DND may be shopping for new subs, sources say

[aesop081]

Cut our losses and send the crews back to the fleet, we can use them.

or better yet, keep the subs and the crews, so that i can train against real submarines on a regular basis and not have to wait for the USN. Its win-win...the Canadian Navy can use the subs and so can the AF.

 

[eerickso]

And lose our subsurface capability? Not a smart plan
What do you call the 280s? look at their ball caps sometime in the dockyard

I do and I only see DDG

 

[SeaDog]

Cut our losses?  Not exactly forward thinking when every other major naval player has been investing more time, more energy and more money at increasing submarine capabillity.  The last year alone has seen an unprecedented amount of submarine hulls hitting the water - and not just from the big players...quite a few smaller navies that were hitherto disregarded due to their lack of submarine capability.  It's a dynamic and changing international environment at the moment with regards to naval power and force projection.  I'm not saying the way we are running are program at the moment is the correct way - but to abandon a submarine capability would be handicapping ourselves.  They are an integral part of any modern navy.  Furthermore, it is not a skill set where in the future if you decide you need it you can just slap a few hulls together and ask for volunteers.  On a lighter note, most of the boys in boats haven't set foot on a skimmer in years...let alone on a frigate.  In short of scullery over on the surface side?

 

[Stoker]

Really what have we gotten out of these subs so far? Have they ever been fully operational?  I agree that we need to maintain this capability, however how much real use are we going to get out of these platforms? I say get rid of 2,strip them for parts and start the groundwork to acquire something newer such as the German built boats. That way we can maintain the "skill set" and make the transition to the newer boats.

 

[Sub_Guy]

I do and I only see DDG

Yeah I noticed that, they switched a few years back from DDH to DDG.....  When I was on the Iroquois it was DDH, but I see the happy people wearing Algonquin hats which are DDG... 

Either way getting rid of the subsurface capability is a real bad idea, we were once a proud ASW nation, and it seems that many are more than willing to let this go to the wayside.  We can't afford to do that, because one of the biggest threats to naval units is the subsurface threat.  That and good buckets for cleaning stations.

What have we gotten out of these subs?  Not much.  Have they ever been fully operational? I don't think so. I forget which sub went overseas this year, but that was a pretty big milestone for the sub community.

Getting rid of two and stripping them for parts might not be a bad idea, if we can get two fully operational that would be decent.  I think the decision to get these boats was rushed and not well thought out, but thats easy to say after the fact.  Most who have sailed on them do agree that they are good boats, and they have the potential to be near the top of the heap when it comes to conventional submarines.

 

[aesop081]

What have we gotten out of these subs?  Not much.  Have they ever been fully operational? I don't think so. I forget which sub went overseas this year, but that was a pretty big milestone for the sub community.

Corner Brook

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

If the feds are going to justify a new submarine purchase, they better be planning on at least assembling them here.

That being said, as previously stated, unless we're buying nukes which can escort a task group into unfriendly waters (which isn't going to happen), then I remain of the belief that funds are better spent on a combination of sea floor sonar systems and a combination of fixed, rotary wing aircraft and surface vessels for coastal surveillance and defence.

I cannot be convinced that using a submarine to look for fisheries violations or someone illegally dumping bilge water is good use of said asset.


Matthew. 

 

[aesop081]

I cannot be convinced that using a submarine to look for fisheries violations or someone illegally dumping bilge water is good use of said asset.

I agree.  Besides, that is one of my jobs  ;D

Submarines are a force multiplier in the sense that they cause an enemy fleet to expend a disproportionate amount of resources to counter. A single submarine known, or suspected, to be operating in an area is enough to cause a fleet to stay home (Falklands ring any bells). If the relatively small Canadian Navy is to "punch above its weight" it can ill afford to find itself without submarines. This is true both at home and abroad.

ASW is one of those difficult skills to get and even more difficult to maintain. Those skills perish very quickly. Depending on the USN to give us some time with their subs to carry out our training means we have to play by their rules, on their terms, when they feel like letting us do it. Mk39 EMATT and Mk30 sleds can only provide so much in terms of training.  This may seem a minor use for having our own submarines but with the worldwide proliferation of subs, we cannot discount the need for proper training of our ASW forces. Having our own subs makes sense.

 

[redleafjumper]

Given the increased interest in the Arctic by several countries and the resistance of even our 'friends' to recognize our northern borders an enhanced submarine capability makes a lot of sense.  There will, however, be a real need to build the infrastructure to support a strong naval presence in three oceans, as well as our power projection capability.  That means with more submarines we will also need more surface vessels, aircraft and support.  There will be a cost to this capability, but it is certainly prudent to look into it.

Cheers,

 

[aesop081]

There will, however, be a real need to build the infrastructure to support a strong naval presence in three oceans, as well as our power projection capability.  That means with more submarines we will also need more surface vessels, aircraft and support.  There will be a cost to this capability, but it is certainly prudent to look into it.

Absolutely. Thats the trouble with having done thing "on the cheap" all these years, we need everything at once to deal with new realities.

