fellow, and there were a few spots that I could stand up straight, but my job required me to sit, I spent most of the time either sitting or sleeping.   It is not that bad unless PT is your thing, then you are going to be disappointed!

I loved it on boats, my brief time spent there was the best time I had in the Navy.  Prior to applying for submarine service I had never been on a submarine, my first exposure to the submarine was on my BSQ.

Like everyone else said on here, there are two types of people, those who love it and those who don't.  Considering your interest in Submarine service now, I doubt you will be the one who leaves after a one hour tour to never return. 

Good luck.


----------



## Boudreas (15 Mar 2009)

I am excited... I can't wait for my NOAB, should that opportunity present itself...

That technology seems too good to be true... If that technology worked I don't think stealth would be a problem... The thought of a Sub moving around underwater like a fighter jet is mind-blowing... Plus who knows with power source technology progressing how it is what will be possible 20-30 years from now...


----------



## aesop081 (15 Mar 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> Sure would be loud, you could hear it across the Atlantic, kind of defeats the purpose of a submarine, stealth.
> 
> Also, supercavitation would be much more difficult for a sub, since it depends on the depth. The deeper the sub, the larger the difference between ambient pressure and vapor pressure, thats why subs can go faster at depth without cavitating.



In Galahad's next lesson he will cover such topics as broadband and narrow band noise, transient noise, CZ and the ever popular doppler tracking........


----------



## Galahad (15 Mar 2009)

Fine, you win, I will never know anything, and I promise never to open my mouth again.


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Mar 2009)

Galahad said:
			
		

> Fine, you win, I will never know anything, and I promise never to open my mouth again.



No need for that, but there is a need to understand your own limitations and to stay in your lane(s), which will change and evolve with your personal experiences.

I had a step-father who was an engineer on the Oberons for most of his 30+ year career.  I've toured them repeatedly and day-sailed on them - I still don't know enough about submarines to discuss life aboard, except in very general terms, or their specific technical and tactical operation.  So, I didn't contribute to answer the questions that started this thread,

I've flown in helicopter, but I don't fly them.  So, I don't jump in on helicopter flying threads.

I am an advanced mortarman and when I was employed at the Infantry School as SME Mortars I did a lot of additional reading into ballistics to understand things like smooth-bored vs rifling; spin vs fin stabilization, etc.    

See where I'm going here?


----------



## Sub Standard (15 Mar 2009)

:stars:
I am 6'1" and am currently posted to the Victoria.  yes the quarters are tight but I don't walk around all hunched over through these boats.  Yes I do have to duck around things but it is not that bad and up in the WSC there is lots of head room.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2009)

If enemy submarines or surface ships have the capability to fire a supercavitating weapon at our ships, then we need to think about how to deal with that. How loud the weapon is is a bit irrelevant when it is approaching at 300 knots; and if an aircraft can fire supercavitating bullets or 20mm cannon shells at a submarine operating below the surface then the sub will be at a huge disadvantage.

Russia is a known user of supercavitating weapons and they have sold this technology to Iran (among others), so this is more than theoretical.


----------



## Navy_Blue (16 Mar 2009)

Well I just found this thread 

I have limited experience on the Victoria's as I have only sailed a little over a month last year and expect another month+ this year.  I am qualified though.  I'm one of the emerging group of people who are being voluntold to go subs.  My opinion was that I joined the military and part of the game is doing what your told and when I passed the medical and they punched out a posting to the MOG I shrugged it off and made the most of it.  

I am 6'2" and I find I can stand straight in a lot of places.  I still need to be like a snow drift and find my way between pipes and wires to locate valves and test sensors tho.  I find the tightest spot is my rack.  I can't completely stretch out in it and it drives me nuts.

The food rocks, Hotels in port are very nice as is the SA you get.  People are a special breed but I think they have moved closer to the skimmer mentality than they like to think sometimes.

All in all it has been a good experience and I'm happy I went with the flow.

Any questions feel free to ask and I will see what I can do.

Later

N_B


----------



## TimBit (16 Mar 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If enemy submarines or surface ships have the capability to fire a supercavitating weapon at our ships, then we need to think about how to deal with that. How loud the weapon is is a bit irrelevant when it is approaching at 300 knots; and if an aircraft can fire supercavitating bullets or 20mm cannon shells at a submarine operating below the surface then the sub will be at a huge disadvantage.
> 
> Russia is a known user of supercavitating weapons and they have sold this technology to Iran (among others), so this is more than theoretical.



Americans have purchased this technology from Russia though, allegedly through us Canucks. I'm sure DARPA and the Navy are working hard at finding solutions against these weapons. It seems to me that, until a serious breakthrough comes in as far as ship speed and manoeuvrability go, decoys and diversions will be the order of the day against these weapons.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (16 Mar 2009)

The super-cavitating weapons are extremely inaccurate, and short-ranged. Unless they're tipped with a nuclear device, they're not only useless, they take the space, weight and funding of weapons that actually work.

And no, decoys and countermeasures won't work against them...they're unable to be guided effectively.


----------



## ironduke57 (17 Mar 2009)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> The super-cavitating weapons are extremely inaccurate, ... . Unless they're tipped with a nuclear device, they're not only useless, they take the space, weight and funding of weapons that actually work.
> 
> And no, decoys and countermeasures won't work against them...they're unable to be guided effectively.


Well, at least Diehl BGT thinks different:
- http://www.diehl-bgt-defence.de/index.php?id=550&L=1
- http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=48501 (A bIt older.)

Regards,
ironduke57


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (17 Mar 2009)

The big giveaway on that is where they state the guidance is "inertial". It's useless against a moving target.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jun 2009)

A little more "beyond"

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2001/bushnell_shape.htm



> *The Shape Of Things to Come?*
> Top NASA Scientist Discusses The Future of Undersea Warfare
> 
> by Dennis M. Bushnell
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jul 2009)

Beyond the beyond. What will they think of next?

http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/potential-submarine-breakthroughs-four.html



> July 27, 2009
> *Potential Submarine Breakthroughs: Four Times Faster and Super Deep Diving*
> 
> 1. Deep flight is a small company that is making deep diving one and two person submarines.
> ...


----------

