B.C. keeps $1.5b Submarine contract

[drunknsubmrnr]

Getting rid of tanks was looked at extensively in the late 90's as well..........

Some of the main barriers to continued tank operations went away after the Conservatives took power, which allowed for continued tank operations in Afghanistan.

None of the barriers to operating sub tenders have gone away, nor are they projected to go away under "Canada First". If the government wants to rethink its spending priorities under "Canada First" to allow for tenders, we might not only get them but be able to operate them. Or not. It's not like a change of government priorities is going to make a 6 month trip to the Arctic all that desirable to a Master hookie with 2 kids and a wife he doesn't get to see all that much anyway.

 

[vonGarvin]

Some of the main barriers to continued tank operations went away after the Conservatives took power, which allowed for continued tank operations in Afghanistan.

. 
The continued tank operations had nothing to do with Canada's New Current Government.  Instead, it had everything to do with the realisation that mechanised warfare requires tanks, and that's what Canada was doing in Afghanistan.  Correction, that's PART of what Canada is doing in Afghanistan.

 

[geo]

. 
The continued tank operations had nothing to do with Canada's New Current Government.  Instead, it had everything to do with the realisation that mechanised warfare requires tanks, and that's what Canada was doing in Afghanistan.  Correction, that's PART of what Canada is doing in Afghanistan.

Ayup.... the Big Cod was the one who signed the paperwork sending the Leo C2s to Wainwright
and he was big enough to admit he might have been wrong when he signed off on sending em off to war

 

[aesop081]

None of the barriers to operating sub tenders have gone away, .

I never said we needed submarine tenders.

You master seaman who doesnt like to deploy on subs for six months is welcome to move to the surface ships and deploy with them...........for 6 months.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I never said we needed submarine tenders.

You master seaman who doesnt like to deploy on subs for six months is welcome to move to the surface ships and deploy with them...........for 6 months.

Or he/she can release if unwilling to sail.

 

[a_majoor]

Actually the reason I suggested that SSN capability was really needed for "Canada First" is split into two (or perhaps 2 1/2) parts. Arctic operations are the obvious reason, even a "small" SSN displaces @ 3000 Tons and can crash through all but the thickest pack ice, as well as operate underwater for as long as the crew is willing/able to stay submerged.

The second reason is the speed of these boats; if you need to deploy to Resolute Bay, or the Gulf of Oman, being able to sail out at 30 Kts and get there in a reasonable amount of time is a big bonus. Thinking way back to the Falkland Islands war, the British SSN's were patrolling the waters around the Falkland Islands long before the surface task force was in the area. Even the threat of an SSN being in the area is enough to focus the attentions of potential adversaries, wether the boat is actually there or not.

The 1/2 of the equation concerns support; SSNs don't need as much support as SSK's or AIP equipped boats (no need to refuel except once every few years...), and AIP's often need exotic "extras" like an oxidizer or Liquid Oxygen (LOX) to run submerged (depending on what system is chosen) which would imply even greater support needs once deployed to the arctic or far distant waters. With enough SSNs to rotate on boat on station for the duration of the operation, it is practical to sail back to port to deal with restocking, crew rotations etc. Being able to go 30 kts has other advantages besides stalking carrier task forces.

Alas, the public and politicians are not likely to be swayed by operational arguments, the only other way to achieve this sort of capability would be the development of compact and reliable nuclear fusion generators, something that is probably a generation away.

 

[Sub_Guy]

More importantly, I've actually sailed in unscripted operations. How many times has airborne radar actually stopped you from snorting when you wanted to?

No airborne radar, just Whale Watching tours!

Nuke boats are the only effective way we can patrol our arctic, regardless what Joe Public says.  It would be political suicide, but wasn't part of the reason why we didn't get nuke boats back in the late 80's was because the Americans did not want us to have it? (could be way out in left lane there). 

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Or he/she can release if unwilling to sail.

And many have, leaving the navy with too few people to do things like crew changes halfway through a deployment. This was one of the big killers for the "We'll have multiple crews for each submarine and run them 48 weeks a year" plan.

