# Protecting Canada by Sub (split fm Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy)



## Lumber (9 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, the statement of policy was formally turned into an Agreement, the Ogdensburg Agreement, which is still in full force and effect today.



Ok, well, we could simply extricate ourselves from all international affairs but maintain a posture that deters others from taking advantage of us, and thus satisfying the US that we are doing our bit.

So if you're going to invade Canada, you have to do it by sea. And what's the best deterrant to a fleet attempting to approach our coasts?
.
.
Anyone?


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Ok, well, we could simply extricate ourselves from all international affairs but maintain a posture that deters others from taking advantage of us, and thus satisfying the US that we are doing our bit.
> 
> So if you're going to invade Canada, you have to do it by sea. And what's the best deterrant to a fleet attempting to approach our coasts?
> .
> ...


I couldn't resist   >


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Feb 2016)

If you say mines, my head is going to hurt from all the banging on the wall.

But if you say submarines then  ;D.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> It is indeed sarcasm; think of it as a thought experiement. Our real "strategic" asset would be to become everyone's friend, and to have a resource based export economy. Our interests are already heavily underwritten by the US, so this wouldn't be a significant change.



Canada doesn't need friends, just allies and trading partners. The terms aren't mutually exclusive. For defence, the only "friend" we require at the moment is the United States, so being part of any hegemonic alliance in which the United States, as the leading nation, is part of offers strategic advantages.

Our real choice then is if we emphasize north American defence, expeditionary operations, or half ass do both as we are now.


----------



## Lumber (9 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If you say mines, my head is going to hurt from all the banging on the wall.
> 
> But if you say submarines then  ;D.



Yes, submarines! Forget the surface fleet, forget the army. Put all of our money into building a large and advanced fleet fleet of attack submarines. 

This will protect us from invasion, but it won't necessarily protect us from airborne attack on our cities, so I'm either thinking keep the fighters, or a more advanced SAM network. 



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Our real choice then is if we emphasize north American defence, expeditionary operations, or half *** do both as we are now.



I actually kind of like the middle option.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> *Our real choice then is if we emphasize north American defence, expeditionary operations, or half ass do both as we are now.*


For the win - simple question, but not easy to answer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If you say mines, my head is going to hurt from all the banging on the wall.
> 
> But if you say submarines then  ;D.



15 nuke subs, we could dust off the old proposal  8)


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Feb 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> 15 nuke subs, we could dust off the old proposal  8)




With the captains wearing kilts!  :nod:











Sorry,  :highjack:  but I couldn't resist.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Feb 2016)

You just made my day, thanks:  :rofl:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> So if you're going to invade Canada, you have to do it by sea. And what's the best deterrant to a fleet attempting to approach our coasts?
> .
> .
> Anyone?



Arctic ice  8);  the best defence we have on our 'weakest flank'!  There is much interest, on many nations parts, in the Arctic.  That should be a huge part of our 'look 10 years forward' IMO.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Feb 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Yes, submarines! Forget the surface fleet, forget the army. Put all of our money into building a large and advanced fleet fleet of attack submarines.



How big, and SSN or SSK?  Mix?  What potential enemies nations/states are we protecting against and what is THEIR sub fleet org like?  The Chinese?  Russia?  

NEVER forget the Army.  Subs and planes can not, never have, and never will be able to take, and/or hold ground.

ASW is a 3-dimensional game, so I think we do need the skimmers too, if you want to talk about a serious threat from an invading force.  Keep in mind, the NORAD stuff includes some of the SLOCs/maritime stuff now too.   There is a need for Mother for the Cyclone to do her business off of too.  We will have 2 very capable ASW platforms in the RCAF with the Cyclone (Block 1? 2?..) and the Block 3 Aurora.  They work well together.  Organic helo's have a specific strength MPAs do not;  they are always close to the hot spot Mother is working.   :2c:


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Feb 2016)

We are also "uniquely" motivated to find and either deter or destroy to submarine.

It is unsettling, to say the least, to come home after a 2.5hr mission and find that your "airfield" has been sunk....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Feb 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> We are also "uniquely" motivated to find and either deter or destroy to submarine.
> 
> It is unsettling, to say the least, to come home after a 2.5hr mission and find that your "airfield" has been sunk....



Ya, I guess there is that aspect the fling-wingers have to consider;  hard to imagine having to fly with no galley _and_ hope your rolling patch of 'runway' is still on the top.. ;D.  Just the 'no galley' part baffles me... :endnigh:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Feb 2016)

What do you need a galley for?

EITS: Ever tried to get up from the pilot's seat in helicopter in flight?  [ :trainwreck:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> What do you need a galley for?



How else can the Acousticians make us dry sensor types sandwiches and coffee while we work!  ;D



> EITS: Ever tried to get up from the pilot's seat in helicopter in flight?  [ :trainwreck:



No, but I guess with no galley and bathroom, what's there to get up 'for'?  Having said that...I can't imagine flying without the ability to offload personal POL...those HIFR (right term I hope...) extended missions must suck !

Therefore, in the spirit of keeping this thread on track, I propose the following (pictured below) for the MH folks as a `mimimum standard` galley and `head for the Cyclone to enable them to support Liberal foreign policy.






    
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 ;D


----------



## Journeyman (12 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Subs ...can not, never have, and never will be able to take, and/or hold ground.


Although HMCS Corner Brook tried.  ;D


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Feb 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Although HMCS Corner Brook tried.  ;D



genius.


----------



## GR66 (12 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How big, and SSN or SSK?  Mix?  What potential enemies nations/states are we protecting against and what is THEIR sub fleet org like?  The Chinese?  Russia?
> 
> NEVER forget the Army.  Subs and planes can not, never have, and never will be able to take, and/or hold ground.
> 
> ASW is a 3-dimensional game, so I think we do need the skimmers too, if you want to talk about a serious threat from an invading force.  Keep in mind, the NORAD stuff includes some of the SLOCs/maritime stuff now too.   There is a need for Mother for the Cyclone to do her business off of too.  We will have 2 very capable ASW platforms in the RCAF with the Cyclone (Block 1? 2?..) and the Block 3 Aurora.  They work well together.  Organic helo's have a specific strength MPAs do not;  they are always close to the hot spot Mother is working.   :2c:



Do we need to actually worry about dealing with enemy subs while they are actually under the ice...or is it enough to focus on blocking entry to/exit from the ice pack?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> How big, and SSN or SSK?



Today you don't have to choose anymore! The Arihant class is an SSN sized boat with the ability to carry 4 SLBM's, or refit the missile compartment to carry 12 smaller missiles (you can imagine 12X tomahawk cruise missiles for a Western version, although in the Arihant class these are mini SLBM's). Something along these lines would be ideal as a force projection arm of the RCN. Perhaps when I am Imperator...

The underlying problem isn't that we don't know (or at least have strong opinions) what is needed, but rather that neither the electorate nor political class shoos to examine these issues or devote sufficient resources to defense as the "hard power" arm of foreign policy. Come to think of it, strangling business in a high tax, high regulatory environment cripples Canada's "soft power" arm as well. In today's National Post, for example, there is an article saying Quebec needs to dismantle its regulatory regime for maple syrup. The reason? They finally figured out that New York State alone has more maple trees than Quebec, and they will soon be able to fill the market with inexpensive maple syrup. Quebec's syrup is far too expensive because of the regulatory regime, nothing else.

