Author Topic: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?  (Read 328743 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 308,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,009
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #625 on: February 13, 2020, 14:40:47 »
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.

Or Nanisivik? ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanisivik_Naval_Facility
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Spencer100

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 628
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #626 on: February 13, 2020, 14:55:07 »
Or Nanisivik? ;)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanisivik_Naval_Facility

It was down graded to a refueling station.  But I bet stationing crews there would wonders for pers retention! 

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 240,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,328
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #627 on: February 13, 2020, 16:58:02 »
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.

My first thought is the cost of the 'support and maintenance' of having them not co-located with the rest of CANFLTLANT.  Shore offices, main facility (1st line?)...I've been to the Armouries a few times in St John's while flying out of Torbay;  is there any room in that bldg to support some of the admin/log side?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 168,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,378
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #628 on: February 13, 2020, 18:43:11 »
It was down graded to a refueling station.  But I bet stationing crews there would wonders for pers retention!

Way better to train locals (who need the jobs) and rotate staff through with an option for volunteer posting.

Offline Spencer100

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 628
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #629 on: February 13, 2020, 18:45:03 »
I don't think anyone lives there at all

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 168,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,378
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #630 on: February 13, 2020, 19:33:49 »
On the other side of the Island at Arctic Bay

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 47,195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,104
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #631 on: February 13, 2020, 22:51:37 »
My first thought is the cost of the 'support and maintenance' of having them not co-located with the rest of CANFLTLANT.  Shore offices, main facility (1st line?)...I've been to the Armouries a few times in St John's while flying out of Torbay;  is there any room in that bldg to support some of the admin/log side?

The ISSC contract for AOPS/JSS is set up on them being based in Halifax/Esquimalt, so there would be a not insignificant cost to changing that, as their local supply chains, trainers and maintainers will be based there.  A lot of it will just be typical stuff through existing subcontractors, but that wouldn't be a small change, as they've been ramping up for the last few years, and have a number of local companies as established subs.  That takes time to get the contract terms nailed down, and also requires the right skillsets available in the local market, so it's not an easy shift.

AOPS/MCDVs might be easier to park over at the dockyard annex or shearwater (if the jetties and local facilities were fixed up) from a maintenance perspective, as it would be civvies driving somewhere either way for the most part.  The FMF portion for maintenance of those ships is relatively minimal, so will be curious to see what they do over the next decade. Not sure if they even have fully working jetty hookups etc over there (or at all the existing jetties in the dockyard).

Subs are pretty maintenance intensive, so can't see them not being parked within a close walk of FMF. Also don't see us ever getting nuclear subs for the previously stated reasons from other posters, so probably just going to have to live with crowded dockyards.  Every cold move has big impacts on work though, so it's a bit of a fine line to walk.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 196,381
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,337
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #632 on: February 14, 2020, 07:33:01 »
I will observe that the new jetty that was built in HMC Dockyard over the past couple of years is very close to the ISI shipyard facility...but there's a big building in the way called the BoatShed...the same boatshed that was just condemned a little while ago...the same boatshed that, if it was torn down would let a road and gate be built leading directly from ISI to the new jetty...which would make it really convenient for ISSC staff to enter/exit to fix the AOPS....but I'm sure that ST(A) moving out the other year was just a coincidence...right?
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,855
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 331
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #633 on: February 14, 2020, 08:49:42 »
The ISSC contract for AOPS/JSS is set up on them being based in Halifax/Esquimalt, so there would be a not insignificant cost to changing that, as their local supply chains, trainers and maintainers will be based there.  A lot of it will just be typical stuff through existing subcontractors, but that wouldn't be a small change, as they've been ramping up for the last few years, and have a number of local companies as established subs.  That takes time to get the contract terms nailed down, and also requires the right skillsets available in the local market, so it's not an easy shift.

Thoughts if the ISSC contract will be expanded to include the 2 CCG AOPS's? If that's the case, then does the argument to base them out of Halifax hold true as well?   

