"High-ranking sources": Canada considering nuclear subs?

[The Bread Guy]

In this column against nuclear subs, I'd love to hear from those in the know about such things:  is the bit highlighted in yellow true?

.... What is it about submarines that dazzles Canadian governments? It’s understandable that the navy falls in love with exotic toys — and submariners are a breed apart, doing a tough and dangerous job to which not everyone can adapt. Historically, Canada’s navy has an envious record — without submarines. So why do we want them? In 1998, we bought four submarines from Britain at the discount price of $750 million. A real bargain, we thought.Lucky we weren’t offered suits of armour.

The damn subs have been mostly in dry dock ever since — at the cost of a couple of billion since 1998, and the life of one sailor when a sub caught fire. Whenever outsiders questioned the purchase of aging subs, the explanation was that they enhanced our “sovereignty.” How sovereignty is established underwater is unclear — especially when these bloody things barely go underwater, and when they do they bump the bottom of the ocean. Or something goes wrong.

Submarines are an attack weapon. Dating back to the First World War, no Canadian submarine has ever fired a torpedo in anger. Our destroyers were pretty effective at killing German U-boats in war, but they aren’t essential for our navy, war or no war.

Now, Defence Minister Peter MacKay is making noises about acquiring nuclear submarines, which he’s called “a very important capability for the Canadian Forces ... nuclear subs are what’s needed under deep water, deep ice.” Oh? Why are they “needed?” We’ve had the nuclear sub argument before — with the government explaining that “nuclear” sub means nuclear-powered, not armed with nuclear weapons. What advantage would nuclear subs give Canada? Well, we could better detect Russian subs under Arctic ice. What would we do if we detected Russian subs? Well, we could inform the CBC, which would relay the fact to Canadians. Would we consider torpedoing a Russian sub? Good gracious, no! Not even an American sub ....

 

[aesop081]

Poor, clueless Peter Worthington

Originally Oberon-class submarines in the Royal Navy, named Unseen, Unicorn, Ursula and Upholder, we re-named them as the more mundane Victoria, Windsor, Corner Brook and Chicoutimi.

Wrong. They were Upholder-class submarines in RN service.

Maybe when he can perform basic fact-checking, i will pay attention to what he says.

 

[Monsoon]

Poor, clueless Peter Worthington


Wrong. They were Upholder-class submarines in RN service.

Maybe when he can perform basic fact-checking, i will pay attention to what he says.

It's astonishing how many basic (and easily verifiable) facts he can get wrong in a single column. The RCN has had submarines since the First World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_CC-1) and continuously since 1965.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Poor, clueless Peter Worthington

Originally Oberon-class submarines in the Royal Navy, named Unseen, Unicorn, Ursula and Upholder, we re-named them as the more mundane Victoria, Windsor, Corner Brook and Chicoutimi.

Wrong. They were Upholder-class submarines in RN service.

Maybe when he can perform basic fact-checking, i will pay attention to what he says.

It's astonishing how many basic (and easily verifiable) facts he can get wrong in a single column. The RCN has had submarines since the First World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_CC-1) and continuously since 1965.

Ouch - thanks for sharing the fact checks.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

Did anyone try emailing him? There is a link at the site the column is in to email him personally. I may after work today just to ask him where he obtained his facts though admitedly both the major ones could be nothing more than a sudden onset of momentary lapse of judgement.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Did anyone try emailing him? There is a link at the site the column is in to email him personally. I may after work today just to ask him where he obtained his facts though admitedly both the major ones could be nothing more than a sudden onset of momentary lapse of judgement.

Here's a link to his list o' columns:
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/columnists/peter_worthington/
which includes a link to e-mail him at peter.worthington@sunmedia.ca - let us know what he has to say if you do write.

I'm also surprised there's no comments pointing these things out yet.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

You would have trouble convincing the RAN of that!  Their Defence Minister noted in July 2011 there are “long-term difficulties with the Collins Class submarine fleet, and announced a full independent review led by British private sector expert John Coles.  The Minister noted too many stretches where only 1-2 submarines (of 6) have been available and there are reportedly doubts that the subs’ diesels are robust enough to last until 2025 as planned.  Google "Coles Review" for more of the same.