So long as the Liberal vision is to milk Canadians for the benefit of the Party and its cronies, nothing is going to change, and the CF will undergo another "decade of darkness", with limited deployments to the "disaster de jour" that are horrible enough to headline the news rather than anything which engages the National Interest. (expect quite a few "bungles in the jungle" as well). Virtue signalling is not a foreign or defense policy, but that is what we will get.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Feb 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Do we need to actually worry about dealing with enemy subs while they are actually under the ice...or is it enough to focus on blocking entry to/exit from the ice pack?



Probably a question better answered by the guys who are the best ASW asset, and they wear Dolphins not wings.  I've never worked ASW around ice.  

However, when I think of "subs under ice" I think nuc's.  Hard to drop a kill store from the air thru ice...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Feb 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Today you don't have to choose anymore! The Arihant class is an SSN sized boat with the ability to carry 4 SLBM's, or refit the missile compartment to carry 12 smaller missiles (you can imagine 12X tomahawk cruise missiles for a Western version, although in the Arihant class these are mini SLBM's). Something along these lines would be ideal as a force projection arm of the RCN. Perhaps when I am Imperator...



I was thinking for a tactical/employment point.  SSN and SSK have different strengths and weaknesses, that work for and against them.  A diesel boat, sooner or later, has to snort.  They can 'sprint' but in limited fashion compared to a nuc.  Nuc's can go all day and night, but are generally noisier than a diesel boat on battery making steerage.  That kind of stuff.

So if we were to beef up our submarine force...would it be a 'primarily defensive' or 'primarily offensive' force?  Many questions to ask...I also think the average Canadian thinks the difference between 'normal' subs and 'nuclear subs' is about the weapons they carry, not what is turning the screws.


----------



## Sub_Guy (13 Feb 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> Do we need to actually worry about dealing with enemy subs while they are actually under the ice...or is it enough to focus on blocking entry to/exit from the ice pack?



How would you block the entry/exit from the ice pack?   The only way to hunt subs under the ice is with subs under the ice.  A capability we will never have.   

The Canadian government doesn't give two shits about the north.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> However, when I think of "subs under ice" I think nuc's.  Hard to drop a kill store from the air thru ice...



They, on the other hand, can shoot up through the ice.   >


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Probably a question better answered by the guys who are the best ASW asset, and they wear Dolphins not wings.  I've never worked ASW around ice.
> 
> However, when I think of "subs under ice" I think nuc's.  Hard to drop a kill store from the air thru ice...



How about emplacing CAPTORS under the ice and monitoring the field with Gliders with Sonars communicating with AOPS and LRPAs?

The gliders can remain passive, bobbing up and down under the ice, go active when they detect.  They only need to communicate if they make contact.  Then free up the Captors in the region of the contact.  No?


----------



## a_majoor (13 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I was thinking for a tactical/employment point.  SSN and SSK have different strengths and weaknesses, that work for and against them.  A diesel boat, sooner or later, has to snort.  They can 'sprint' but in limited fashion compared to a nuc.  Nuc's can go all day and night, but are generally noisier than a diesel boat on battery making steerage.  That kind of stuff.
> 
> So if we were to beef up our submarine force...would it be a 'primarily defensive' or 'primarily offensive' force?  Many questions to ask...I also think the average Canadian thinks the difference between 'normal' subs and 'nuclear subs' is about the weapons they carry, not what is turning the screws.



Too true about how Canadians and uneducated people in general act when you say "nuclear submarine".

The example I chose is one of the smaller nuclear submarines in service, so it gives the owner the long range and sprint capabilities needed to cover large areas of ocean. In the Canadian context, we do indeed have lots of area to cover, not to mention out affiliations with things like NATO task forces, which require getting across the ocean to marry up with the fleet. All this is outside of the other obvious need to operate near or even under the arctic ice.

Since the Arihant class also carried long range weapons (SLBM's or mini SLBMs), it means any similar capital ship outfitted the same way become that much more potent and flexible. It is capable of both tactical (anti-ship) and strategic missions, and being a submarine, will be very difficult to detect or counter. While still relatively large as submarines (@ 6,000 tonnes displacement vs 2,900 tonnes for the Sōryū-class submarine or 2,050 tons for the Israeli Dolphin class submarines), the flexibility of nuclear power makes it a logical choice for a Canadian capital ship _all other factors being equal_.

Since it is very clear all other factors are _not_ equal, this is more of a thought experiment than anything else.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> How about emplacing CAPTORS under the ice and monitoring the field with Gliders with Sonars communicating with AOPS and LRPAs?
> 
> The gliders can remain passive, bobbing up and down under the ice, go active when they detect.  They only need to communicate if they make contact.  Then free up the Captors in the region of the contact.  No?



This is pretty far outside my lane.  I'd have to do some basic research to even make a WAG at these systems...

AOPS against a sub;  I am not sure what systems they are planning on putting on those, but I seem to recall reading they will have a relatively slow speed.  I've never seen anything on them having an ASW capability, other than a MH.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Feb 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Too true about how Canadians and uneducated people in general act when you say "nuclear submarine".
> 
> The example I chose is one of the smaller nuclear submarines in service, so it gives the owner the long range and sprint capabilities needed to cover large areas of ocean. In the Canadian context, we do indeed have lots of area to cover, not to mention out affiliations with things like NATO task forces, which require getting across the ocean to marry up with the fleet. All this is outside of the other obvious need to operate near or even under the arctic ice.
> 
> ...



Because of the simple expense differences between diesel and nuc, I think if we were to increase our sub force, it would be SSK.

SSKs are no joke either...http://www.janes.com/article/56544/russian-submarine-fires-cruise-missiles-into-syria


----------



## Sub_Guy (14 Feb 2016)

You can set up all the underwater systems you want.  But we will never be able to engage a submarine under the ice.

Heck we can (in theory) drop sonobuoys into the ice and track submarines under the ice.  We still can't reach out and touch someone and contrary to Al Gore's prediction we are a long way from an ice free Arctic. 

Call me a cynic but I think the Victoria class submarine will be Canada's last submarines.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Feb 2016)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Call me a cynic but I think the Victoria class submarine will be Canada's last submarines.



But, if we were to upsize the RCN sub strength, would you go diesel, or nuc?  Pretend, for a minute, that Canadians cared about the military and supported an increased sub force.   :blotto:


----------



## George Wallace (14 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> But, if we were to upsize the RCN sub strength, would you go diesel, or nuc?  Pretend, for a minute, that Canadians cared about the military and supported an increased sub force.   :blotto:



If we weren't sending Billions of Canadian Dollars to Indonesia, Vietnam and so many other countries around the world, and instead increased our Defence Budget to at least match the same levels of GDP of our allies, perhaps we could go both routes.  Submarine Warfare has changed a lot over the past eighty years.  The role of submarines has expanded so that we would need a nuclear capability to travel under the Arctic Ice Cap, where that was never ever a concern sixty years ago.  Diesel subs have their advantages over Nuclear, but are incapable of prolonged periods under the ice.   There is a justification for both; most likely having a limited number of two nuclear, and a larger number of diesel.   Unfortunately, we are so cheap, we prefer to put all our eggs in one basket; often not filling that. 