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 198,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,824
  • Freespeecher
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #634 on: February 15, 2020, 18:38:19 »
A bit sideways to the topic, but a new generaton of AIP fuel cells has been developed in France. Assuming the Victoria'c continue in service, this looks like a possible upgrade at some future refit:

https://strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20200213.aspx

Quote
Submarines: Second Gen AIP

February 13, 2020: A French firm (Naval Group, formerly DCNS) has successfully tested what it calls FC2G (Fuel Cell 2nd Generation) AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) system for 18 days in a mock-up of the complete system in an 8 meter long circular structure identical to the space it would occupy in a submarine. The FC2G performed efficiently for three weeks. This test will be repeated several times as preparations are made to install FC2G in a submarine. The FC2G is safer, more efficient and easier to operate than earlier fuel cell AIP systems, including the widely used DCNS first-generation AIP.

Fuel cell tech has been around for decades, long enough to become a proven technology. But fuel cells require dangerous fuels like hydrogen. Hydrogen is currently stored in cylinders outside the pressure hull of the sub. FC2G eliminates that with a two-stage system that extracts hydrogen from diesel fuel, which is also used for the sub’s diesel engines and purifies the hydrogen to a very high degree. The high-quality hydrogen gets more electricity out of the standard fuel cell technology. At the same time, the need for hydrogen storage is eliminated because only as much hydrogen is obtained from diesel fuel as would be in the sub if the hydrogen were brought in from external storage tanks. The oxygen is obtained from the same supplies used for the crew to breathe while submerged.

FC2G also operates more quietly and expels fewer byproducts from the sub. While hydrogen is a widely used industrial product, diesel fuel is even more widely available and much safer to handle. FC2G also generates more electrical power than older AIP systems of similar size and weight. FC2G also uses more efficient control software and hardware. That means the entire FC2G system requires only one sailor to monitor it.

The developer has a lot of credibility because many subs already use the older DCNS AIP designs. China and Russia are still struggling to get first-generation fuel cell tech working in their subs. Boats that use fuel cells also have diesel engines that power the subs while on the surface or just below the surface using a snorkel to obtain fresh air and expel diesel fumes. There are also storage batteries to provide some submerged operations if the fuel cells are not working.

Japan is working on making lithium batteries safe enough to use in subs. Lithium is more efficient than current batteries used in subs but  also bursts into flames under some conditions. There are also new, more efficient and safer, battery tech working in the lab. All this stuff will eventually be available for subs while right now a new generation of AIP is ready to go.

More efficient AIP means there will be more non-nuclear subs, which cost about a quarter what a nuclear sub goes for, which means even quieter and hard to find subs at sea.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline JMCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #635 on: February 16, 2020, 09:01:43 »
In Spain two companies are competing to provide the reformation system for spanish S80 AIP submarine. Tecnicas Reunidas and Abengoa. It is expected that the winner will be announced this month, bets are in favour of the first one.

Both reformators produce hydrogen from bio-ethanol to feed the fuel cells. Both have been developed in full scale.

A third spanish company, Sener, has also worked on bio-ethanol reformers for land-based military applications, as well as they are working with German TKMS on a methanol reformer to feed the fuel cells for their submarines.

A Ballard's fuel cell plus a spanish reformer might be the solution for a Canadian submarine.

This sentence may be misleading: "The developer has a lot of credibility because many subs already use the older DCNS AIP designs". AFAIK DCNS has never delivered any single submarine based on fuel cell technology. Their previous AIP designs are based on MESMA (steam turbine).
« Last Edit: February 16, 2020, 09:24:35 by JMCanada »

Offline JMCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #636 on: March 14, 2020, 17:48:11 »
In Spain two companies are competing to provide the reformation system for spanish S80 AIP submarine. Tecnicas Reunidas and Abengoa. (...)

A Ballard's fuel cell plus a spanish reformer might be the solution for a Canadian submarine.

And the winner is... Abengoa group.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/03/navantia-development-of-s80-submarines-aip-system-completed/
...............
More:  There is an interesting article on the Canadian Naval Review website: "A Canadian Hybrid Submarine Design: A Case for the Slowpoke-2 Reactor".

https://www.navalreview.ca/2020/02/a-canadian-hybrid-submarine-design-a-case-for-the-slowpoke-2-reactor

Offline OceanBonfire

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 43,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 510
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #637 on: May 12, 2020, 18:45:12 »
Quote
Deployment of Canadian navy submarines on hold due to COVID-19

VICTORIA -- What was meant to be a “milestone” return to sea for Canada’s military submarines in 2020 is now on hold amid the novel coronavirus pandemic.

