HMCS Chicoutimi {MERGED}

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I guess you have been missing my posts (and others) about how naval warfare is a 3 tiered approach of above, on and below. You remove one from the equation and you might as well stay in port.  :

Going the niche approach like you are advocating only further erodes our effectiveness as a military. After all look how quickly the skill sets of being a submariner eroded at least now we are able to maintain some degree of proficiency.

First off, I may be a civvie, but the constant rolling your eyes thing is disrespectful.  I have always tried to be respectful of you guys and I expect the same treatment in return. 

RE:  The topic at hand - I agree with the 3-tiered approach you describe, however it doesn't seem worthwhile to build those 3-tiers if the limitations of your undersea stop your ability to deploy at the Grand Banks and leave your on-sea and over-sea assets alone in other theatres due to lack of range or inherent vulnerability.  Specifically, I think force procurement should be defined by the Worst-Case Deployment Scenario in combat against the strongest probable enemy, and if you're not going to procure to that standard and are going to buy M-60's to do border patrol, then I think we'll forever be saddled with paper-tiger equipment that won't allow us to deploy due to lack of capability even when our interests and values tell us we should.



Matthew. 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The rolling of the eyes is just to show how often we go over this argument and the frustration level it brings. We have been through this time and time again, Matthew go over the sub threads again and you will see why most naval types (and those other services that can think outside the box) will disagree with you.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand?

More money for the Navy.  Just over simplified.  Again, I call for a [sarcasm] smiley to be created.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

It would be like buying used F-5's for Combat Air Patrol, or M-60 Pattons as our new MBT.  They may fill a role, but faced with combat versus a competent enemy and they would be a huge liability.

Disagree.  Strongly.  I have worked versus HMCS VICTORIA.  She is by far the hardest target I have tried to catch and hold (My previous experience includes work against US and Chilean boats).  This class of boats is, in my opinion, nothing to be taken lightly by an opponent.

Many of the problems we are having come from jumping two generations of technology in one go (we will jump three generations with the Sea King to Cyclone) and the learning curve associated therein.  Should we have gotten an AIP capability?  Probably, but I don't remember it being a "mature" technology back in 1994-95 when we started trying to buy the Upholders.  And with Treasury Board, and PWGSC and cabinet, it does not pay to keep modifying your specs as you go.

A better anology, IMHO, might be that we bought used F-117s.  These submarines are far and away the most complex pieces of machinery the CF has ever owned- it's going to take us awhile to learn to use and maintain them properly.

Cheers.

however it doesn't seem worthwhile to build those 3-tiers if the limitations of your undersea stop your ability to deploy at the Grand Banks and leave your on-sea and over-sea assets alone in other theatres due to lack of range or inherent vulnerability.

While I was typing I saw that you posted again.  I'm not sure that I understand this part of your post.  Are you implying that our Submarines lack the range to make it to the Grand Banks?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

More money for the Navy.  Just over simplified.  Again, I call for a [sarcasm] smiley to be created.

Gotcha.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

First off, I may be a civvie, but the constant rolling your eyes thing is disrespectful.  I have always tried to be respectful of you guys and I expect the same treatment in return. 

RE:  The topic at hand - I agree with the 3-tiered approach you describe, however it doesn't seem worthwhile to build those 3-tiers if the limitations of your undersea stop your ability to deploy at the Grand Banks and leave your on-sea and over-sea assets alone in other theatres due to lack of range or inherent vulnerability.  Specifically, I think force procurement should be defined by the Worst-Case Deployment Scenario in combat against the strongest probable enemy, and if you're not going to procure to that standard and are going to buy M-60's to do border patrol, then I think we'll forever be saddled with paper-tiger equipment that won't allow us to deploy due to lack of capability even when our interests and values tell us we should.



Matthew. 

And for the record most sailors would agree that getting rid of the tank was very stupid thing for the government to do.

 

[Navy_Blue]

On a lesser note than capability and usefulness.  Our submarines let us listen in on whats operating underwater in the Atlantic and Pacific without leaving the jetty.  Without these boats operating the big boys no longer have to include us when they want to go play.  By having operational Subs we can sit in and see what the US, UK, and NATO is doing underwater and in our waters.  We can also expect to be told when they want to go through our waters for fear of running into us.  I believe its half the reason the HMCS Victoria is out west.  The yanks move there Boomer's through those straits all the time if we didn't have a sub out there they wouldn't have to tell us anything.  If we had these things in the water as much as we should the Inuit would see allot less periscopes floating through up north.

Don't get me wrong people are still going to sneak around but not as much.

 

[Slim]

There will always be an army, navy and airforce operating in our country...

...I would prefere that it be ours.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The yanks move there Boomer's through those straits all the time if we didn't have a sub out there they wouldn't have to tell us anything.

Not really.  Boomers always go on the surface through the Straits of Juan de Fuca.  It was no secret when Boomers went out or came in.  I saw them a couple of times a month... before HMCS VICTORIA came west. I think that you have it right in the rest of your post, however.