In order to make a tender work, the navy would need to pull most of the FMF workforce to the tender. That means most of the few tech shore postings around would be sea-going. Good luck with retention after that, and it takes at least years to train someone to the point where they'll be useful in a tender.

Going for a six-month trip once every few years is one thing...going every year is something quite different.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

No airborne radar, just Whale Watching tours!

I don't think we ever had that problem. At least not while I was in the control room.

Nuke boats are the only effective way we can patrol our arctic, regardless what Joe Public says.  It would be political suicide, but wasn't part of the reason why we didn't get nuke boats back in the late 80's was because the Americans did not want us to have it? (could be way out in left lane there). 

I agree with you on the requirement for nukes.

The USN didn't particularly want us to have Trafalgars, but Reagan changed their minds. They signed off on a UK technology transfer in the event we bought Trafalgars.

 

[a_majoor]

The only hope we might have of getting into the SSN game in the medium future would be to partner with the USN on the "Tango Bravo" program for a new generation, lightweight (@ 3500 ton displaced) SSN. OF course, you can only imagine the grinding gears getting that approved through the US Congress (much less Parliament, the MSM and public opinion!)

Maybe we can simply pile the paper studies on the continental shelf and exclude foreign submarines and shipping that way  >.

 

[Sub_Guy]

4.1.2.1 Replenishment - The JS ship shall be able to replenish four surface combatants of a naval Task Group for 30 days of combat operations while the Task Group maintains a mean Speed of Advance of 15 knots in the most probable global sea conditions. Beyond 30 days, the JS ship will be relieved or detached temporarily to re-store. It shall also have the capability to fuel and support the VICTORIA class submarines and KINGSTON class MCDVs.

Hey hey!  With a JSS kicking around the North, we could have our killer boats up there stalking their prey (as long as that prey doesn't sail under the ice).

 

[Rodahn]

Methinks the topic has strayed from the origin.....

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The only hope we might have of getting into the SSN game in the medium future would be to partner with the USN on the "Tango Bravo" program for a new generation, lightweight (@ 3500 ton displaced) SSN. OF course, you can only imagine the grinding gears getting that approved through the US Congress (much less Parliament, the MSM and public opinion!)

Nuclear reactors? AMERICAN nuclear reactors?! <shudder> The horror...the horror

Maybe we can simply pile the paper studies on the continental shelf and exclude foreign submarines and shipping that way  >.

Get the foreign vessels to file environmental impact statements, and they can build up the shelf themselves.

Hey hey!  With a JSS kicking around the North, we could have our killer boats up there stalking their prey (as long as that prey doesn't sail under the ice).

Look a little farther:

4.1.2.7 The ship shall be capable of refuelling the KINGSTON and VICTORIA classes at sea whilst underway.

They don't just want to refuel the boats at sea, they want to do it underway. My own personal opinion is that they're reaching just a bit on that, but that's just me.

 

[Neill McKay]

4.1.2.7 The ship shall be capable of refuelling the KINGSTON and VICTORIA classes at sea whilst underway.

They don't just want to refuel the boats at sea, they want to do it underway. My own personal opinion is that they're reaching just a bit on that, but that's just me.

What's the difference?  (Do vessel ever RAS at anchor?)

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The only times I've ever heard of a submarine being refuelled have been either tied up alongside, at anchor or dead in the water. I've never even heard of a submarine being refuelled while underway.

The USN has resupplied boats by running RHIBS back and forth, but that was only a couple of tons of wet and dry goods.

 

[Neill McKay]

The only times I've ever heard of a submarine being refuelled have been either tied up alongside, at anchor or dead in the water. I've never even heard of a submarine being refuelled while underway.

I see what you mean now.  (Small confusion about the terminology: a vessel is underway if it's not alongside or at anchor [or aground], even if it's not moving.)