Two Royal Canadian Navy submarines were due to embark this spring and summer after a nearly two-year deployment gap for the sub fleet. But now, the submarines HMCS Victoria and HMCS Windsor will remain in port for the foreseeable future as work to return the vessels to sea is put on hold.

“Further maintenance is required before they can be deployed,” said National Defence spokesperson Jessica Lamirande on Monday. “However, in order to ensure the health and safety of our Defence team, work on board submarines was put on pause during this pandemic.”

 HMCS Victoria completed dive trials in February at its home port of Esquimalt, B.C., after six years of maintenance and upgrades since her last outing. The navy was planning to deploy the Victoria this spring with a new sonar array and battery.

Its departure was to be followed this summer by the deployment of HMCS Windsor from Halifax after the completion of extensive work in drydock. Once at sea, the Windsor was to test-fire a new heavyweight torpedo system slated for rollout across the Canadian sub fleet.

With both subs deployed by summertime, the navy was planning to get a third – HMCS Corner Brook – ready for sea trials off Vancouver Island later this year.

Having three of Canada’s four military submarines operating simultaneously would mark “a historical milestone,” said Maritime Forces Pacific spokesperson Capt. Jenn Jackson in February.

 All of Canada's second-hand military subs have been grounded since 2018, when HMCS Windsor and HMCS Chicoutimi were last deployed.

“The intent is to return the submarines to sea as soon as maintenance is completed,” Lamirande said.

The National Defence spokesperson declined to comment on whether the return would come fast enough for the navy to meet its prior commitment to send a submarine to the multinational Exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) off Hawaii this summer.

National Defence said in a statement that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) remains committed to participating in “a significant way” at RIMPAC, the largest international maritime exercise in the world.

On April 29, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet announced that RIMPAC 2020 would be an abbreviated version of years past in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The biennial exercise, which typically runs from June to August and features events at sea and onshore, will this year run from Aug. 17 to Aug. 31 and feature at-sea training only.

“The CAF are in close communication with our U.S. counterparts, and are currently evaluating options to adapt our participation accordingly,” said National Defence in a statement Monday.

“Participation in RIMPAC will balance the requirement to complete critical tasks and high readiness training in support of planned operations, with the requirement to protect the health and safety of our personnel.”


https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/deployment-of-canadian-navy-submarines-on-hold-due-to-covid-19-1.4936328
Recruiting Centre: Montreal
Regular/Reserve: Regular Force
Officer/NCM: Officer (DEO)
Occupation choice: Logistics Officer
Current application: March 28, 2017
CFAT: Previously completed in November 2011
Interview: July 11, 2017
Medical: August 2017
Competition list: October/November 2017
Position Offered: May 25, 2018
Swearing In: August 21, 2018
BMOQ: August 25, 2018
BMOQ Graduation: November 16, 2018
OFP: December 2019

Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,234
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #638 on: May 13, 2020, 12:15:04 »
Quote
Having three of Canada’s four military submarines operating simultaneously would mark “a historical milestone,” said Maritime Forces Pacific spokesperson Capt. Jenn Jackson in February.

Given how long it has been since we purchased these subs, I feel like such a mile stone should of happened sooner.
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 19,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,411
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #639 on: May 13, 2020, 13:16:54 »
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m almost certain we had 3 subs at sea back when the Chicoutimi caught fire. 

The Victoria, Windsor and Chicoutimi were all out. 

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 148,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,811
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #640 on: May 13, 2020, 20:02:50 »
Not really, DH.

One boat was in long overhaul, to bring the fire control/torpedo suite to Canadian standard, two more boats were operational. Then, Chicoutimi was just being taken over from the Brits and being driven home (that lasted a whole three days) so it could go straight into long refit to bring her up to the same standard as the other boats (as the first Upholder, she had, ironically enough, an electrical system that was not weather protected  to the same standard as the other three boats of the class and was to be brought up to that standard, which would have averted the very electrical event that caused the fire).

So while we had three days with three boats "at sea", Chicoutimi was not an operational boat. I believe the "milestone" being mentioned here is for three boats operational at the same time.

