Replacing the Subs

[Lumber]

Can't see Charlie going anytime soon, they've been fixing up the jetties and buildings including new HVAC.

Woops. I meant Bravo.

 

[calculus]

Yes. You would still need a few naval crew on each ship though but not the entire crew. The only issue I would say is the will to buy 2 more, especially at the prices they charged us. As it stands given the availability of the Halifax Class and RCD, do we need 4 JSS right away? Even if we ordered the 2 extra JSS tomorrow, it would years before we see an operational unit. Perhaps we rethink our crewing model and go full civilian on each ship with a small naval contingent. These civilians would be government workers with the agreement that they may have go into harms way.

Might be a good idea anyway to wait and see if the JSS in it's current guise is adequate to the task of supporting a Task Group. The RCD is a considerably larger ship than was anticipated when the design for the JSS was finalized. Is this up to the task of supporting a Task Group made up of two RCDs, a sub, and air assets, for 30 days?

 

[ArmyRick]

If it’s anything like the F35 fiasco…..

Settle now, 2040 will be here before you know it and our F35s will finally be in operation

But but I have this nagging voice that keeps telling me we're going to fuck this up.

I won't say who but someone who has strong ties with Europe (or claims to) might ensure this decision goes a certain way.

 

[Underway]

Might be a good idea anyway to wait and see if the JSS in it's current guise is adequate to the task of supporting a Task Group. The RCD is a considerably larger ship than was anticipated when the design for the JSS was finalized. Is this up to the task of supporting a Task Group made up of two RCDs, a sub, and air assets, for 30 days?

Yes, 30 days isn't a problem. JSS was expected to be the core of a 4 ship task group.

You're asking a question that has a million contingencies. How thirsty are the RCD's? Do they need a lot of ammo due to combat conditions? Are they just on ASW patrol running DE's and not use GT's? What air assets and how often are they flying?

 

[YZT580]

Sell what? the jetty at the dockyard? Bonnie was falling apart

didn't stop them from spending millions to update her prior to her being towed to the scrapyard.

 

[calculus]

Yes, 30 days isn't a problem. JSS was expected to be the core of a 4 ship task group.

You're asking a question that has a million contingencies. How thirsty are the RCD's? Do they need a lot of ammo due to combat conditions? Are they just on ASW patrol running DE's and not use GT's? What air assets and how often are they flying?

Yes. Not trying to be flip, but it seems a bit premature to be ordering two more JSS without having some operational data first.

 

[MilEME09]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hanwha-ocean-canada-submarines-1.7619583?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

Koreans still promising 4 by 2035, which would mean we could retire all the vics in 10 years.

 

[Underway]

Yes. Not trying to be flip, but it seems a bit premature to be ordering two more JSS without having some operational data first.

If there are two more JSS in the pipeline then there will be lots of data. JSS2 is scheduled for '27, Polar class '32, there are 16 MSV's on the list they haven't started welding yet (long lead for 6 have been ordered), OOSV as well. Unless they re-gig the schedule then JSS 3-4 would be 10 years out.

Similar to the Berlin - Bohn gap for the German versions of JSS. Navies are a series of 10-15 year plans. If there is a JSS 3-4 that would be part of the next 10 years. An appropriate gap honestly. Means JSS 1/2 will be ~15 years old when they join.

 

[PHughes]

Can the RCN train enough crews to synch with this delivery schedule?

Can the RCN stand up an ILS infrastructure to synch with this delivery scheduke ?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

If there are two more JSS in the pipeline then there will be lots of data. JSS2 is scheduled for '27, Polar class '32, there are 16 MSV's on the list they haven't started welding yet (long lead for 6 have been ordered), OOSV as well. Unless they re-gig the schedule then JSS 3-4 would be 10 years out.

Similar to the Berlin - Bohn gap for the German versions of JSS. Navies are a series of 10-15 year plans. If there is a JSS 3-4 that would be part of the next 10 years. An appropriate gap honestly. Means JSS 1/2 will be ~15 years old when they join.