As far as cost and value for money, and shared with the usual caveats:

Figures obtained by the Herald Sun show the six Collins subs cost about $630 million a year – or $105 million each – to maintain, making them the most expensive submarines ever to put to sea…. The annual price for “sustainment” (maintenance and support) is $415.9 million for 2011-12 with operating costs running at $213.4 million for the year, for a total of $629.3 million.

The major availability issues with the Collins is that their refits are taking too long, exacerbated by lack of crew. Both issues should be handled over the next few years as they get more experience.

Operational costs are high, but so are ours. You could generate similar numbers from dividing the number of days at sea by the current submarine program costs, but neither figure is a terribly accurate prediction of future costs.

The diesels on the Collins apparently had manufacturing defects that have been rectified.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

milnews.ca-

It is true that no Canadian submarine has ever fired a torpedo in anger.  But, so what?

No Canadian Warship has ever fired a missile in anger- does that mean that we don't need missile armed warships?

No Canadian Fighter has ever fired an air-to-air missile at another airplane- does that mean that we do not need missiles or inteceptors?

The columnist's train of logic and grasp of the facts is hazy, at best.

 

[The Bread Guy]

milnews.ca-

It is true that no Canadian submarine has ever fired a torpedo in anger.  But, so what?

Just seeking to confirm the factoid since I'd never heard it before.

No Canadian Warship has ever fired a missile in anger- does that mean that we don't need missile armed warships?

No Canadian Fighter has ever fired an air-to-air missile at another airplane- does that mean that we do not need missiles or inteceptors?

The columnist's train of logic and grasp of the facts is hazy, at best.

Agreed, in spades.

 

[cphansen]

milnews.ca-

It is true that no Canadian submarine has ever fired a torpedo in anger.  But, so what?

No Canadian Warship has ever fired a missile in anger- does that mean that we don't need missile armed warships?

No Canadian Fighter has ever fired an air-to-air missile at another airplane- does that mean that we do not need missiles or inteceptors?

The columnist's train of logic and grasp of the facts is hazy, at best.

Whether the submarines have never fired a torpedo in anger, they did provide submarines to train against the ASW  forces and don't think that wasn't a valuable contribution in WWII and during the Cold War. Our ASW forces may have been world class, but they wouldn't have been without submarines to train against.

I would hope that when the Victoria class subs do hit their stride that ASW training would be one of their priorities. They don't just provide targets for the ASW forces, they provide living breathing and most importantly of all, thinking adversaries.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

milnews.ca-
No Canadian Fighter has ever fired an air-to-air missile at another airplane- does that mean that we do not need missiles or inteceptors?

True, but one did fire an air-to-air missile at an Iraqi gunboat. Not many air forces have that honour.  ;D

 

[Retired AF Guy]

On the serious side, if the Liberals weren't trying buy something on the cheap, they could have bought a couple of the Swedish Gotland class SSK's which are considered to be some of the stealthy SSKs out there. So good in fact that the USN leased one for two years to operate against US forces; something that apparently it did very well, if this news article is to be believed.

HMS Gotland defeats U.S. Navy in Excercises

Here are some good exterior/interior shots taken by a group of WWII sub vets touring the HMS Gotland when it was in the U.S.

The USS Navy gets to learn how to find diesel subs... by contracting the Swedes.


More on Gotland class:

The Gotland Class Submarine

The Gotland class is fitted the Stirling Air-independent propulsion system that gives it its stealth capability and the ability to stay submerged up to a max of 30 days.

Not to rest on their laurels, the Swedes have already approved the purchase of two new subs called the Kockums A26. This new class well be capable of carrying out a variety of missions, including the launch and recovery of UUVs, improved survivability, and the ability to stay submerged to up to 45 days. More here:

Kockums A26

The above link also has a pdf file that has a good overview of the proposed A26. Unfortunately, its to large to post here.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If I recall the Gotland have a fairly short range and are not a deep diver, they have been optimized for patrolling the Baltic, just to ship them to the US they had to bring in a heavy lift ship.