[Edit to add:]

Meanwhile DARPA has for several years been conducting studies on the use of unmanned underwater vehicles for hunting ships.  We have UAVs and Drones in the air, and the USN is looking at using some as Refuelers; so the possibilities are there to employ them underwater in numerous roles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Feb 2016)

the original nuke sub proposal was as a ASW fleet to hunt and kill subs, but at the expense of the surface fleet which would have been cut back severely.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Feb 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> This is pretty far outside my lane.  I'd have to do some basic research to even make a WAG at these systems...
> 
> AOPS against a sub;  I am not sure what systems they are planning on putting on those, but I seem to recall reading they will have a relatively slow speed.  I've never seen anything on them having an ASW capability, other than a MH.



I don't think the AOPS is intended to go chasing subs - and you would be right, I think, about its slow speed.  But given its boat deck, its ability to take on board and plug in containers and its 20 tonne crane I think it could act as a barrier tender - monitoring and servicing a variety of remote systems, some piloted, some autonomous, some passive, some active.  The CAPTOR is not necessarily the weapon of choice, I gather there are a lot of mines out there.  I chose the CAPTOR simply because I have heard of it and understand it is available.

Not necessarily a good idea but as technologies keep changing the way the game is played I wonder about what the system demands will look like in 5, 10, 20, 40 years - the life of many of the platforms that the government is buying (maybe).


----------



## a_majoor (3 Mar 2016)

Staying on the usual hobby horse, nuclear powered submarines are the only sensible choice, given Canada's circumstances.

We need ships which can cover the vast areas no only of our three coastlines, but also to project power if/when the GoC decides that it is in the National Interest. As a capital ship, modern nuclear submarines can do both tactical and stratigic missions, having speed, range, carrying capability and the ability to mount powerful sensor systems.

SSK's can do many of the same things, but if a navy goes that route, they also limit the range, endurance and speed at which they are able to react. The Russian use of SSK's to launch missiles against targets in Syria is a case in point, the Russian SSK didn't have to go as far as an American or Canadian submarine would potentially have had to transit to do the same mission.

Going to an SSK fleet for Canada means their mission will primarily be coastal defense, with a limited ability to project force and carry out strategic missions.


----------



## Half Full (4 Mar 2016)

Before too much committment to UUVs in the Arctic, there are still many issues with their employment in that environment :

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/polar-bears-robot-subs-and-melting-ice-navys-icex-2016/

"The Navy’s new fleet of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) has their own problems up north, said Scott Harper, head of Arctic Research at the Office of Naval Research (ONR). Usually, unmanned mini-subs in trouble have the option to surface and “phone home” or check their position against GPS, he said. But those signals don’t penetrate the ice, and UUVs are too small to break themselves a hole in the ice the way manned subs can. Autonomous systems are a big part of the Defense Departments future, but to get them to function in such extreme conditions, Harper said, roboticists have to find new and more “elegant” solutions.”

Even the liquid water can pose a problem. The Arctic Ocean has uniquely strange layering: warmer water on the bottom, colder water on top — the opposite of everywhere else on Earth — with a thin layer of freshwater from melting ice floes on the surface. The resulting mix of temperatures and salinity messes with the buoyancy of UUVs and the propagation of sonar.

So a huge amount of ICEX research is just testing sensors: from the UUVs, from the two manned attack submarines that will be involved, and from static hydrophones lowered through holes in the ice.

The other part is meteorological. The warming climate actually makes the Arctic harder to figure out, Harper said. The edge of the ice pack has become more dynamic, melting back in summer, only to refreeze in fall. The result is short-lived, local patches of open water and a lot of thinner but much more mobile ice. The floe under the ICEX base camp is currently moving at nine miles a day, Harper said, much faster than in most exercises past."


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2016)

Sounds like the other Arctic ship programs, we don't want to actually pay for something that is capable, so we look at partial solutions instead. UUV's _might_ be useful along the edges and approaches to the Arctic to provide warning that someone or something is there, but then a manned ship needs to steam north to investigate or porsecute the target.

Still better than not knowing what is going on there at all...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Mar 2016)

Half Full said:
			
		

> Before too much committment to UUVs in the Arctic, there are still many issues with their employment in that environment :
> 
> http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/polar-bears-robot-subs-and-melting-ice-navys-icex-2016/
> 
> ...


I help support experiments by the SFU Underwater Research Lab in the early 90’s. they were working on underwater communications for AUV’s. From that I am a big believer that for most stuff you have a “mothership” ROV that is umbilicaled to the support ship, that goes down o the depth you want and then release the AUV to carry out the work, that way the AUV conserves power and only has to communicate a short distance in same plane. The AOPs could support a couple of larger Hybrid AUV’s that could surface/snort to recharge and then continue on a pattern search and listen mode, they could upon picking up a contact that matches records in it’s memory to release a buoy to the surface to communicate to the Mothership. Who could have another armed AUV that could release hunter killer torps. Combine that with bottom sensor networks, Satellite surveillance and ASW aircraft patrols, plus occasional surface warships then you created a reasonable deterrent.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Mar 2016)

Could you throw some autonomous gliders into the mix together with ScanEagle sized UAVs for surface control and comms relay?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Mar 2016)

Small UAV's and weather don't always mix. A oil rig resupply boat likely is the best design for launching and recovering fixed wing UAV's


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Mar 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Small UAV's and weather don't always mix.



 8)


----------



## GR66 (12 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Staying on the usual hobby horse, nuclear powered submarines are the only sensible choice, given Canada's circumstances.
> 
> We need ships which can cover the vast areas no only of our three coastlines, but also to project power if/when the GoC decides that it is in the National Interest. As a capital ship, modern nuclear submarines can do both tactical and stratigic missions, having speed, range, carrying capability and the ability to mount powerful sensor systems.
> 
> ...



I think Thucydides is bang on with this.  If we intend to use subs in an expeditionary role nuclear is the way we need to go.  Transit time, the ability to keep up with an allied surface group, and no need for refueling support are huge advantages over a diesel sub in this role.

The problem with SSNs is that they are likely an impossible sell to Canadians.  The very word "nuclear" is likely a political 3rd rail.  The strategic expeditionary roles that an SSN is best suited for are also exactly the types of roles that many Canadians could be convinced by the chattering classes are not the types of roles our military should be engaged in.  The cost will be huge and would likely mean we'd have to make cuts in other important areas.  Finally the support and maintenance issue is huge.  I understand that the cost of building a domestic support infrastructure was one of the reasons the original idea for SSNs was dropped.  Having our subs go to the US for maintenance (or leasing them from the US for that matter) would open us to major criticism as being puppets of the US.  I wish it wasn't so, but I think the idea of SSNs for Canada is a non-starter.

So that leaves us with the potential for a small (4-6?) fleet of SSK's which are best suited for defence of our own waters.  The question then is whether this is the most effective and cost-efficient way to control our own territorial waters?  While the best defence against an enemy sub may be our own sub, is a fleet of 4-6 enough to effectively cover the vast area that we need to patrol?  Would the same money if shifted to additional MPA's, MH's and surface ASW hulls provide us as much or more capability than a small number of subs?  What exactly is the sub and surface warship threat in our own waters compared to the overall flexibility that a variety of other platforms might provide?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Mar 2016)

Does Canada Need Submarines?


----------



## Karel Doorman (12 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Does Canada Need Submarines?



so if read the article correctly and the conclusion as well Michael(writer)thinks they're not a necessary thing for Canada(subs)just buy extra patrol ships and all will be well  : (yeah right)

walter


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Does Canada Need Submarines?





> Denmark has come to the same conclusion. Like Canada, Denmark is a NATO country with substantial maritime zones, largely because of the Faroe Islands and Greenland. Yet in 2006, Denmark decommissioned the last of its German-designed diesel-electric submarines. According to the Danish Ministry of Defence:
> 
> *The current security environment, including the enlargement of NATO and the EU, is of such a nature that the conventional military threat to the Danish territory has disappeared for the foreseeable future.41*
> 
> Concurrent with the decommissioning of its submarines, the Danish government increased the size and capability of its surface fleet – including new offshore patrol vessels to provide inspection and fishery protection.



Danish Ministry of Defence, “4 Appendices,” *10 June 2004*, p. 8, available at: http://www.fmn.dk/eng/allabout/Documents/ENG_Forligstekst.pdf .



> ABSALON Class (2004)
> Ships:
> L16 ABSALON (2004)
> L17 ESBERN SNARE (2005)





> IVER HUITFELDT Class (2012)
> Ships:
> F361 IVER HUITFELDT (2012) *)
> F362 PETER WILLEMOES (2012) *)
> F363 NIELS JUEL (2013) *)



http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/Naval_Lists/Periods/PresentNavy.htm


I think the threat assessment included in that paper may be somewhat dated.   And although the article itself is date (Vol 14 - 2014?)  the data used seems to be, like the Danish information, even more dated and not entirely reflective of anybody's current threat assessment and demonstrated response.

Smoke and rose coloured glasses.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Mar 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I think Thucydides is bang on with this.  If we intend to use subs in an expeditionary role nuclear is the way we need to go.  Transit time, the ability to keep up with an allied surface group, and no need for refueling support are huge advantages over a diesel sub in this role.
> 
> The problem with SSNs is that they are likely an impossible sell to Canadians.  The very word "nuclear" is likely a political 3rd rail.  The strategic expeditionary roles that an SSN is best suited for are also exactly the types of roles that many Canadians could be convinced by the chattering classes are not the types of roles our military should be engaged in.  The cost will be huge and would likely mean we'd have to make cuts in other important areas.  Finally the support and maintenance issue is huge.  I understand that the cost of building a domestic support infrastructure was one of the reasons the original idea for SSNs was dropped.  Having our subs go to the US for maintenance (or leasing them from the US for that matter) would open us to major criticism as being puppets of the US.  I wish it wasn't so, but I think the idea of SSNs for Canada is a non-starter.
> 
> So that leaves us with the potential for a small (4-6?) fleet of SSK's which are best suited for defence of our own waters.  The question then is whether this is the most effective and cost-efficient way to control our own territorial waters?  While the best defence against an enemy sub may be our own sub, is a fleet of 4-6 enough to effectively cover the vast area that we need to patrol?  Would the same money if shifted to additional MPA's, MH's and surface ASW hulls provide us as much or more capability than a small number of subs?  What exactly is the sub and surface warship threat in our own waters compared to the overall flexibility that a variety of other platforms might provide?



Which is a huge problem. Despite the fact that no one seems willing to admit it, we have pretty much always done "expeditionary forces" (Deploying to the North West Territories or the Boer War were certainly "expeditionary" in their day), and you can reel off a long list of "expeditionary" missions since the 1990's right up to the present. Maybe nuclear or conventional submarines won't be useful for every mission, but there have been plenty of missions where the RCN has a big presence, and by extension subs would have contributed as well.

The other factor you allude to is also significant: we have _the longest coastline in the world_, so 4 to 6 of _anything_ is simply not enough (with 6, you essentially can have one vessel on patrol, with another in transit and one in dock being fitted out per coast). I doubt you can convince the chattering/political classes you would need at least 12 and probably closer to 18 submarines to properly cover Canada's maritime needs (SSK _or_ SSN). Not to mention many more surface vessels, patrol aircraft, SAR assets and so on....


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Mar 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I think the threat assessment included in that paper may be somewhat dated.   And although the article itself is date (Vol 14 - 2014?)  the data used seems to be, like the Danish information, even more dated and not entirely reflective of anybody's current threat assessment and demonstrated response.
> 
> Smoke and rose coloured glasses.



Unfortunately I wasn't able to find anything else more recent, which makes me question if pieces such as this will be considered by the current government come time to decide to replace or not.

Bit over my pay grade and outside my lanes.  I think, overall, we are far too willing to just toss away capabilities that are extremely hard to get back once they've gone away.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Mar 2016)

I hope both of you gentlemen know who Professor Michael Byers is: He is a relatively young (I think mid-thirties) professor with law degrees and poli-science degrees who has never lived outside of academia and was a NDP candidate in Vancouver for the last general election. He fully endorses the NDP unilateral "there will never be wars again" agenda, so it's not surprising that he endorses no-submarines policies, just like he endorsed no-F-35 when that issue came up. And BTW, he has not spent a single day in uniform of any service in his lifetime (I don't know about Cadets, though!)

Unfortunately for us, one of his area of knowledge (sort of) is the legal aspects of Arctic sovereignty claims. I say sort of, because he claims certain understandings of facts that he doesn't know or understand.

For instance, his claim that Allies share information on whereabouts of their submarines for search and rescue purposes or to avoid submarines collisions is just laughable. 

First, submarines, like any other vessels, are responsible for their own collision avoidance, something you do by looking (or in the case of submarines, listening) where you are going. Nobody tells any body else where its submarines are for collision avoidance purposes, except in exercises, where we do so by setting submarine emergency surfacing areas, for safety purpose.

Second, nobody tells everybody else where their submarines are for SAR purposes: We don't rely on other nations for SAR of own submarines (besides, when was the last time you heard of a submarine SAR ops? I recall a Russian sub about fifteen years ago. That was the last. Submarines in peacetime are not in any serious danger that would require permanent tabs kept on them for "SAR" purposes.

Allied nations, however, do trade partial info on sub operations in two ways: first, area of operations are created and assigned to either submarines, surface ships, and sometimes, MLRPAs. These areas are created so that a surface ship, for instance, that gets a possub contact in a zone where no allied submarine is supposed to be operating then knows it is somebody else's submarine (usually Russian in the Atlantic and Chinese in the North Pacific/Indian Ocean).

The second way to trade info, is if, for any particular reason you are trading joint maritime picture information with another Navy. Then you get where their submarines are.

And Arctic ops, BTW, were highly classified and the info on "who was where" traded only between the two NATO nations that participated: The US and the UK. And no, they didn't tell us anything "for SAR purposes".

So Prof. Byers is completely wrong here.

He is also full of it (since he hasn't a clue on how submarines work, it's not surprising) where it comes to  submarines being "available off-the-shelf" and "with the lead time, training to operate them could occur".

First of all, there is no such thing as a "shelf" stocked with submarines (or, as I have explained before anything else for that matter in the maritime world). The fact that some yards have a design of a sub on hand (and built some of them for other people) doesn't mean they "have them on hand". It means they are peddling a design and if and only if they make a sale, start getting the parts they need and working on construction, with deliveries two to three years in the future. That can't help you if you need something NOW, nor may it help you if tension in the world starts rising and everybody (the nation with sub building capacity first) starts to build submarines: You get to the end of the line and wait even longer). Moreover, these peddler of "off-the-shelf" designs may not have what you need (a submarine isn't a submarine isn't a submarine: you need the right one for your circumstances). In fact, as of right now, only one builder makes a submarine that meets Canada's requirement: Kawasaki heavy industries, and they are only now, for the first time accepting to let the design to someone else, the Australian's, in view of their common threat: China.

Finally, his view that you can train the crew during the lead time of construction is simply ridiculous. First, where would you be able to train a sufficiently large number of people simultaneously to take over a whole boat when they all have to start with the very demanding submarine qualification? Second, and this is true of a lot of military specialized fields of operations but even more so in submarines, the problem is never getting enough of the lower rung/beginners qualified. The problem is getting your senior personnel, charged with the more specialized technical requirements and with the advanced tactical knowledge qualified. I am sorry but you cannot take a surface ship CERA and put him down into a submarine after a short two year stint to do submarine qualifications. He needs the lead time of having done his basic quals a long time ago, then served as junior engineer, then as a watch keeper engineer and then as A/CERA all on submarines, to be safe as a CERA. Same goes for sub captains. unless they did their basic sub OOW qual right after getting their OOW cert, then went back as a sub divisional officer, then back as a sub combat Officer and/or XO, they are not fit to take command, and someone who served on the surface ship all his years cannot just step into it. That takes 15 to 20 years, not two or three (and these lead times are getting longer - not shorter). Moreover, the tactical knowledge required is past down AT SEA from submariner to submariner in that osmosis that happens as you serve in ever higher position onboard tour after tour, so that even if you could have the "15 years" lead to send everyone to train here and there in advance at various other nation's facilities, they would not tactically gel as a Canadian submarine crew for years after being put together nor develop  a "Canadian" approach to submarine ops for quite some time thereafter.

BTW, Prof. Byers misses one important reason for continuing to operate submarines. Assuming that he is correct and that the defence of Canada's coasts does not require submarines (I disagree, but what the hell, for argument sake), it remains that a large number of nations have and are building even more submarines out there, and Canadian surface ships regularly deploy and operate near these nations. They need the training of facing a real submarine to be able to safely defend themselves, and contrary the good professor's view, nations don't easily "loan" boats to one another for that purpose (in fact, and contrary to what he believes, even the US has a hard time getting non-nuke boat time from allies to train the US Navy - submarines in all nations are heavily tasked, including OWN nation surface force training - so rarely available to loan to others or for extra tasking).

 :cheers:

All this would be lost by not having submarines.


----------



## CougarKing (13 Mar 2016)

In this long interview, RCN chief Vice Admiral Mark Norman weighs in on a number of issues that affect the fleet, including the need for submarines:

Embassy News



> *A conversation with the commander of the navy
> 
> Vice-Admiral Mark Norman talks naval capabilities, the need for submarines and more. *





> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> *On what the Royal Canadian Navy needs*
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2016)

Boeing announces a UUV:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/03/boeing-echo-voyager-unmanned-submarine.html



> Echo Voyager, Boeing’s latest unmanned undersea vehicle (UUV), can operate autonomously for months at a time thanks to a hybrid rechargeable power system and modular payload bay. The 51-foot-long vehicle is the latest innovation in Boeing’s UUV family, joining the 32-foot Echo Seeker and the 18-foot Echo Ranger.
> 
> The size of the new Echo Voyager is in the middle of the German U-Boat lengths which were 40-60 feet long depending upon design.
> 
> ...



http://www.boeing.com/features/2016/03/bds-echo-voyager-03-16.page

Sadly the website which posted this seems to be confused about the difference between feet and metres, so I cut that part.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Mar 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I hope both of you gentlemen know who Professor Michael Byers is: He is a relatively young (I think mid-thirties) professor with law degrees and poli-science degrees who has never lived outside of academia and was a NDP candidate in Vancouver for the last general election. He fully endorses the NDP unilateral "there will never be wars again" agenda, so it's not surprising that he endorses no-submarines policies, just like he endorsed no-F-35 when that issue came up. And BTW, he has not spent a single day in uniform of any service in his lifetime (I don't know about Cadets, though!)
> 
> Unfortunately for us, one of his area of knowledge (sort of) is the legal aspects of Arctic sovereignty claims. I say sort of, because he claims certain understandings of facts that he doesn't know or understand.
> 
> ...



Yes and our lack of that ability cost us dearly in the first half of WWII and was a significant issue till the O-boats came along. People don't realize that our Subs are sometimes used as part of the NATO Perisher (like) course for training sub captains. The Victoria class have a good range for a sub, something that both Canada and Australasia need.


----------



## GR66 (14 Mar 2016)

I have no doubt about the utility of subs in general or for Canada specifically.  The question I have though is if there is a certain minimum number required to make the expense worth the opportunity cost lost to other capabilities?

Does the relative usefulness of just 4-6 subs with all the overhead related to having subs (infrastructure, support, training & manning issues, etc.) equal the same amount of money added to other capabilities like additional MPA's, surface hulls, UUV's, satellites, etc.  

If having just 4 (or 6?) subs realistically means we can only have one (or two?) on active deployment at any given time then is that capability really effective?  Say we are in a conflict with Russia and are able to deploy one sub to defend each coast at any given time.  While individually the sub may be a much better anti-sub platform than an MPA, can it provide enough coverage to be militarily effective?  Would 5 x MPAs instead be more effective in overall terms?

Again, not questioning if subs are an effective and important platform.  But in a Canadian context how many would we realistically need to be worth the expense?  Is four enough?


----------



## dapaterson (14 Mar 2016)

Your questions apply equally to the rest of Canada's navy.  The RCN is grossly undersized, but is there political will to double its size (which would still be too small)?


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Mar 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Your questions apply equally to the rest of Canada's navy.  The RCN is grossly undersized, but is there political will to double its size (which would still be too small)?