 

[a_majoor]

First read this: Far Distant Ships.

WRT buying "off the shelf", one of the factors which drove the purchase of the Upholder class subs is they have a much greater range than any other diesel electric boats, an important consideration given the size of our own coastlines and the deployment distances to get to other parts of the world. Upholders are essentially nuclear subs without the reactors.

This puts us between a rock and a hard place. We can buy subs with considerably shorter ranges, we can try rebuilding the Upholders or we can attempt to design and build our own (a very difficult proposition, and the Australians could tell you, look up Collins class submarines). We would be taking just as big a risk by not having subs as well. Politically, a nuclear boat is simply not in the cards (something to do with the "n" word), and a multi billion dollar program won't go over very well either. We live in interesting times.

 

[warrickdll]

...
...Politically, a nuclear boat is simply not in the cards (something to do with the "n" word)...
...

I think that the Global Warming “issue” has caused a shift in the popularity of nuclear power. Tie in the non-use of fossil fuel, especially in the sensitive arctic environment, with sovereignty - and this might actually have some public support.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

It would be an interesting trial balloon. Take the old Tory White paper plan off the shelf from the 80s and blow the dust off it I say. It called for a fleet of 12 Nuke boats if I remember rightly. One of the reasons the Mulroney Tories were interested in acquiring the boats was Arctic sovereignty....it's deja vu all over again!

 

[Navy_Blue]

They worry about crossing the pond if they have any issues with the battery.  If they were required to float the load on the surface and run the DG's the whole trip they wouldn't make it.  Its range is very dependant on its condition. 

The upholders where conceived to stay in the North Sea around the UK and listen and wait.  Diesels are quite, cheap and easy to run and have small crews.  Just add the crew and fuel costs on fictitiously running all 4 Vic's and you might scratch the operating budget of a CPF (maintenance cost at this point is another storey).  Conceivably any future boats i.e. type 214's would be cheap to run dependant on what AIP running costs are.  These boats are cost effective for a small navy. 

Most people I have met in the Sonar community have expressed that most nuke boats are noisy when compared to a Diesel.
Nuke boats are effectively underwater steamboats and steam is loud.

I hate to quote a hippy but "NO MORE NUKES....NO MORE NUKES!!!"  ;D at least not in our navy.

 

[aesop081]

First read this: Far Distant Ships.

Ahh yes, Ruxted.....the answer to everything  :

 

[Colin Parkinson]

First read this: Far Distant Ships.

WRT buying "off the shelf", one of the factors which drove the purchase of the Upholder class subs is they have a much greater range than any other diesel electric boats, an important consideration given the size of our own coastlines and the deployment distances to get to other parts of the world. Upholders are essentially nuclear subs without the reactors.

This puts us between a rock and a hard place. We can buy subs with considerably shorter ranges, we can try rebuilding the Upholders or we can attempt to design and build our own (a very difficult proposition, and the Australians could tell you, look up Collins class submarines). We would be taking just as big a risk by not having subs as well. Politically, a nuclear boat is simply not in the cards (something to do with the "n" word), and a multi billion dollar program won't go over very well either. We live in interesting times.

I was reading the Specs on the 214 and on paper the differances in range was not that much from the Upholder class.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/type_212/index.html

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

then I remain of the belief that funds are better spent on a combination of sea floor sonar systems and a combination of fixed, rotary wing aircraft and surface vessels for coastal surveillance and defence.

I guess myself and others have wasted our time then in your eyes trying to convince doubters the absolute necessity of subs in naval warfare. All I can say CB is thank god you are not in procurement. It has been shown inumerable times how valuable submarines are and how much of a necessity they are in todays navies. Have we used them in combat yet, No.  should we also get rid of our SM2s, our sea sparrow missiles, torpedoes and harpoons?

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

I guess myself and others have wasted our time then in your eyes trying to convince doubters the absolute necessity of subs in naval warfare. All I can say CB is thank god you are not in procurement. It has been shown inumerable times how valuable submarines are and how much of a necessity they are in todays navies. Have we used them in combat yet, No.  should we also get rid of our SM2s, our sea sparrow missiles, torpedoes and harpoons?

Well it's madness for a country our size with the coastline and territorial limit that we have not to have submarines. The fact that we are only budgeted for four is mind-boggling but indicative of the fact that we have lived under the US Defence umbrella for so long that we believe a. we don't have a threat or b. our friends will look after it for us.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Well it's madness for a country our size with the coastline and territorial limit that we have not to have submarines. The fact that we are only budgeted for four is mind-boggling but indicative of the fact that we have lived under the US Defence umbrella for so long that we believe a. we don't have a threat or b. our friends will look after it for us.

Agreed maybe some day these nay sayers will realize its an all or nothing prospect.

 

[eerickso]

Even if we gave the MPAs a harpoon capability,  how are they going to stop this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIPjz6z_Ze0

You can fit a pretty impressive weapon system on a ship! If you think Subs are expensive, then you don't know much about AWW.