We have to be careful here, contrary to milEME's apparent chagrin over the long time elapsed. With four diesel electric boats, what can be expected operationally is two boats operational at a time, with a third in surge from time to time. The main reason we can have three operational now - for a little time - is simply the fact that we just got a reasonably long pause in sub operations that makes this surge possible for a short bit of time (don't get used to it, it won't last more than, at most, one year).

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 308,835
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,009
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #641 on: July 02, 2020, 23:01:26 »
Not really, DH.

One boat was in long overhaul, to bring the fire control/torpedo suite to Canadian standard, two more boats were operational. Then, Chicoutimi was just being taken over from the Brits and being driven home (that lasted a whole three days) so it could go straight into long refit to bring her up to the same standard as the other boats (as the first Upholder, she had, ironically enough, an electrical system that was not weather protected  to the same standard as the other three boats of the class and was to be brought up to that standard, which would have averted the very electrical event that caused the fire).

So while we had three days with three boats "at sea", Chicoutimi was not an operational boat. I believe the "milestone" being mentioned here is for three boats operational at the same time.

We have to be careful here, contrary to milEME's apparent chagrin over the long time elapsed. With four diesel electric boats, what can be expected operationally is two boats operational at a time, with a third in surge from time to time. The main reason we can have three operational now - for a little time - is simply the fact that we just got a reasonably long pause in sub operations that makes this surge possible for a short bit of time (don't get used to it, it won't last more than, at most, one year).

And, I assume, if there is a sudden and pressing operational requirement we might see the flood gates of cash open wide to get them all up to tip top shape pretty fast.

Just because a sub, or any other warship, is out of the water doesn't mean it's not a threat.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 31,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,148
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #642 on: July 03, 2020, 09:31:50 »
And, I assume, if there is a sudden and pressing operational requirement we might see the flood gates of cash open wide to get them all up to tip top shape pretty fast.

Just because a sub, or any other warship, is out of the water doesn't mean it's not a threat.

It's all about the SUBSAFE program.  Those boats are regularly gone over with a fine-tooth comb to find any defects. Testing and examining the equipment and hull take time, and then any repairs take time which of course then have to undergo the same testing/inspection again.  If the subs were newer then the whole process would probably be faster (less stress fractures in the structures etc...).  It's like an old aircraft.  The older it gets the more hours of maintenance are required per hour in the water.

Of course you can accept the risk and put the boat in the water.  But we are not at war, and have no submarine related strategic emergencies.
+300

Offline OceanBonfire

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 43,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 510
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #643 on: July 28, 2020, 14:00:30 »
Quote
It's the mileage, not the years: Military says it plans to keep subs afloat past retirement dates

Conservative critic says maintenance plan ignores fact that not everything on a submarine can be replaced


The Canadian navy has found a very creative way to keep its second-hand submarines afloat until the late 2030s and early 2040s — a plan that emphasizes maintenance over age in predicting how long the vessels can remain seaworthy.

The plan — according to a newly-released briefing note prepared in the run-up to the release of the Liberal government's marquee defence policy — would not see HMCS Victoria decommissioned until the end of 2042, giving the warship over 45 years service in Canada.

That estimate does not include the time the boat served with Britain's Royal Navy, which would add at least a decade to its working life.

The retirements of the other submarines — HMCS Chicoutimi, HMCS Windsor and HMCS Corner Brook — would be staggered throughout the 2030s, with Windsor being the first to go in 2033.

"The [Victoria Class Submarines] are a well-designed and solidly constructed class of modern conventional submarines that have had an unusual life since entering service with the [Royal Navy] in the early 1990s," said the August 2016 briefing analysis, recently obtained by Conservative Party researchers. "'While chronologically 20 years older, they have not been operated extensively during that time."



The boats were first constructed for the Royal Navy in the 1980s, but Britain decided to sell them when the government of the day made the policy decision to operate only nuclear-powered submarines.

One aspect of the Liberal defence policy, released in June 2017, that has puzzled military experts and opposition critics alike was its assumption that the submarines — which have had a tortured technical history that includes one fatal fire — will remain in service until at least the 2040s.

The briefing note spells out in detail — and for the first time publicly — how the navy intends to squeeze more life out of boats it was supposed to start retiring in four years.