Which would be perfect as, at first, JSS 1 and 2 could rotate into a mid-life refit. Then about 10-15 years later, JSS 5 and 6 get built. JSS 1 and 2 get retired (at about 25-30 years old), while JSS 3 and 4 go into mid-life refits in rotation.

And you finally achieve one of the original objective of the NSS: Continual builds that permit constant renewal of the fleet.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/hanwha-ocean-canada-submarines-1.7619583?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar

Koreans still promising 4 by 2035, which would mean we could retire all the vics in 10 years.

With 2 new KSS's, you can retire the Vic's immediately as you have the same or better operational rate as 4 Vic's. Plus you can then start converting Esquimalt to support the KSS.

 

[Czech_pivo]

With 2 new KSS's, you can retire the Vic's immediately as you have the same or better operational rate as 4 Vic's. Plus you can then start converting Esquimalt to support the KSS.

Offer the Vic's to Australia......even the addition of 1 new sub will help them going forward.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Offer the Vic's to Australia......even the addition of 1 new sub will help them going forward.

Agreed, all 4 plus the support equipment. That will allow them to keep 1 sub in operation.

 

[Stoker]

Agreed, all 4 plus the support equipment. That will allow them to keep 1 sub in operation.

Offer the Vic's to Australia......even the addition of 1 new sub will help them going forward.

I can think of all sorts of reasons why the Victoria Class won't be offered to Australia.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I can think of all sorts of reasons why the Victoria Class won't be offered to Australia.

We would be stupid not to make the offer, it will be cheaper than scrapping them.

 

[Stoker]

We would be stupid not to make the offer, it will be cheaper than scrapping them.

The idea of passing Canada’s Victoria-class subs to Australia sounds neat on paper but doesn’t hold water in reality. These boats are 35 years old, plagued by maintenance issues since their Upholder days, and are expensive to keep running. Australia’s strategic needs are for long-range, high-endurance submarines to cover vast Indo-Pacific distances—something the Victorias were never designed for. Canberra already has Collins-class subs with established supply chains and is committed to AUKUS nuclear boats; taking on a small, one-off Canadian fleet would mean new training pipelines, spare parts headaches, and little operational payoff. In short, they’d be inheriting our problems, not solving theirs.

 

[Rainbow1910]

The idea of passing Canada’s Victoria-class subs to Australia sounds neat on paper but doesn’t hold water in reality. These boats are 35 years old, plagued by maintenance issues since their Upholder days, and are expensive to keep running. Australia’s strategic needs are for long-range, high-endurance submarines to cover vast Indo-Pacific distances—something the Victorias were never designed for. Canberra already has Collins-class subs with established supply chains and is committed to AUKUS nuclear boats; taking on a small, one-off Canadian fleet would mean new training pipelines, spare parts headaches, and little operational payoff. In short, they’d be inheriting our problems, not solving theirs.

If the boats had any practical life left in them, we'd be using it.

 

[HavokFour]

I could think of one country who might be open to purchasing (some) of our old subs, who's tinkering with old western gear has resulted in a domestically produced variant several times now. What does the price tag on almost 40 year old boats look like?

 

[Underway]

Can the RCN train enough crews to synch with this delivery schedule?

Can the RCN stand up an ILS infrastructure to synch with this delivery scheduke ?

Maybe? Hence why I agree with a focus shifting from advocating for ship programs to people programs. That's a big concern for sure. Sailors joining today will be Master Sailors and PO2's in 10 years. Infrastructure is more of money and contracting thing, its easier in a lot of ways than building people.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Can the RCN train enough crews to synch with this delivery schedule?

Can the RCN stand up an ILS infrastructure to synch with this delivery scheduke ?

They've got 7-8yrs to make this happen.

The Brits-French built the entire Chunnel in only 6yrs.

I don't think we are asking the RCN to send someone to the moon and back in 7yrs.