Author Topic: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?  (Read 307401 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 268,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,660
  • 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
  • *****
  • 14,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 535
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
  • *****
  • 231,040
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,112
  • "crew, set condition Fun, rig for MAD..."
    • 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?
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 152,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,843
  • 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
  • *****
  • 14,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 535
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 Fixture
  • *****
  • 152,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,843
  • 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
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 35,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 949
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
  • *
  • 190,136
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,185
  • 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
  • *****
  • 5,565
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 307
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
  • *****
  • 197,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,792
  • 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
  • ***
  • 2,665
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 82
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #635 on: Yesterday at 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: Yesterday at 09:24:35 by JMCanada »