It was originally envisioned, the briefing said, that the Victoria-Class submarines would retire one at a time, beginning in 2024.

The report argues it is possible to operate the submarines beyond their expected working lives if the military assesses the "material state" of each boat rather than following "a simplistic calendar driven" evaluation of their operational condition.

In others words, the report argues that what matters most is not how old the submarines are, but rather how hard have they been driven and how well have they been maintained.

The submarines operate on what's called a "6-2 schedule" — six years of service at sea followed by two years of deep maintenance before returning to duty.

The briefing note proposes that the boats do nine years of service and then go into a longer refurbishment of up to three years. The submarines would need a full life-extension overhaul in addition to the extended maintenance plan.

As evidence to support the plan, the briefing note to senior defence officials pointed to a 2013 study of the Victoria-Class submarines — which said that "although there are numerous technical and supportability challenges, there was no single obstacle precluding a life extension of up to 12 years."


'Lower expectations'

The briefing offers one note of caution, however: "It is reasonable to assume that operational availability will decrease as the submarine ages."

The briefing note predicted higher maintenance and sustainment costs as the boats get older. To save money, it said, the navy might have to lower expectations of what the boats can do.

The existing plan "assumed that there would be no relaxation of operational performance requirements, although in fact some discretion by the Operational Requirements Authority in this regard may be feasible as a cost saving measure," said the note.

Conservative defence critic James Bezan said he was astounded by the plan to stretch out the operational life of the subs. He said he doesn't blame the naval planners who drew up the document — but he does hold the Liberal government accountable, arguing it must have ordered the Department of National Defence to give it some justification for putting off the purchase of new submarines.

"It is ridiculous," Bezan said. "There was potential for some political direction on how this was written."

In an interview with CBC News at the end of last year, the commander of the navy, Vice-Admiral Art McDonald, defended the plan to extend the life of the boats, saying he had full confidence in the "pretty resourceful and capable" submarine engineering community.

The defence policy, he said, "directed us to operate and modernize" the submarine fleet and he's confident it can be done safely.

"We know there is still excellent life in the Victoria-class submarine," McDonald told CBC News. "I've seen that personally as an outsider who has come into the program and taken a look at it."

The focus of the subs' modernization project — which was in the early stages of being developed when the pandemic hit back in late winter — will be on survivability and making the submarines more livable for crew members.

"We're going to be able to operate those boats into the 2030s, but to do that we have to continue with the routine investments we've made and modernize, as was directed" by the defence policy, McDonald said.


Not everything can be replaced

A series of assessments was conducted between 2008 and 2014. The defence department's naval board, which is charged with planning the future shape of the fleet, met in November 2014 to study the life expectancy of the second-hand boats.

"While it is considered unrealistic to predict the material state of 40-year-old platforms, 20 years into the future, certain items such as the pressure hull and main motor will require additional monitoring and maintenance above the current regime, since unpredicted degradation in such areas may not be cost effective to repair and mitigate," said the 2016 briefing note.

And that's the problem with the life-extension plan, said Bezan: some key parts of a submarine — such as the pressure hull and the engines — can't be upgraded. He also pointed to how the submarine fleet had "zero days at sea" in 2019 because all of the vessels were tied up for maintenance.

The analysis, Bezan said, shows that the Liberal government should immediately begin looking for a replacement for the submarines — something the previous Conservative government was in the process of doing when it was defeated in 2015.

The options that were discussed before the election, he said, included partnering with the Australians — who were in the process of acquiring their own submarine replacements — or buying an off-the-shelf design for inclusion in the federal shipbuilding strategy. None of those ideas got very far before the election, he added.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadian-forces-navy-submarine-1.5665020
Recruiting Centre: Montreal
Regular/Reserve: Regular Force
Officer/NCM: Officer (DEO)
Occupation choice: Logistics Officer
Current application: March 28, 2017
CFAT: Previously completed in November 2011
Interview: July 11, 2017
Medical: August 2017
Competition list: October/November 2017
Position Offered: May 25, 2018
Swearing In: August 21, 2018
BMOQ: August 25, 2018
BMOQ Graduation: November 16, 2018
OFP: December 2019

Offline LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,555
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 210
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #644 on: July 28, 2020, 14:12:40 »
I'm sorry if im overly critical of serving members, but why has nobody in the Navy spoken out about this terrible error in abiding by a political judgment that lacks common sense? Having continuously deteriorating ships at sea for long cannot be safe. What if we were to use these in a war in the 2030s, would these even be effective? Isn't the cost of keeping and sourcing parts for an old sub more expensive than a new one?