 

[Old Sweat]

If I can interject, during the Second World War the Germans used to refuel U Boats at sea from submarines fitted as tankers and, I think, from tankers disguised as neutral vessels. Neither is relevant in this case, but the capability exists if you dont mnd being photograped by space surveillance means or otherwise located by all sorts of things I can only imagine.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Not that I am much of an expert, but I have actually seen HMCS VICTORIA being fueled while alongside... and it was a somewhat of a slow and "delicate" operation, even with no waves.  I cannot imagine them doing it while moving in the middle of the Auggie...

 

[GAP]

Sub Fleet Creating Canadian Controversies
08-Jul-2008 17:02 EDT
Article Link

Canada’s aging fleet of Oberon class submarines had become simply too old to put in the water. In July 2000, their de facto retirement became official. The question was: what, if anything, would replace them? With long coastlines, and a significant portion of its iced-in northern seas used as running grounds for foreign submarines, Canada’s military believed that giving up its submarine capability was not a viable option for a country that wished to maintain its sovereignty.

Unfortunately, the country’s purchase of second-hand diesel-electric Upholder Class submarines from Britain ran into controversy almost from its inception. Refit and refurbishment costs for the renamed Victoria Class skyrocketed well past the initial GBP C$ 750 million estimate, and reliability problems ensued. Then, on Oct 5/04, HMCS Chicoutimi was sailing from Falsane, Scotland when it was disabled by a fire caused by the entry of seawater. One sailor died, 2 others were injured, and the boat had to be rescued by British frigates. HMCS Corner Brook [SSK 878] is currently the only Canadian submarine in service. HMCS Victoria [SSK 876] and HMCS Windsor [SSK 877] are undergoing repairs and upgrades, and HMCS Chicoutimi [SSK 879] is in drydock being used for spare parts, as it is not scheduled to have its fire damage repaired until 2010 or 2012.

In early 2008, controversy flared again as the submarines’ C$ 1.5 billion Victoria Class In-Service Support Contract (VCISSC) became an issue. The government had finally pushed through a decision in January – but implementation ran into another lawsuit filed by the losing bidder, as well as strong pressure from a member of the Prime Minister’s own party. Who also happens to be the Canadian Parliament’s recognized authority on its submarines. Now there are revelations that Canada will have just 1 operational submarine until 2009, even as the Canadian Government issues its report re: health effects of the HMCS Chicoutimi fire, and overrides the protests to award the formal maintenance contact…

The Submarine Support Contract Controversy
Updates and Related News
Additional Readings & Sources
The Submarine Support Contract Controversy

The VCISSC contract is seen as an important final stage in getting the Victoria Class into active service at last. It was put out for tender in September 2006, and 3 consortia bid. In January 2007, Canadian Submarine Management Group (CSMG) of British Columbia was deemed “most compliant” due to its points rating, and picked as the preferred bidder. A lawsuit by Irving Shipbuilding caused the government to break off negotiations, however, stalling the deal.

In November 2007, it was reported the government might cancel the deal, which represents about 150 of jobs in Victoria over 15 years. That drew outrage from local BC politicians. In January 2008, however, a decision was taken to re-start those negotiations with CSMG to get the deal done. DND spokesman David Martin has told the Canadian Press news agency that those negotiations are underway, and a final contract is expected in a few months.
More on link

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And many have, leaving the navy with too few people to do things like crew changes halfway through a deployment. This was one of the big killers for the "We'll have multiple crews for each submarine and run them 48 weeks a year" plan.

In order to make a tender work, the navy would need to pull most of the FMF workforce to the tender. That means most of the few tech shore postings around would be sea-going. Good luck with retention after that, and it takes at least years to train someone to the point where they'll be useful in a tender.

Going for a six-month trip once every few years is one thing...going every year is something quite different.

I was not suggesting we go to a full time tender. It was to point out that this was the standard for most of their history so the concept is well proven, even if not totally practical in today's world. However with our sparse resources and long coastlines it may make more sense for us. Only the navy would need 1500 people for a tender, at least half of thoses people would be on mandatory diversity and harassment training at any one time. By the way average crew on a CCG ship is 45, with most on the day watch.

As for nukes, I seem to remember that one of the big issues is refueling and the Brits get their boats refueled in the US?