Cheers!

 

[Melbatoast]

Not really.  Boomers always go on the surface through the Straits of Juan de Fuca.  It was no secret when Boomers went out or came in.  I saw them a couple of times a month... before HMCS VICTORIA came west. I think that you have it right in the rest of your post, however.

Cheers!

That's very true - you see boomers a lot when you are in the straits.  The SJDF is too shallow and too busy for a big boat like that to transit submerged. 

There's a sub out west (and probably another, eventually) because China is the biggest conventional "threat" in the world these days.  The Russians are of the same mind, as the majority of their Oscar II fleet is at Petrapavlosk and operating at a good tempo, and the Americans are likely to put all of their Seawolfs out here, too.

 

[Navy_Blue]

Point taken but once out to sea the Yanks didn't have to let anyone know anything.  At least we see part of the picture now.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Disagree.  Strongly.  I have worked versus HMCS VICTORIA.  She is by far the hardest target I have tried to catch and hold (My previous experience includes work against US and Chilean boats).  This class of boats is, in my opinion, nothing to be taken lightly by an opponent.

Many of the problems we are having come from jumping two generations of technology in one go (we will jump three generations with the Sea King to Cyclone) and the learning curve associated therein.  Should we have gotten an AIP capability?  Probably, but I don't remember it being a "mature" technology back in 1994-95 when we started trying to buy the Upholders.  And with Treasury Board, and PWGSC and cabinet, it does not pay to keep modifying your specs as you go.

A better anology, IMHO, might be that we bought used F-117s.  These submarines are far and away the most complex pieces of machinery the CF has ever owned- it's going to take us awhile to learn to use and maintain them properly.

Cheers.

While I was typing I saw that you posted again.  I'm not sure that I understand this part of your post.  Are you implying that our Submarines lack the range to make it to the Grand Banks?

RE:  Your opinion of the Victorias capabilities and stealthiness - I'm ecstatic to hear that from someone in your position!  That really is outstanding news....

RE:  The Grand Banks comment - I may have worded it poorly but my intent was that it would seem a waste to only produce that 3-tiered capability if the Victorias in their current configuration only have the range and combat capability to operate in Canadian territorial waters and were unable to escort our surface vessels overseas when operating in expeditionary theatres....where if they were AIP-equipped, they would play a significant role.



Matthew.

P.S.  Just a quick thank you for taking the time to respond in the way you have....Cheers. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

RE:  The Grand Banks comment - I may have worded it poorly but my intent was that it would seem a waste to only produce that 3-tiered capability if the Victorias in their current configuration only have the range and combat capability to operate in Canadian territorial waters and were unable to escort our surface vessels overseas when operating in expeditionary theatres....where if they were AIP-equipped, they would play a significant role.

That is not my understanding of the operational range of the VICTORIA class.  Granted, they don't have the legs that the O-Boats had, but my understanding is that they can operate pretty much anywhere in the world (not under ice, of course).  The Brits trialed UPHOLDER in the Gulf before they mothballed her.  AIP would not make them much faster (if at all), just more capable of staying submerged longer.

I've never really noted subs being tied to surface ships as "escorts" before.  Mostly, they just work alone.  It's better for everyone involved 

Cheers

 

[Navy_Blue]

You must be able to RAS these things so any task group with an operational AOR could keep subs Fueled at the very least.  Thats if we use them as an escort or intigrate tham into a task group. 

 

[hugh19]

LMAO  RAS a sub at sea?????  Not gonna happen.  Unless its in a sheltered bay somewhere.  The Vic's aren't going to be escorts for anything. SSK's are used differently as they are slow. Slower than a tanker. They would be put somewhere usefull but not part of a task group. You would need a SSN for that.

 

[TCBF]

Four subs enough for a "Wolf Pack"?

;D

Tom

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Four subs enough for a "Wolf Pack"?

Good lord!  Submariners are allergic to other submariners- they hate working anywhere near each other.

Water Space Management (WSM) is a system of rules and procedures which keeps everyone spaced out enough to hopefully prevent "blue on blue"

 

[Slim]

Four subs enough for a "Wolf Pack"?

;D

Tom

He can't help it...Tankers work in fours! ;D

 

[TCBF]

"Quote from: TCBF on Yesterday at 20:19:06
Four subs enough for a "Wolf Pack"? -Tom

"He can't help it...Tankers work in fours!"

Ha!

1 - "OK guys, lets talk about this next crest drill."
2 - "Crest drill? WTF? We are 200 feet under water!"
3 - (Whispering) 'He just re-classified from Armour!"

 

[Slim]

"Quote from: TCBF on Yesterday at 20:19:06
Four subs enough for a "Wolf Pack"? -Tom

"He can't help it...Tankers work in fours!"

Ha!

1 - "OK guys, lets talk about this next crest drill."
2 - "Crest drill? WTF? We are 200 feet under water!"
3 - (Whispering) 'He just re-classified from Armour!"

:rofl: :nana: :tank: