Author Topic: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?  (Read 267153 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 207,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,393
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #425 on: February 26, 2018, 13:12:49 »
Couldn't find a link for DM 18 but here's some more on the ex...great ASW ex and training for the RCN folks and for folks in my line of work to fly on NATO SSK/SSN.  Nice to see a RCN boat in the players list this year.

Dynamic Manta 2017

Moosemilk planned for the International Party at ENDEX   :cheers: 
The only time you have *too much gas* is when you're on fire.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 126,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,880
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #426 on: February 26, 2018, 14:06:41 »
Funny how our exercise just happen to be in hot spots......... 8)

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 207,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,393
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #427 on: February 26, 2018, 14:18:10 »
Sicily really isn't that nice...in the...winter.  Honestly...  :whistle: 


The only time you have *too much gas* is when you're on fire.

Offline CBH99

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 23,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 728
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #428 on: February 26, 2018, 15:56:15 »
2 out of 4 submarines currently deployed on operations & exercises is actually pretty fantastic!!  Way to go RCN leadership, honestly. 

Considering there are fellow NATO members that can't currently deploy any submarines, or possibly only 1 or 2 also - the RCN submarine force is doing pretty good given it's size. 

Great job to the crews & leadership.  Lots to be learned in these exercises, fantastic learning opportunities.
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

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

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 207,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,393
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #429 on: February 26, 2018, 16:22:27 »
Yup, we're not the only NATO country who is in the hurt locker for funding for our submarine service...

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/germany-does-not-have-one-working-submarine-23688

Manta is a really good exercise overall;  I've done several and will be going over for this one again.  Last year we got to work with a CPF and AirDet (which is rare, oddly enough...), this year with a V-boat.  Next year it would be nice to see a LRP Det, SSK, and a surface force complete with a CH-148 Det. 
The only time you have *too much gas* is when you're on fire.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 207,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,393
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #430 on: March 09, 2018, 01:32:17 »
CAF Operations Article Link

HMCS Windsor, two CP-140 Aurora aircraft, and approximately 140 Canadian Armed Forces members are participating in NATO's Exercise DYNAMIC MANTA alongside 5,000 allies from 10 other countries.

This annual exercise is designed to sharpen the Alliance's collective defence by honing the participants' skills in anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare.
-----------------------------------------------------

Great picture of Windsor alongside in Augusta, Sicily before the EX started in this Janes article.

HMCS Windsor completes BQQ-10 sonar fit

We (my crew) had an unexpected surprise earlier during the EX;  an invitation to go down to Augusta to meet the crew and get a tour of the boat.  I'd never been inside a sub before and it was an amazing and eye-opening experience.  Living spaces - prisoners have nothing to complain about, trust me.  I think the galley on the Aurora might actually be a bit bigger than the galley on our SSKs.  Hats off to this group of professionals for doing what they do in the service of our great country - each and every day is truly a sacrifice and I don't know if I'll be able to complain about things like how tired I am after a 10+ hour mission again - these folks don't have a ladder to walk down after their watch that leads to the rental car...

Thanks to the skipper and crew for a great afternoon;  the next time I see you guys you'll look more like the pic attached.   ;)
The only time you have *too much gas* is when you're on fire.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 131,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,465
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #431 on: March 09, 2018, 14:37:19 »
the next time I see you guys you'll look more like the pic attached.   ;)

You wish!  ;D

The nice thing about the Windsor is how luxurious the accommodations are compared to the previous "O" boats class.  :nod:

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 207,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,393
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #432 on: March 10, 2018, 12:06:27 »
You wish!  ;D

I can't confirm or deny if a RCAF MPA successfully exercised against a RCN SSK   :whistle:

Quote
The nice thing about the Windsor is how luxurious the accommodations are compared to the previous "O" boats class.  :nod:

If the V-boats are considered "luxurious"...wow.  Most of the Jnr Rates bunks looked like they'd have a hard time comfortably fitting 3 loaves of bread in them!!
The only time you have *too much gas* is when you're on fire.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,407
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #433 on: March 10, 2018, 14:39:49 »
Excluding our politicians, what is the Navy's view of submarines as part of our future force?

Do they believe 4 is sufficient?

Or for next generation will they be lobbying for more?

:salute:
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #434 on: March 10, 2018, 17:11:33 »
If it were me, I’d think 6 was a reasonable and attainable number. Even 5 would mean 1 for each task force, 1 on patrol each coast and 1 in deep maintenance.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 131,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,465
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #435 on: March 10, 2018, 17:33:18 »
Actually, Blackshirt, it is difficult to ask serving members that may be involved in advising the Government to indicate in public what the view of the Navy is.

