Protecting Canada by Sub (split fm Canada's New, Liberal, Foreign Policy)

[Eye In The Sky]

Today you don't have to choose anymore! The Arihant class is an SSN sized boat with the ability to carry 4 SLBM's, or refit the missile compartment to carry 12 smaller missiles (you can imagine 12X tomahawk cruise missiles for a Western version, although in the Arihant class these are mini SLBM's). Something along these lines would be ideal as a force projection arm of the RCN. Perhaps when I am Imperator...

I was thinking for a tactical/employment point.  SSN and SSK have different strengths and weaknesses, that work for and against them.  A diesel boat, sooner or later, has to snort.  They can 'sprint' but in limited fashion compared to a nuc.  Nuc's can go all day and night, but are generally noisier than a diesel boat on battery making steerage.  That kind of stuff.

So if we were to beef up our submarine force...would it be a 'primarily defensive' or 'primarily offensive' force?  Many questions to ask...I also think the average Canadian thinks the difference between 'normal' subs and 'nuclear subs' is about the weapons they carry, not what is turning the screws.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Do we need to actually worry about dealing with enemy subs while they are actually under the ice...or is it enough to focus on blocking entry to/exit from the ice pack?

How would you block the entry/exit from the ice pack?  The only way to hunt subs under the ice is with subs under the ice.  A capability we will never have. 

The Canadian government doesn't give two shits about the north.

 

[George Wallace]

However, when I think of "subs under ice" I think nuc's.  Hard to drop a kill store from the air thru ice...

They, on the other hand, can shoot up through the ice.  >

 

[Kirkhill]

Probably a question better answered by the guys who are the best ASW asset, and they wear Dolphins not wings.  I've never worked ASW around ice. 

However, when I think of "subs under ice" I think nuc's.  Hard to drop a kill store from the air thru ice...

How about emplacing CAPTORS under the ice and monitoring the field with Gliders with Sonars communicating with AOPS and LRPAs?

The gliders can remain passive, bobbing up and down under the ice, go active when they detect.  They only need to communicate if they make contact.  Then free up the Captors in the region of the contact.  No?

 

[a_majoor]

I was thinking for a tactical/employment point.  SSN and SSK have different strengths and weaknesses, that work for and against them.  A diesel boat, sooner or later, has to snort.  They can 'sprint' but in limited fashion compared to a nuc.  Nuc's can go all day and night, but are generally noisier than a diesel boat on battery making steerage.  That kind of stuff.

So if we were to beef up our submarine force...would it be a 'primarily defensive' or 'primarily offensive' force?  Many questions to ask...I also think the average Canadian thinks the difference between 'normal' subs and 'nuclear subs' is about the weapons they carry, not what is turning the screws.

Too true about how Canadians and uneducated people in general act when you say "nuclear submarine".

The example I chose is one of the smaller nuclear submarines in service, so it gives the owner the long range and sprint capabilities needed to cover large areas of ocean. In the Canadian context, we do indeed have lots of area to cover, not to mention out affiliations with things like NATO task forces, which require getting across the ocean to marry up with the fleet. All this is outside of the other obvious need to operate near or even under the arctic ice.

Since the Arihant class also carried long range weapons (SLBM's or mini SLBMs), it means any similar capital ship outfitted the same way become that much more potent and flexible. It is capable of both tactical (anti-ship) and strategic missions, and being a submarine, will be very difficult to detect or counter. While still relatively large as submarines (@ 6,000 tonnes displacement vs 2,900 tonnes for the Sōryū-class submarine or 2,050 tons for the Israeli Dolphin class submarines), the flexibility of nuclear power makes it a logical choice for a Canadian capital ship all other factors being equal.

Since it is very clear all other factors are not equal, this is more of a thought experiment than anything else.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

How about emplacing CAPTORS under the ice and monitoring the field with Gliders with Sonars communicating with AOPS and LRPAs?

The gliders can remain passive, bobbing up and down under the ice, go active when they detect.  They only need to communicate if they make contact.  Then free up the Captors in the region of the contact.  No?