Of course not, the taxpayers won't go for it unless "1939" comes to visit us once more.  The Liberals have not been big on the military since those days either and I don't forsee them changing course today, despite having a MND who at least understands what threats are out there can be like.  Mr. Sunshine will be like his father, I'll wager.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Mar 2016)

4 more MPAs might give you 1 extra flyer on each coast.  I'd rather see a single sub in the water;  you never know where those guys are after they dive.  Anyone can sit at an airfield and watch MPAs take off.  

LRPA...the 'long' in it equates to endurance (which the Aurora is a pussy at compared to the Argus...and we had wayyyy more Argus's in the day...) but a LRPA's endurance is nothing near a sub, even a diesel boat in comparison.  

You are best with all 3 dimensions for effective ASW IMO.  Knowing a country 'has no subs' is like knowing the neighbor who is away has no dogs or alarm systems.  Having 4 subs, 2 alongside...means 2 are 'somewhere'.  

Quiet boats, even if not able to do expeditionary ops or what folks who wear Dolphins call them, with good ears and fast fish are worth having and keeping.  We wouldn't be the only Navy with a small sub service, but size alone isn't the only thing to judge the usefulness of something.  

Lastly, if we did close out the sub service, and then later decided that was bad, we'd be in the hurt locker to get it back.  E.g. the RAF loosing the Nimrod and now getting the P8.  All that corporate knowledge, how much was lost in the between years?


----------



## Karel Doorman (14 Mar 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I have no doubt about the utility of subs in general or for Canada specifically.  The question I have though is if there is a certain minimum number required to make the expense worth the opportunity cost lost to other capabilities?
> 
> Does the relative usefulness of just 4-6 subs with all the overhead related to having subs (infrastructure, support, training & manning issues, etc.) equal the same amount of money added to other capabilities like additional MPA's, surface hulls, UUV's, satellites, etc.
> 
> ...



I don't know what's the minimum number required for Canada's needs(since i'm Dutch  ;D )I know that in the Netherlands 4 is the minimum required to do all things(the submarines do )adequate.(2 on active duty,1 in overhaul,1 working up)
The problem for Canada is offcourse that in the beginning the Victoria's were badly taken care of(the seller)and there were things to change on them which all costs lots of money(and didn't help the sub case).Here in the Netherlands the time has come to(at least)think about replacing our Walruses,which will be a formality(normally)(which by the way are on par rangewise with Collins/Victoria's and Soryu's to name the ones with the greatest ranges,since we need those kind off boats as well.
We were lucky(apart from a fire when constructing a boat)all went relatively well with this class(fist class with a automatic engineroom in the world BTW)and didn't have unexpected extra costs(the figures of the costs of these subs is in my thread since some of you asked i could come up with some costs)

Anyway my thinking is that Canada needs as well(minimum )4 subs,so when the time comes to buy new ones again 4(minimum)

gr,walter


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Mar 2016)

A sub is a bit like a mobile minefield, you know it's out there, but not sure where and the extent, so you have to assume it's everywhere and take precautions.


----------



## GR66 (14 Mar 2016)

Excellent info.  Hopefully when the defence review is completed somebody will have listened!


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Mar 2016)

What would a mixed flotilla of Upholders and large AUVs, like the Explorer to which Thuc just linked up-thread, look like?

Three or four AUVs down, along with an Upholder, and maybe an AOPS or two on the surface?

Actually, I think, if we were serious about controlling the Northwest passage, and still allowing the ice and the seasons to dictate our strategy wouldn't we need to maintain two boats on station? One in the east in Baffin Bay and one in the west in the Beaufort sea?  The same as with the AOPS?

From that wouldn't you need a fleet of about 8 SSKs?  6 to maintain a rotation on station and 2 for maintenance and/or discretionary expeditionary ops?   Together with whatever AUVs could bring to the party?

Personally I think the AUVs would be something between a less predictable (from the enemy's POV) SOSUS line and a minefield (assuming they were armed).  In which case the AOPS would become their tender.


----------



## Karel Doorman (14 Mar 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> What would a mixed flotilla of Upholders and large AUVs, like the Explorer to which Thuc just linked up-thread, look like?
> 
> Three or four AUVs down, along with an Upholder, and maybe an AOPS or two on the surface?
> 
> ...



Chris,when i may, [

We had a sortlike discussion on the Dutch Defence Forum about what AUV,UAV could do and offcourse there were some who thought that maybe these things could replace the "actual"(manned)subs completely(all in the name of them being cheaper) :
My questions (since i'm no "underwater" expert )logically thinking were the following(maybe some of you know the answers and or possibilities;
-How do you control these things underwater(let's say at a 100 mtrs depth?Since my thinking was that the subs can't "call" anyone(have contact)when under(i know some of it has to do with the mission objectives but still)
-How do you get them there?(the place they need to operate in)deliver them by a "mothership"with a big role of cable on deck?That will be pretty "in your face"when patrolling enemy territory or conducting covert operations(me thinks),plus the fact that hauling them back on board with miles of cable will be quite the workout.Dropping them from a flying by Hercules(for example)saying "yep we are JUST flying here ,coincidence" > (hoping that the machine survives the fall)
-How do you control what they do?(i mean program a set route?),if you don't want cables.
-But by doing a programmed run,how will they react to an enemy sub or ship or AUV?(they can't adapt or "read"the situation like a human can.)

Questions,questions ,i know but this is my reaction to those who think the manned subs are obsolete weapons.

walter

Ps,i think there's the hope(OZD,sub service) that we(dutch)go for 6 new subs as well(all depending on the budget)


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Mar 2016)

Walter, "Chris" is just fine.

I would never suggest the replacement of the manned sub with the AUV.  I look at it as an auxilliary,  for augmenting the capabilities of the manned units.  Exactly in the same way that patrol vessels, SOSUS systems, minefields and LRPAs all aid and assist in the creation of a capability.

With respect to the comms issue:

I, like you, I believe, am an amateur and not a professional.  An interested amateur but still an amateur.

There are, I believe, a number of possible comms systems available. 

Some of them have range. Some of them are stealthy.  Some of them allow for large packets of information to be transmitted. I don't believe there is one solution that does everything.

Some use low frequency sound for long range.  But everyone can hear that and probably localise the source.   Some use lasers and lights but the communicating parties have to be close together.  Some use a "pass the baton" relay system and physically detach a transmitter as a buoy, or possibly a smaller AUV and move the transmitter to a better location (like the surface).

The suitable communication solution would, largely, in my opinion, depend how how much information, how often, in which direction and how discretely. 

Manned subs need to be incredibly discrete (stealthy) to protect the people inside as well as for tactical advantage.  AUVs may not need to be as stealthy.  And they may not need to communicate as frequently.

It may be adequate for an AUV to spend its time gliding and not reporting until it actually makes contact.  Then the question becomes does that report have to be done in a stealthy fashion.  Sometimes you might want the contact to know that it has been detected.  In which case a loud report to everyone in the area of "It is over here!" would seem appropriate.  In other cases it might be enough to release a messenger buoy, or vessel to say "At 10 O'Clock on the 25th of Never a contact was discovered over here".

As far as incoming traffic is concerned maybe all that is required is a single encoded "Weapons Free" burst transmission. 

As for spools of wire on the deck: I wasn't thinking along those lines.  I was thinking of AUVs (Autonomous Underwater Vehicles) and not ROVs (Remotely Operated Vehicles).


----------



## Karel Doorman (14 Mar 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Walter, "Chris" is just fine.
> 
> I would never suggest the replacement of the manned sub with the AUV.  I look at it as an auxilliary,  for augmenting the capabilities of the manned units.  Exactly in the same way that patrol vessels, SOSUS systems, minefields and LRPAs all aid and assist in the creation of a capability.
> 
> ...



Th Chris,one's never too old to learn(as i did here) 

And yes i also am just an amateur,but a concerned one,i mean when you just see what's happening here in Europe(budgetwise),apart from the UK and France(these 2 being the only ones actually aiming for the 2% investments,agreed by all NAVO partners to do so in the year 2020,i believe)it's not going well(we spending a measly 0.99%,shamefull really)and i'm not even talking about the richest nation,Germany,wich  couldn't care less about defence(budgetwise)
I mean everybody shouting over things that they don't like happening in the world,but nobody's,apart from the 2 forementioned, willing to actually invest accordingly. :rage:

As for the AUV part ok ,but how long will they be on station or will they be able to get there(range,duration)
Ok maybe possible to recharge by solarpower(just thinking with you on this part)and indeed the forementioned spools of wire belong to ROV's(my mistake) 
But still can a AUV react to changing situations as well as humans can?

gr,walter

ps i know the subs need to be stealthy to protect the crew,that's why we've got the Walrus. >


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Mar 2016)

I always enjoy this type of conversation.  I learn (sometimes I am schooled).

With respect to time on station - 

Gliders can stay at sea for very long periods as they don't use any fuel for propulsion.  They fill bladders with gas to lower their density, increase their buoyancy, and float to the surface.  Then they blow tanks, become heavier, denser, less buoyant and let gravity work. As they sink they can use their wings to fly against the currents.

http://www.ioos.noaa.gov/glider/welcome.html

For the powered AUVs, the autonomous ones, a Canadian firm, ISE has built and deployed a 7 m, 2000 kg unit (Arctic Explorer) that mapped 1000 km under the ice in a single 10 day sortie.

http://www.ise.bc.ca/auv.html

And if the Boeing video on their Explorer (posted by Thucydides upthread) is to be believed, their Explorer is intended to have an endurance of months, similar to the endurance of the gliders.

I doubt if these things are for fast transit but instead for slow patrols


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2016)

In any rational discussion on submarines, there would be a minimum of 8 boats, just to ensure there is always one on patrol per coast and having one extra per coast to "surge" or apply to an expeditionary force when needed. Still hardly adequate, but probably better than nothing. 12 would probably be closer to what we "really" need, but given defense priorities and the limited amount that the government and people are willing to spend, this is likely a non starter. The other aspect, as mentioned, is the boats would be part of a team effort, so "X" subs should also teamed up with "Y" surface ships and "Z" LRPAs. For Canada, this would be an extraordinary expense.

The Boeing vessel is an example of the sort of tool which can supplement subs. I see things like that and the seaglider or waveglider as being useful in extending the "reach" of the fleet, patrolling for long times and distances and acting as sensors to vector other assets via the various means that Chris has mentioned upthread. Even a relatively small ship like the "Kingston" class should be able to tender and observe several UUV's. Of course there still need to be assets which are capable of actively investigating and if need be prosecuting contacts, and having a manned vessel provides the all important person in the loop to make the "shoot/no shoot" decisions.


----------



## GR66 (15 Mar 2016)

I wonder if something like like a seaglider or waveglider would be capable of trailing a towed array sonar?  I'm guessing the extra weight and drag would impede their method of propulsion.  I can see a powered AUV acting something like a mobile SOSUS line though.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Mar 2016)

I would be interested in hearing the thoughts on this stuff from someone who is an acoustician and understands the ASW game far better than I do.  There are a few on this forum who have served under and above the water...maybe they'll weigh in.

A lot of this would be centered around water.  From my basic introduction to oceanography, 3 things affect how sound travels (and where it travels...) through water;  salinity, temperature and pressure.  I'll assume there is a completely different set of considerations for areas like up north, but I don't understand them enough to do more than mention them.

But I'll wager that this type of info would have a considerable effect on the cap's and lim's of systems being discussed...


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I would be interested in hearing the thoughts on this stuff from someone who is an acoustician and understands the ASW game far better than I do.  There are a few on this forum who have served under and above the water...maybe they'll weigh in.
> 
> A lot of this would be centered around water.  From my basic introduction to oceanography, 3 things affect how sound travels (and where it travels...) through water;  salinity, temperature and pressure.  I'll assume there is a completely different set of considerations for areas like up north, but I don't understand them enough to do more than mention them.
> 
> But I'll wager that this type of info would have a considerable effect on the cap's and lim's of systems being discussed...



And I wouldn't be at all surprised if, as in your game EITS, that those who do know probably won't be saying much here.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Mar 2016)

I am sure he could generalize it so it is 'ok' for here.   :nod:


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2016)

GR66 said:
			
		

> I wonder if something like like a seaglider or waveglider would be capable of trailing a towed array sonar?  I'm guessing the extra weight and drag would impede their method of propulsion.  I can see a powered AUV acting something like a mobile SOSUS line though.



Maybe not a full towed array, but I can imagine several of these devices towing a very small array and the control vessel integrating the input from multiple arrays distributed in a "box" formation rather than a single linear array.


----------



## Baz (15 Mar 2016)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I would be interested in hearing the thoughts on this stuff from someone who is an acoustician and understands the ASW game far better than I do.  There are a few on this forum who have served under and above the water...maybe they'll weigh in.
> 
> A lot of this would be centered around water.  From my basic introduction to oceanography, 3 things affect how sound travels (and where it travels...) through water;  salinity, temperature and pressure.  I'll assume there is a completely different set of considerations for areas like up north, but I don't understand them enough to do more than mention them.
> 
> But I'll wager that this type of info would have a considerable effect on the cap's and lim's of systems being discussed...



I was an acoustician (CH-124B) HELTAS, and I've also written code to do passive, active, and prediction; I can help some.  Everything below is open source and I can provide links if you want to read; well, maybe, depending on how much I care 

You are, the speed of sound is determined by salinity, temperature, and pressure; the path of water through sound is determined by the speed changing at different depths.  It will curve towards lower speeds.

However, something else is going to happen: its going to hit the top (surface), and except in pure blue water (ie really deep), it's also going to hit the bottom.  Depending on a whole lot of stuff (to which you can add ice in this case) some will bounce and some will reflect.

As well, it will be attenuated... and this is where frequency becomes important: lower ones attenuate less (http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/37689-seawater-acoustic-absorption-calculator).  It's also easier to put more power behind lower frequencies.

So, in the deep ocean, sound will refract down at first, but then the increasing depth cause increasing speed and it refracts back up.  It then either bounces of the surface or refracts back down, etc, etc...  if it is refracting around the point where sound speed is the lowest then that is the deep sound channel and you can get huge ranges at low frequencies (less attenuation).  Of course, every noise maker in the ocean is also getting huge ranges, so it is harder to pic signal from noise...

However, that doesn't describe the arctic... in most places the deep sound channel won't exist (even leaving out weird surface effects due to fresh water melting and how cold it is).  So all that power may go straight into the bottom, and then all you get is bottom reflection mixing in with your reverb (which is another limfac for high power low freq by the way)...

None of this would determine whether anything you want to do is possible or not (I know some people at DRDC-A that have worked these types of questions), but it would be a consideration (a very important one) for how you would do it.

By the way, somebody may have said it and I missed it, but there are also floating trailing wires...


----------



## blacktriangle (15 Mar 2016)

Even if a revised defence policy were to focus more on "protecting the homeland" and less on expeditionary operations, I feel submarines should still be a no brainer. SSKs would obviously be an easier sell to Canadians than their nuclear equivalents. A modern fleet of subs, with an increased number of AOPS and a small fleet of modern Frigates would probably protect Canada adequately when coupled with sufficient LRPA, MH, and fighter coverage.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Mar 2016)

Problem is, we need subs that are operational, not constantly under refit or repair or restrictions to depth. If the policy says subs, we need to stand up the project now to purchase 5-6 SSKs, and look at options to piggyback into another countries' order as long as it meets the under-ice requirement we'll inevitably have. We've recently signed an ISSP contract for 15 years, that gives us the normal procurement cycle to have replacements in the fleet by the time that contract is finished.


----------



## blacktriangle (15 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Problem is, we need subs that are operational, not constantly under refit or repair or restrictions to depth. If the policy says subs, we need to stand up the project now to purchase 5-6 SSKs, and look at options to piggyback into another countries' order as long as it meets the under-ice requirement we'll inevitably have. We've recently signed an ISSP contract for 15 years, that gives us the normal procurement cycle to have replacements in the fleet by the time that contract is finished.



Agree 100%. I'm definitely not going to hold my breath for any form of coherent defence policy. Ditto for a proper procurement system.


----------



## Underway (28 Apr 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Problem is, we need subs that are operational, not constantly under refit or repair or restrictions to depth. If the policy says subs, we need to stand up the project now to purchase 5-6 SSKs, and look at options to piggyback into another countries' order as long as it meets the under-ice requirement we'll inevitably have. We've recently signed an ISSP contract for 15 years, that gives us the normal procurement cycle to have replacements in the fleet by the time that contract is finished.



Well the Aussies are buying and building these nice Shortfin Barracuda.  On paper they look very capable and for a conventional submarine.  Article  here  for a comparison of them to the Collins.  I think the  range and endurance requirements fit into what Canada may want.


*edited to fix links*


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Apr 2016)

My guess the Aussie contract will start facing questions by the 5th sub as governments change directions, that would be 10-12 years from now and good time for Canada to say 'hello we are looking for subs". apparently the Aussie plan is sort of a; subs 1-5 go into service, 6-9 come into service and 10-12 replace 1-5 who are retired.


----------



## Underway (28 Apr 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> My guess the Aussie contract will start facing questions by the 5th sub as governments change directions, that would be 10-12 years from now and good time for Canada to say 'hello we are looking for subs". apparently the Aussie plan is sort of a; subs 1-5 go into service, 6-9 come into service and 10-12 replace 1-5 who are retired.


I doubt that, (barring the questions part).  South Australia is loosing a large number of manufacturing jobs and there a number of seats at play in Parliament.  Critical ridings need their jobs.  50 billion dollars is a lot of investment into the local economy.  What I did like was the deal structure that was initially worked out but was not taken.  The French proposed building the first two subs in France with half Australian workforce.  By then the facilities for building the rest would be up and ready in Australia.  Then the those workers would be moved back to Australia and the rest of the boats would  be finished.  It would have advanced the timeline significantly and educating Australian workers in how the boats are to be built.  Its a model that could be looked at for any future Canadian sub project.  I mean we already have a shipyard that speaks French and Davies/Irving will be busy for a long time with all their NSS contracts.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Apr 2016)

that would make so much sense, so it's unlikely to happen.


----------



## Underway (12 May 2016)

Sub planning and purchasing articles from the Maritime Engineering Journal 2014:

links:  Part 1 starts on page 12 and Part 2 starts on page 10.

This discussion now changes with the Shortfin Barracuda purchase by the Australians.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 May 2016)

It doesn't change his penultimate conclusion that:

"_A MOTS submarine, built overseas but maintained in Canada, is the lowest-risk, lower-cost option that will deliver an operationally relevant future submarine capability._"

But it actually invalidates his view, at the time correct though, that:

"_Historically, Canada has sought long-range, high-endurance submarines for expeditionary operations.  The current MOTS marketplace does not have a clearly identified fit for these demanding requirements._"


----------



## Underway (12 May 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It doesn't change his penultimate conclusion that:
> 
> "_A MOTS submarine, built overseas but maintained in Canada, is the lowest-risk, lower-cost option that will deliver an operationally relevant future submarine capability._"
> 
> ...



Agreed.  The Shortfin will soon (2years?) be a MOTS or at the very least a "well into the design/development stage" option for the RCN.  The Australian requirements are almost exactly the same as the Canadian requirements he lists.  Perhaps a build in Australia option...  His timelines are not surprising either.  I wonder if a build the majority overseas with the finishing touches in Canada option would be valid, though subs need much of their equipment added during the build process vice after (can't just add weapons/sensors after most of the hull is built...).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 May 2016)

You can add weapons or sensors after the hull is built, but it is complex and expensive.

We certainly added sensors to the "O" boats during the SOUP refits, and we certainly changed the weapons system on the Windsor's after we got them from the UK (replaced tubes and launch system from Tigerish to Mk-48's).


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 May 2016)

Our subs will be long in the tooth by the time there is room to build for us, having them built in France might be difficult as only the Aussies will be fitting US weapons into their.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 May 2016)

Not necessarily Colin. 

First of all, the Australians would be more than happy, I am sure to sell some Australian built subs to an especially suitable purchaser such as Canada. Second of all, their plan is already for 12 subs, the last four of which would be replacement for the first four. If Canada was to accept to buy six, and Australia accepted to intersperse, and shorten the production times a bit, you could do this in the same time as that required for, say building 14 boats. 

For instance, instead of building one sub every 30 months - i.e. 12 subs over 30 years, you could build 18 subs over 34 years (one every 23 months - quite doable). In order it would be something like AUS, AUS, CAN, AUS, CAN, AUS, AUS, CAN, CAN, AUS, AUS, CAN, AUS, CAN, AUS, AUS, AUS, AUS.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 May 2016)

You know that's way to logical, don't you....?

I certainly hope you are right.


----------



## Underway (19 May 2016)

Rethinking Nuclear Subs article from Frontline magazine.  It has many of the arguments that have been presented here before, but has a good historical overview and world overview of current nuclear submarine powers.  I didn't know Brazil was looking to get into the nuke business but that makes sense given its rising place in the world.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 May 2016)

Rethought and moved post to the Status on Victoria-class subs thread.


----------