However, The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence released a report in May 2017 titled Reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces - A Plan for the Future. They derived their recommendations further to holding extensive hearings of multiple expert witnesses, including many serving and even more numerous recently retired generals and admirals, for the naval portion. So their recommendations are probably very indicative of the views of the Navy.

The final recommendations on make up of the Navy called for 18 Surface Combatant, 12 submarines (six per coast), four AOR - 2 Resolve for home waters and 2 PRO for deployment, and the replacement of all 12 MCDV's by proper fully equipped mine sweepers/hunters. Finally, they strongly suggested a review of the AOPS program to determine if spending all that money on such limited capability is worth it.

Surprisingly enough (he said, sarcastically), that report does not appear to have been taken into consideration by the Government when drafting its most recent Defence Policy.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 523,590
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,684
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #436 on: March 11, 2018, 09:55:19 »
However, The Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence released a report in May 2017 titled Reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces - A Plan for the Future.
The report can be found here.  While sometimes the Senate draws whining negative comments for being a bunch of 'unelected, old white guys,' they do have the potential benefit of being able to look at issues outside of party politics' blinders (where re-election sound bites are the overarching concern rather than honest appraisal), unlike House of Commons' committees.

Quote
Surprisingly enough (he said, sarcastically), that report does not appear to have been taken into consideration by the Government when drafting its most recent Defence Policy.
Of course they did; the Senate Report mentions "gender" FOUR times in the section on Reflecting Canada's Diversity (plus a fifth time where they felt a need to reiterate the full list of the Dechamps' Report recommendations).   :nod:

The government just chose to ignore all those pesky "investment" recommendations... something from the Defence Policy that they continued quite strongly in the Federal Budget ("gender," good; 352 mentions -- actual "economics," what?; 3 mentions [all tied to employing women])


/non-submarine tangent  (but Oldgateboatdriver started it  :whistle: )

 
 

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 158
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #437 on: March 15, 2018, 08:41:48 »
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/politics/uss-hartford-nuclear-submarine-arctic/index.html

The Arctic......why is it only US and British subs training up there....oh wait, we've got nothing that can train up there during the months of Feb/March.  This is capability that we need....

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 738,317
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,833
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #438 on: March 15, 2018, 09:22:39 »
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/14/politics/uss-hartford-nuclear-submarine-arctic/index.html

The Arctic......why is it only US and British subs training up there....oh wait, we've got nothing that can train up there during the months of Feb/March.  This is capability that we need....

Because they're nuclear and Canada does not want that. Invest 100 Billion and we'll have that capability.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 88
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #439 on: March 15, 2018, 14:13:31 »
Because they're nuclear and Canada does not want that. Invest 100 Billion and we'll have that capability.
Nuclear-powered submarines using pressurized-water reactors are indeed very expensive.  But there may be less-expensive nuclear reactors—SLOWPOKE reactors.
Quote
Heat from a low-power nuclear reactor could be used to generate steam to drive a turbo-alternator for charging submarine batteries. This small "n" SSn would provide SSN endurance (albeit at lower speeds) for significantly less than an SSN price tag.
The quote is from PDF page 13:
http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/mdn-dnd/D12-21-1991-3-eng.pdf

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 207,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,393
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #440 on: March 15, 2018, 18:31:23 »
Does "could be used" mean "no one else is doing this now" or "yet"...and if so, the question is 'why not'?

If we aren't willing to pay for things like AIP, or even new(er) classes of SSKs...doesn't that indicate the GoC wouldn't venture into the SSn world either?

* I think there are other than US/UK nuc boats in the arctic...
The only time you have *too much gas* is when you're on fire.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 158
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #441 on: March 15, 2018, 20:08:32 »
There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them. Two questions, how did the Brit sub get to the exercise location, did it go through Canadian waters to do so and the second question, is a nation truly sovereign if it can’t go to parts of its territory at anytime, in any manner, when others can and most likely do? 

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 131,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,465
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #442 on: March 15, 2018, 20:33:53 »
There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them. Two questions, how did the Brit sub get to the exercise location, did it go through Canadian waters to do so and the second question, is a nation truly sovereign if it can’t go to parts of its territory at anytime, in any manner, when others can and most likely do?

Well, if you look at a world map (or better, a globe), you'll see this great big open expanse of water North of the UK called the North Sea, with it's upper portion called the Greenland Basin: It's huge and leads straight into the Arctic ocean without having to detour South of Greenland and then negotiate pretty shallow and narrow passages on top of that. Hint: that's where the UK subs went through.