This is pretty far outside my lane.  I'd have to do some basic research to even make a WAG at these systems...

AOPS against a sub;  I am not sure what systems they are planning on putting on those, but I seem to recall reading they will have a relatively slow speed.  I've never seen anything on them having an ASW capability, other than a MH.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Too true about how Canadians and uneducated people in general act when you say "nuclear submarine".

The example I chose is one of the smaller nuclear submarines in service, so it gives the owner the long range and sprint capabilities needed to cover large areas of ocean. In the Canadian context, we do indeed have lots of area to cover, not to mention out affiliations with things like NATO task forces, which require getting across the ocean to marry up with the fleet. All this is outside of the other obvious need to operate near or even under the arctic ice.

Since the Arihant class also carried long range weapons (SLBM's or mini SLBMs), it means any similar capital ship outfitted the same way become that much more potent and flexible. It is capable of both tactical (anti-ship) and strategic missions, and being a submarine, will be very difficult to detect or counter. While still relatively large as submarines (@ 6,000 tonnes displacement vs 2,900 tonnes for the Sōryū-class submarine or 2,050 tons for the Israeli Dolphin class submarines), the flexibility of nuclear power makes it a logical choice for a Canadian capital ship all other factors being equal.

Since it is very clear all other factors are not equal, this is more of a thought experiment than anything else.

Because of the simple expense differences between diesel and nuc, I think if we were to increase our sub force, it would be SSK.

SSKs are no joke either...http://www.janes.com/article/56544/russian-submarine-fires-cruise-missiles-into-syria

 

[Sub_Guy]

You can set up all the underwater systems you want.  But we will never be able to engage a submarine under the ice.

Heck we can (in theory) drop sonobuoys into the ice and track submarines under the ice.  We still can't reach out and touch someone and contrary to Al Gore's prediction we are a long way from an ice free Arctic.

Call me a cynic but I think the Victoria class submarine will be Canada's last submarines.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Call me a cynic but I think the Victoria class submarine will be Canada's last submarines.

But, if we were to upsize the RCN sub strength, would you go diesel, or nuc?  Pretend, for a minute, that Canadians cared about the military and supported an increased sub force.  :blotto:

 

[George Wallace]

But, if we were to upsize the RCN sub strength, would you go diesel, or nuc?  Pretend, for a minute, that Canadians cared about the military and supported an increased sub force.  :blotto:

If we weren't sending Billions of Canadian Dollars to Indonesia, Vietnam and so many other countries around the world, and instead increased our Defence Budget to at least match the same levels of GDP of our allies, perhaps we could go both routes.  Submarine Warfare has changed a lot over the past eighty years.  The role of submarines has expanded so that we would need a nuclear capability to travel under the Arctic Ice Cap, where that was never ever a concern sixty years ago.  Diesel subs have their advantages over Nuclear, but are incapable of prolonged periods under the ice.  There is a justification for both; most likely having a limited number of two nuclear, and a larger number of diesel.  Unfortunately, we are so cheap, we prefer to put all our eggs in one basket; often not filling that.


[Edit to add:]

Meanwhile DARPA has for several years been conducting studies on the use of unmanned underwater vehicles for hunting ships.  We have UAVs and Drones in the air, and the USN is looking at using some as Refuelers; so the possibilities are there to employ them underwater in numerous roles.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

the original nuke sub proposal was as a ASW fleet to hunt and kill subs, but at the expense of the surface fleet which would have been cut back severely. 

 

[Kirkhill]

This is pretty far outside my lane.  I'd have to do some basic research to even make a WAG at these systems...

AOPS against a sub;  I am not sure what systems they are planning on putting on those, but I seem to recall reading they will have a relatively slow speed.  I've never seen anything on them having an ASW capability, other than a MH.

