Author Topic: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?  (Read 340047 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 148,874
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,731
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #600 on: February 11, 2020, 18:23:46 »
:dontfeedmods:
We pushed two of the four, as only two were in the water in 2018. The other two weren’t in the water at all in 2018 or 2019.

But that's always been the plan.  My understanding is the plan was to have one submarine available in 2019 but then the Navy made a conscientious decision to sail both boats hard in 2018 which resulted in us having none available now.

Corner Brook also caught fire during welding which delayed its return to service further.

Basically, with only four boats, you will always have a boom and bust cycle if you try and sail submarines simultaneously on both coasts for extended periods of time.


Offline Uzlu

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 289
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #601 on: February 11, 2020, 20:15:20 »
Basically, with only four boats, you will always have a boom and bust cycle if you try and sail submarines simultaneously on both coasts for extended periods of time.
Any navy that wants at least one submarine deployed at all times, requires a minimum of five submarines in the fleet.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 333
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #602 on: February 11, 2020, 20:18:13 »
Any navy that wants at least one submarine deployed at all times, requires a minimum of five submarines in the fleet.

Kind of sucks that we’re a 3 ocean country.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 244,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,408
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #603 on: February 11, 2020, 20:59:54 »
Kind of sucks that we’re a 3 ocean country not equipped or funded properly and struggle to keep a single sub in the water at all, let alone 1 on each coast.

FTFY   ;D

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 88,485
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,219
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #604 on: February 11, 2020, 21:30:50 »
Also it would seem the current sub refits are not the serious and very costly--$1.5/$3B-- modernization that then-Navy head VADM Norman said in 2016 was needed to keep the boats really useful until mid-30s:
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/edmonton-journal/20160620/281797103286477

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 333
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #605 on: February 11, 2020, 21:39:51 »
FTFY   ;D

I luv ya man -
I’m on this sight to better understand the issues all of you are facing daily so that I can speak out and advocate to the elected officials and general public.

Without a doubt more is needed.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 148,874
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,731
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #606 on: February 11, 2020, 22:06:16 »
Any navy that wants at least one submarine deployed at all times, requires a minimum of five submarines in the fleet.

 :nod:

This is compounded by the fact our two fleets are separated by about 6000km of land mass in between them. 

In all reality, if we wanted a continuous submarine presence on both coasts simultaneously, we would need 8-10 boats.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 329,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,585
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #607 on: February 11, 2020, 22:16:01 »
:nod:

This is compounded by the fact our two fleets are separated by about 6000km of land mass in between them. 

In all reality, if we wanted a continuous submarine presence on both coasts simultaneously, we would need 8-10 boats.

Just order a bunch from the US and ask BC to pick up the tab again :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_CC-1
"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 60,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,183
  • Red shirted sea nerd reporting for the away team!
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #608 on: February 12, 2020, 12:28:05 »
:nod:

This is compounded by the fact our two fleets are separated by about 6000km of land mass in between them. 

In all reality, if we wanted a continuous submarine presence on both coasts simultaneously, we would need 8-10 boats.

Not sure about the west coast, but we're running out of jetty space as it is in Halifax, so aside from the vessels, both bases would need an upgrade/expansion.  If we ever go nuclear, would need new facilities outside of populated areas all together to get the security cordon set up.

Offline LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,955
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 221
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #609 on: February 12, 2020, 13:11:38 »
Is this possible for us to do this so we could operate in the arctic during different seasons and further? Instead of blowing holes too shoot, use them to breathe instead?

Russian submarines to get unguided shells to break ice

Quote
The new projectiles are tested on submarines of Borey-class project 955 and Yasen-class project 885, sources in the Defense Ministry said. The unguided rocket-propelled munitions confirmed the ability to break any ice drift. The projectiles are necessary to ensure underwater missile launches and to surface floating rescue capsules and evacuate a crew in distress. Submarines can engage the projectiles under ice and in a surfaced position, the sources said.


https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2020/january/7985-russian-submarines-to-get-unguided-shells-to-break-ice.html


Not sure about the west coast, but we're running out of jetty space as it is in Halifax, so aside from the vessels, both bases would need an upgrade/expansion.  If we ever go nuclear, would need new facilities outside of populated areas all together to get the security cordon set up.

Hate to shamelessly plug my ideas, but if we tacked on to a Virginia-lite program (details below), they could theoretically and temporarily placed in an already secured USN yard.

- Buy an American Virginia-Class SNN, take away some capabilities (SDV, less VLS tubes for example).
- They have expertise in design, building, maintaining them. Have existing global infrastructure and support available.
- Buys much goodwill with US relations, giving us a political 'chip' to use for another issue we want their support on.
- The CDN$ going to them may likely buy the political class off in terms of the US not wanting us to have SNNs.
- Have the US yard set up/support a small shop in Canada (partnership with Davie?), set them up as an apprentice the larger US firm.
- Send RCN teams to USN yards to learn the new trade.
- 'Lease' a slip in a Pacific/Atlantic USN yard.
- Will never happen.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 333
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #610 on: February 12, 2020, 13:11:46 »
Not sure about the west coast, but we're running out of jetty space as it is in Halifax, so aside from the vessels, both bases would need an upgrade/expansion.  If we ever go nuclear, would need new facilities outside of populated areas all together to get the security cordon set up.

Chances of them stationing the East Coast AOPS out of St. John's? instead of Halifax?

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 59,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,701
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #611 on: February 12, 2020, 13:15:59 »
Did they sell off jetty space in HFX? At one point all 4 280’s, 6-8 steamers, PRE, PRO, all 3 O boats, Cormorant and a whack of other smaller ships were based there, with room for whole visiting fleets such as NATO  standing forces.
... Move!! ...

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 69,820
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 777
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #612 on: February 12, 2020, 13:42:34 »
Hate to shamelessly plug my ideas, but if we tacked on to a Virginia-lite program (details below), they could theoretically and temporarily placed in an already secured USN yard.

Even with nuclear power plants being the best solution to providing lots of carbon-free electricity to combat climate change, nobody in power is willing to face the anti-nuclear backlash by suggesting we build more nuclear power plants.  If THAT is a no-go then purchasing nuclear powered "war machines" will never, ever, EVER happen.  No point even wasting any more keystrokes dreaming about the idea regardless of any possible merit.

 :2c:

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 59,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,701
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #613 on: February 12, 2020, 14:06:35 »
Ontario and I believe Saskatchewan are investing in new nuclear technology research for power. But you’re right, Canada will never have a nuclear powered “anything” in its military.
Is there an actual plan to replace the submarine fleet. My last understanding is that project does not exist.
... Move!! ...

Offline stoker dave

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 6,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 70
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #614 on: February 12, 2020, 14:15:37 »
I will further add that to operate nuclear powered vessels, it is absolutely essential to have 100% compliance with all documented procedures at all times.  That is the ONLY way to assure the safety of the vessel.

DND does not have the necessary culture of "procedural compliance" to safely operate nuclear powered vessels.  A prime example is the incident involving a smoke detector in the wardroom.  If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor. 

Offline CloudCover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 59,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,701
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #615 on: February 12, 2020, 14:25:05 »
I will further add that to operate nuclear powered vessels, it is absolutely essential to have 100% compliance with all documented procedures at all times.  That is the ONLY way to assure the safety of the vessel.

DND does not have the necessary culture of "procedural compliance" to safely operate nuclear powered vessels.  A prime example is the incident involving a smoke detector in the wardroom.  If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor.
******* A.
Milpoints inbound.
... Move!! ...

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 329,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,585
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #616 on: February 12, 2020, 16:41:41 »
I will further add that to operate nuclear powered vessels, it is absolutely essential to have 100% compliance with all documented procedures at all times.  That is the ONLY way to assure the safety of the vessel.

DND does not have the necessary culture of "procedural compliance" to safely operate nuclear powered vessels.  A prime example is the incident involving a smoke detector in the wardroom.  If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor anything....

FTFY :)
"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

Offline uncle-midget-Oddball

    Back to work in one week... Finally.

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 8,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 717
  • Why dont you knock it off with them negative waves
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #617 on: February 12, 2020, 16:45:35 »
I will further add that to operate nuclear powered vessels, it is absolutely essential to have 100% compliance with all documented procedures at all times.  That is the ONLY way to assure the safety of the vessel.

DND does not have the necessary culture of "procedural compliance" to safely operate nuclear powered vessels.  A prime example is the incident involving a smoke detector in the wardroom.  If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor.

Zzzinggg!
What are you doing?

I'm drinking wine and eating cheese, and catching some rays, you know.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 244,255
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,408
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #618 on: February 12, 2020, 18:29:08 »
Is this possible for us to do this so we could operate in the arctic during different seasons and further? Instead of blowing holes too shoot, use them to breathe instead?

Russian submarines to get unguided shells to break ice



I wouldn't want to be on a SSK that relied on that...and, tactically...well.

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 53,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,367
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #619 on: February 12, 2020, 21:04:32 »
Not a bad idea if you need to break through the ice, but can't find a suitable spot?  Or need to break it up a bit more to be safe?

From the crew rescue capsule perspective, it seems to make sense.  Especially if their focus is clearly arctic operations in this case.



I know nothing about submarines other than the basics - doesn't seem like a bad option to have if need be though?
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

Wouldn't it be nice to have some Boondock Saints kicking around?

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 33,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,208
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #620 on: February 12, 2020, 21:40:09 »
Did they sell off jetty space in HFX? At one point all 4 280’s, 6-8 steamers, PRE, PRO, all 3 O boats, Cormorant and a whack of other smaller ships were based there, with room for whole visiting fleets such as NATO  standing forces.

They just created more jetty space with the new NJ jetty.  Ships we have now are larger,
[/quote]there is still space alongside one of the 3 sides of NF which isn't used much.  Also the jetty at the Dockyard annex isn't used anymore for ships as it's in need of significant upgrade/repair.  That used to be used quite a bit for the smaller vessels if I read the old photo's correct.

If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor. 

Like the hasty generalization and genetic fallacies I see.  One does not follow the other.  I know plenty of officers who follow the rules to their detriment and the detriment of their subordinates, come hell or high water.


Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 329,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,585
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #621 on: February 12, 2020, 22:40:31 »
Not a bad idea if you need to break through the ice, but can't find a suitable spot?  Or need to break it up a bit more to be safe?

From the crew rescue capsule perspective, it seems to make sense.  Especially if their focus is clearly arctic operations in this case.



I know nothing about submarines other than the basics - doesn't seem like a bad option to have if need be though?

I wonder... how big is the dems kit for blowing the blinds? ;)
"Now listen to me you benighted muckers. We're going to teach you soldiering. The world's noblest profession. When we're done with you, you'll be able to slaughter your enemies like civilized men." Daniel Dravot

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 20,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,421
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #622 on: February 13, 2020, 06:37:19 »
This only makes sense to get missiles up and on their way

Crew rescue?  I can’t see it.  How can the boat be in such bad shape that I need to leave, but at the same time it’s still in good enough condition to launch this projectile to blow the ice. 

What happens when I get to the roof?  I’ll look like Wile E Coyote, encased in a block of ice.   

As for Jetty space.  Does anyone have any photos from MARCOT ‘98?  Halifax was jammed packed.  We also had the Winnipeg as they were part of the NATO fleet at the time. 

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 60,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,183
  • Red shirted sea nerd reporting for the away team!
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #623 on: February 13, 2020, 11:00:49 »
Did they sell off jetty space in HFX? At one point all 4 280’s, 6-8 steamers, PRE, PRO, all 3 O boats, Cormorant and a whack of other smaller ships were based there, with room for whole visiting fleets such as NATO  standing forces.

Halifax will have 3-5 AOPS, 7 frigates , JSS, 6 MCDVs, plus the tugs and other auxiliary ships. Unless most of the fleet is out and about, that's a lot of ships that are doubled up, and the further you are from FMF, the less work you get done, so there is a lot of shuffling them around. At some point CSC will start rolling in too, so unless some of the frigates start 'self retiring' not going to get any better.

Ships used to be gone a lot longer at a time, which was more feasible with baseline refits. With the condition based maintenance you have a lot more repairs during the operational bit, and because we are trying to stretch our 3rd line budget, a lot gets downloaded into SWPs (or doing without while in service). Unless you are in HR, not uncommon to be bouncing around with the bare minimum in some areas, and thanks to the risk assessments, you can always talk until it's blue and carry on. That effectively makes the dockyard annex and the shearwater jetties unusable for anything more than short stops as ships need all the dockyard jetty time they can get for repairs/PM.

We also do clever things like sending the bulk of the active fleet out at once, then having multiple SWPs at the same time, so pretty good at not evenly loading maintenance demands at the FMF.  Hopefully things have gotten better in the last few years, but even with EHM data showing pumps/motors were starting to fail, wasn't able to get things replaced until they actually failed, and even then it was on a triage basis.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 333
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #624 on: February 13, 2020, 13:33:59 »
Halifax will have 3-5 AOPS, 7 frigates , JSS, 6 MCDVs, plus the tugs and other auxiliary ships. Unless most of the fleet is out and about, that's a lot of ships that are doubled up, and the further you are from FMF, the less work you get done, so there is a lot of shuffling them around. At some point CSC will start rolling in too, so unless some of the frigates start 'self retiring' not going to get any better.

Ships used to be gone a lot longer at a time, which was more feasible with baseline refits. With the condition based maintenance you have a lot more repairs during the operational bit, and because we are trying to stretch our 3rd line budget, a lot gets downloaded into SWPs (or doing without while in service). Unless you are in HR, not uncommon to be bouncing around with the bare minimum in some areas, and thanks to the risk assessments, you can always talk until it's blue and carry on. That effectively makes the dockyard annex and the shearwater jetties unusable for anything more than short stops as ships need all the dockyard jetty time they can get for repairs/PM.

We also do clever things like sending the bulk of the active fleet out at once, then having multiple SWPs at the same time, so pretty good at not evenly loading maintenance demands at the FMF.  Hopefully things have gotten better in the last few years, but even with EHM data showing pumps/motors were starting to fail, wasn't able to get things replaced until they actually failed, and even then it was on a triage basis.

I've asked this previously, but what about the option of basing the East Coast AOPS (3 of them, as I assume that the other 3 will be on the West Coast), out of St. John's?  That would save 2 days sailing time up to the Arctic and then base the 2 CCG AOPS's out of St. John's as well.  That would free up a fair amount of space, leaving room for the 8 CSC's, the 6 Kington's, 2 Vic's, OAR and the various tugs in Halifax.