Online PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 912,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,980
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #443 on: March 15, 2018, 20:52:00 »
There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them. Two questions, how did the Brit sub get to the exercise location, did it go through Canadian waters to do so and the second question, is a nation truly sovereign if it can’t go to parts of its territory at anytime, in any manner, when others can and most likely do?

It took us 20 years to get these ones operational. We'll be talking about Fusion reactor powered subs by the time the CAF looks at a replacement.

Offline Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,515
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 88
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #444 on: March 15, 2018, 21:10:52 »
Does "could be used" mean "no one else is doing this now" or "yet"...and if so, the question is 'why not'?
If I am not mistaken, all nuclear-powered attack submarines in use today use high-powered pressurized-water reactors.  Why not use low-powered reactors?  If you are an admiral, why would you replace your submarines that can maintain a constant, say, 25 to 35 knots with submarines that are much slower?
Quote
If we aren't willing to pay for things like AIP, or even new(er) classes of SSKs...doesn't that indicate the GoC wouldn't venture into the SSn world either?
Correct.  The problem is probably more political than technical.  Trying to find a Canadian politician with backbone is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.
Quote
* I think there are other than US/UK nuc boats in the arctic...
Putin probably agrees with you.
There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them.
Maybe there is a reason.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine#American_opposition

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 207,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,393
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #445 on: March 16, 2018, 02:13:38 »
There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them.

If you want to ignore "reality in all of history to this point in time", there sure, there is no reason.

Live in reality man.  There is no government that is going to cut all the social program funding, or raise taxes, to get us kit like the Virgina's or Astute's.  The US went to Virgina's and Improved LAs mainly because they couldn't afford the number of Seawolf hulls they thought they could or wanted.
The only time you have *too much gas* is when you're on fire.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 126,360
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,880
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #446 on: March 16, 2018, 12:30:22 »
We could buy nuke subs without the refueling facilities, but you be dependent on the host country providing access to their. You would lose some control over them. I suspect both France and UK would be happy to sell us Nuke attack subs (UK based on the Astute class) and provide refueling as required. It would still require modifying our sub support units with some specialized gear I suspect. Just image the bluehairs in Esquimalt and Victoria if a Nuke boat was stationed there  8)

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 18,495
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 842
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #447 on: March 18, 2018, 17:15:28 »
If I am not mistaken, all nuclear-powered attack submarines in use today use high-powered pressurized-water reactors.  Why not use low-powered reactors?

Few reasons. 

1) SLOWPOKE reactors and other low-powered reactors are excellent for research purposes (or were) but are terrible for power generation from an efficiency point of view.  Just compare output to size to requirements for submarines.  They can also only provide heat which then needs a stirling engine to convert that heat into power.  The efficiency losses are significant and a stirling engine is relatively noisy.  At best they can provide the equivalent of trickle recharge power to a submarine.  The space that a reactor would take up would be better putting more (modern) batteries for longer submerged durations.

2) The only AIP system that is reliable for under ice purposes is an nuclear reactor.  This is because it has power to spare, which can then be used for O2 production should a submarine be unable to surface, and also to deal with fires underwater.  No nation who is not suicidal operates non-nuclear AIP under ice.   Unless there is a some new energy source nuclear is and always will be the only option for under ice operations.  It just isn't even close to meeting submarine safety requirements otherwise.

3)The SLOWPOKE reactor idea is an old unproven idea.  There have been no trials, minimal research and no attempts at proving that this might work.  It would take a decade or more of research before the technology is even considered for installation.  And we have no history of submarine design.  If you think CSC is expensive, then try this project out.

Offline STONEY

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,560
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 193
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #448 on: March 19, 2018, 17:05:58 »
During later part of the eighties there were in fact two separate Canadian companies conducting studies/research into AMPS(n)   for both Canadian and Dutch Navy Slowpoke types of power for submarines that went on for several years. I have copies of  Canada's Navy Annual from that period that includes photo's of engineering mock-ups supplied by one of the companys in a advert for there product. What ever happened to all this effort I don't know if it was because of funding cuts or it was impractical .  They claimed it would provide a speed of 6-8 kts limited only by the endurance of the crew which was given as 28 days at the time for a 2000 ton boat.

Cheers

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 207,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,393
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #449 on: March 20, 2018, 08:07:08 »
This was forwarded to me yesterday, a short video on Dynamic Manta 2018

* who are we paying to make these things and can we make sure they have grade 12 or use a spellchecker? 

** too bad they tainted the LRP part with those west coast guys  ;D
« Last Edit: March 20, 2018, 08:09:51 by Eye In The Sky »
The only time you have *too much gas* is when you're on fire.