I don't think the AOPS is intended to go chasing subs - and you would be right, I think, about its slow speed.  But given its boat deck, its ability to take on board and plug in containers and its 20 tonne crane I think it could act as a barrier tender - monitoring and servicing a variety of remote systems, some piloted, some autonomous, some passive, some active.  The CAPTOR is not necessarily the weapon of choice, I gather there are a lot of mines out there.  I chose the CAPTOR simply because I have heard of it and understand it is available.

Not necessarily a good idea but as technologies keep changing the way the game is played I wonder about what the system demands will look like in 5, 10, 20, 40 years - the life of many of the platforms that the government is buying (maybe).

 

[a_majoor]

Staying on the usual hobby horse, nuclear powered submarines are the only sensible choice, given Canada's circumstances.

We need ships which can cover the vast areas no only of our three coastlines, but also to project power if/when the GoC decides that it is in the National Interest. As a capital ship, modern nuclear submarines can do both tactical and stratigic missions, having speed, range, carrying capability and the ability to mount powerful sensor systems.

SSK's can do many of the same things, but if a navy goes that route, they also limit the range, endurance and speed at which they are able to react. The Russian use of SSK's to launch missiles against targets in Syria is a case in point, the Russian SSK didn't have to go as far as an American or Canadian submarine would potentially have had to transit to do the same mission.

Going to an SSK fleet for Canada means their mission will primarily be coastal defense, with a limited ability to project force and carry out strategic missions.

 

[Half Full]

Before too much committment to UUVs in the Arctic, there are still many issues with their employment in that environment :

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/polar-bears-robot-subs-and-melting-ice-navys-icex-2016/

"The Navy’s new fleet of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) has their own problems up north, said Scott Harper, head of Arctic Research at the Office of Naval Research (ONR). Usually, unmanned mini-subs in trouble have the option to surface and “phone home” or check their position against GPS, he said. But those signals don’t penetrate the ice, and UUVs are too small to break themselves a hole in the ice the way manned subs can. Autonomous systems are a big part of the Defense Departments future, but to get them to function in such extreme conditions, Harper said, roboticists have to find new and more “elegant” solutions.”

Even the liquid water can pose a problem. The Arctic Ocean has uniquely strange layering: warmer water on the bottom, colder water on top — the opposite of everywhere else on Earth — with a thin layer of freshwater from melting ice floes on the surface. The resulting mix of temperatures and salinity messes with the buoyancy of UUVs and the propagation of sonar.

So a huge amount of ICEX research is just testing sensors: from the UUVs, from the two manned attack submarines that will be involved, and from static hydrophones lowered through holes in the ice.

The other part is meteorological. The warming climate actually makes the Arctic harder to figure out, Harper said. The edge of the ice pack has become more dynamic, melting back in summer, only to refreeze in fall. The result is short-lived, local patches of open water and a lot of thinner but much more mobile ice. The floe under the ICEX base camp is currently moving at nine miles a day, Harper said, much faster than in most exercises past."

 

[a_majoor]

Sounds like the other Arctic ship programs, we don't want to actually pay for something that is capable, so we look at partial solutions instead. UUV's might be useful along the edges and approaches to the Arctic to provide warning that someone or something is there, but then a manned ship needs to steam north to investigate or porsecute the target.

Still better than not knowing what is going on there at all...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Before too much committment to UUVs in the Arctic, there are still many issues with their employment in that environment :

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/03/polar-bears-robot-subs-and-melting-ice-navys-icex-2016/

"The Navy’s new fleet of Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs) has their own problems up north, said Scott Harper, head of Arctic Research at the Office of Naval Research (ONR). Usually, unmanned mini-subs in trouble have the option to surface and “phone home” or check their position against GPS, he said. But those signals don’t penetrate the ice, and UUVs are too small to break themselves a hole in the ice the way manned subs can. Autonomous systems are a big part of the Defense Departments future, but to get them to function in such extreme conditions, Harper said, roboticists have to find new and more “elegant” solutions.”

Even the liquid water can pose a problem. The Arctic Ocean has uniquely strange layering: warmer water on the bottom, colder water on top — the opposite of everywhere else on Earth — with a thin layer of freshwater from melting ice floes on the surface. The resulting mix of temperatures and salinity messes with the buoyancy of UUVs and the propagation of sonar.