 

[SeaDog]

As for the "torpedoes fired in anger" comment, it is only partially true.  During both the First and Second World Wars Canada produced submarines in our shipyards for our allies, but our RCN (and a few RCNVR) officers and crew sailed in RN submarines.  Most notably, officers who passed the Submarine Commanding Officer's Course (Perisher) - were employed as the Captains of operational RN submarines.  This started with Barney Johnson in 1915 (the RCN's first wartime submarine captain) and continued through until 1945 when J.A. Cross was the skipper of HMS Unseen (and the captured U-889).  In short, a great many Canadians, serving in the Royal Canadian Navy, trained, fought and commanded submarines in war - the only caveat being that they were RN commissioned submarines.  In all, Canadians commanded sixteen of the RN's submarines during wartime - and this number only includes actual RCN officers - not Canadians who joined the RN. Not an insignificant number.  The Silent Service in Canada has a been a bit too silent of it's achievements - but hopefully this will be changed during our upcoming celebrations for the 100th Anniversary of the Canadian Submarine Service.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Let's not forget the contributions of the BCN and it's 2 submarines in WWI  ;D

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

As for the "torpedoes fired in anger" comment, it is only partially true.  During both the First and Second World Wars Canada produced submarines in our shipyards for our allies, but our RCN (and a few RCNVR) officers and crew sailed in RN submarines.  Most notably, officers who passed the Submarine Commanding Officer's Course (Perisher) - were employed as the Captains of operational RN submarines.  This started with Barney Johnson in 1915 (the RCN's first wartime submarine captain) and continued through until 1945 when J.A. Cross was the skipper of HMS Unseen (and the captured U-889).  In short, a great many Canadians, serving in the Royal Canadian Navy, trained, fought and commanded submarines in war - the only caveat being that they were RN commissioned submarines.  In all, Canadians commanded sixteen of the RN's submarines during wartime - and this number only includes actual RCN officers - not Canadians who joined the RN. Not an insignificant number.  The Silent Service in Canada has a been a bit too silent of it's achievements - but hopefully this will be changed during our upcoming celebrations for the 100th Anniversary of the Canadian Submarine Service.

Any links or online material regarding the submarine construction for our Allies I would be interested in finding out more about that, as its the first I have ever heard regarding Canadian submarine construction during wartime. Thanks.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

If I recall the Gotland have a fairly short range and are not a deep diver, they have been optimized for patrolling the Baltic, just to ship them to the US they had to bring in a heavy lift ship.

Actually, I couldn't find anything on the range/depth capabilities of the Gotland class. As a comparison the German U-214 class which is also uses an AIP system has a range of 12,000 nm (surface) or submerged - 420 nmi @ 8 kt/1,248 nmi @ 4 kt. The U-214 was tested to a depth of 214m, with a theoretical depth of 400m.

The A26 is planned to be capable of both littoral and deep blue sea operations.

 

[SeaDog]

I'll have to dig up something online to support this.  I've read it in several submarine histories - either Perkins or Marc Milner made mention of it for sure.  The construction of submarines was, in reality, the nucleus of the Canadian Submarine service.  Vickers in Montreal built H-boats for the RN, but it was Canadian submariners that took them to the UK and once there, stayed on as crew. Hence I argue that "never fired a shot in anger" is not quite as cut and dry as it seems.

 

[SeaDog]

http://dev.legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2005/05/the-birth-of-the-submarine-service/

Dug up this to start with.  The quintessential read on this is J. David Perkins "Canadian Submariners:1914-1923".  I'd ref it directly but I'm afraid it's in my office down at the squadron.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

http://dev.legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2005/05/the-birth-of-the-submarine-service/

Dug up this to start with.  The quintessential read on this is J. David Perkins "Canadian Submariners:1914-1923".  I'd ref it directly but I'm afraid it's in my office down at the squadron.

Interesting read...thank you for the link.