If i'm selling a 55 Chevy that's been sitting in a field for 20 years, I don't get to call it a 75 Chevy... Laying up saves some extra years in its life i'm sure, but not that many. Just tell Dad to stop being such a cheapskate and buy a new car, he can afford it...


Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 240,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,328
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #645 on: July 28, 2020, 14:28:38 »
I'm sorry if im overly critical of serving members, but why has nobody in the Navy spoken out about this terrible error in abiding by a political judgment that lacks common sense?

Maybe they are, but it's behind closed doors and 'being taken into account' by the gov't...

Offline CBH99

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 44,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,192
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #646 on: July 28, 2020, 15:33:57 »
Not trying to sound rude or aggressive, just asking for a very blunt 'No BS' assessment from someone in the know.  (Obviously without violating anything OPSEC related)

Some sources indicate that with the extensive maintenance and upgrades the boats have received, they are an extremely good boat for their type, etc.

Other sources, some of which were on this forum, indicate that they were among some of the easiest boats they've ever found/tracked.


^^ I realize there are a variety of factors that can go into the above such as crew training, timing, sheer luck, etc etc.



Question is - are these boats as quiet & capable as the Navy says?  Or, would they find themselves lacking if we end up in a shooting war?
Fortune Favours the Bold...and the Smart.

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

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 148,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,811
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #647 on: July 28, 2020, 19:26:11 »
I won't try to answer CBH99's question. All I can say is that in the 1980's under British management, they were as hard to find as any diesel boat out there.

What I do note, however is that the briefing paper talks about retiring the first boat in 2033. That's 12/13 years away only. To do so means that we MUST start project office and replacement program NOW! That's how much lead time you need to go through all the hoops and have time to build and evaluate the first replacement vessel.

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 19,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,411
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #648 on: July 28, 2020, 21:13:15 »
Other sources, some of which were on this forum, indicate that they were among some of the easiest boats they've ever found/tracked.


^^ I realize there are a variety of factors that can go into the above such as crew training, timing, sheer luck, etc etc.



Question is - are these boats as quiet & capable as the Navy says?  Or, would they find themselves lacking if we end up in a shooting war?

I’ll just throw my experience out there in regards to searching/tracking the Vic class.

On the Block 2 Aurora it was a challenge, but then again it was a challenge to track any submarine passively. 

However that all changed with the Block 3.  I’ve tracked plenty of submarines, and out of all the diesels I’ve tracked, the Victoria was the loudest/least challenging (ranges that would make your jaw drop).  That being said there are so many variables to consider, the water profile, bottom topography, sonobuoy depths, ambient noise in the water, crew training, RCN vessels running over your search pattern, etc..  Maybe the Swiss cheese holes lined up in my favour every time I flew on a Vic? 🤷🏼‍♂️

The Aurora (and Cyclone) have, what I consider, one of the most advanced ASW suites out there, so our job is pretty easy. Do our adversaries possess similar tech? Who knows? I suspect they do. It’d be hard to say how the Vic would perform in a shooting war, but I think they would probably fair pretty good, they are capable and our most important/valuable naval asset. I could be biased, but I don’t think our potential adversaries are as well trained as we are.

I’ll also throw this tidbit in. The CP-140 ASO performs one job, hunting boats, that’s it, that’s all they do. They are highly skilled in the fine art of hunting subs, probably more so than the surface sonar types in the RCN.

The quietest boat I’ve encountered? Ula.. 



Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 66,289
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,209
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #649 on: July 28, 2020, 22:56:20 »
That being said there are so many variables to consider, the water profile, bottom topography, sonobuoy depths, ambient noise in the water, crew training, RCN vessels running over your search pattern, etc..  Maybe the Swiss cheese holes lined up in my favour every time I flew on a Vic? 🤷🏼‍♂️

Well how the bloody else are we suppose to practice close-in ASW, hmm?
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!