So a huge amount of ICEX research is just testing sensors: from the UUVs, from the two manned attack submarines that will be involved, and from static hydrophones lowered through holes in the ice.

The other part is meteorological. The warming climate actually makes the Arctic harder to figure out, Harper said. The edge of the ice pack has become more dynamic, melting back in summer, only to refreeze in fall. The result is short-lived, local patches of open water and a lot of thinner but much more mobile ice. The floe under the ICEX base camp is currently moving at nine miles a day, Harper said, much faster than in most exercises past."

I help support experiments by the SFU Underwater Research Lab in the early 90’s. they were working on underwater communications for AUV’s. From that I am a big believer that for most stuff you have a “mothership” ROV that is umbilicaled to the support ship, that goes down o the depth you want and then release the AUV to carry out the work, that way the AUV conserves power and only has to communicate a short distance in same plane. The AOPs could support a couple of larger Hybrid AUV’s that could surface/snort to recharge and then continue on a pattern search and listen mode, they could upon picking up a contact that matches records in it’s memory to release a buoy to the surface to communicate to the Mothership. Who could have another armed AUV that could release hunter killer torps. Combine that with bottom sensor networks, Satellite surveillance and ASW aircraft patrols, plus occasional surface warships then you created a reasonable deterrent.   

 

[Kirkhill]

Could you throw some autonomous gliders into the mix together with ScanEagle sized UAVs for surface control and comms relay?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Small UAV's and weather don't always mix. A oil rig resupply boat likely is the best design for launching and recovering fixed wing UAV's

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Small UAV's and weather don't always mix.

8)

 

[GR66]

Staying on the usual hobby horse, nuclear powered submarines are the only sensible choice, given Canada's circumstances.

We need ships which can cover the vast areas no only of our three coastlines, but also to project power if/when the GoC decides that it is in the National Interest. As a capital ship, modern nuclear submarines can do both tactical and stratigic missions, having speed, range, carrying capability and the ability to mount powerful sensor systems.

SSK's can do many of the same things, but if a navy goes that route, they also limit the range, endurance and speed at which they are able to react. The Russian use of SSK's to launch missiles against targets in Syria is a case in point, the Russian SSK didn't have to go as far as an American or Canadian submarine would potentially have had to transit to do the same mission.

Going to an SSK fleet for Canada means their mission will primarily be coastal defense, with a limited ability to project force and carry out strategic missions.

I think Thucydides is bang on with this.  If we intend to use subs in an expeditionary role nuclear is the way we need to go.  Transit time, the ability to keep up with an allied surface group, and no need for refueling support are huge advantages over a diesel sub in this role.

The problem with SSNs is that they are likely an impossible sell to Canadians.  The very word "nuclear" is likely a political 3rd rail.  The strategic expeditionary roles that an SSN is best suited for are also exactly the types of roles that many Canadians could be convinced by the chattering classes are not the types of roles our military should be engaged in.  The cost will be huge and would likely mean we'd have to make cuts in other important areas.  Finally the support and maintenance issue is huge.  I understand that the cost of building a domestic support infrastructure was one of the reasons the original idea for SSNs was dropped.  Having our subs go to the US for maintenance (or leasing them from the US for that matter) would open us to major criticism as being puppets of the US.  I wish it wasn't so, but I think the idea of SSNs for Canada is a non-starter.

So that leaves us with the potential for a small (4-6?) fleet of SSK's which are best suited for defence of our own waters.  The question then is whether this is the most effective and cost-efficient way to control our own territorial waters?  While the best defence against an enemy sub may be our own sub, is a fleet of 4-6 enough to effectively cover the vast area that we need to patrol?  Would the same money if shifted to additional MPA's, MH's and surface ASW hulls provide us as much or more capability than a small number of subs?  What exactly is the sub and surface warship threat in our own waters compared to the overall flexibility that a variety of other platforms might provide?