Replacing the Subs
- Thread starter Spencer100
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,513
- Points
- 1,160
Sending submarines and them being able to use them safely is something else altogether.I could think of one countrywho might be open to purchasing (some) of our old subs, who's tinkering with old western gear has resulted in a domestically produced variant several times now. What does the price tag on almost 40 year old boats look like?
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,586
- Points
- 1,010
Not aware that even the Americans use a Gold/Blue crew system for their attack boats. Only for the Ballistic Nuclear launching ships, so the deterrent is maintained. I don't think Canada would consider that just for SSK's either.
- Reaction score
- 4,264
- Points
- 1,260
How about packing a Vic up with a bunch Semtex, fitting it with remote radio control and sending it along its merry way to the Crimea land/rail bridge?
No need to train any submariners.
- Reaction score
- 8,389
- Points
- 1,160
Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves. This was a liberal promise made by Carney. His track record on making those come true is pretty abysmal.
- Reaction score
- 4,264
- Points
- 1,260
LOL - The timeframe that we are talking about here is basically 1 May to 1 Sept - 4 months.
Please explain what over the last 4 months has he promised to be completed over these 4 months that he has NOT completed?
- Reaction score
- 7,530
- Points
- 1,160
Ah, thanks. That area is far too small for what they are proposing, think multiple big sub sheds, dedicated additonal jetties and possibly a dedicated FMF submarine annex.
That whole property is also so hilariously contaminated DRDC built a SCIF on stilts above the old building instead of having to clean up the ground.
- Reaction score
- 7,530
- Points
- 1,160
So far he's actually done what he said he was going to do, and has accomplished more in a single 4 month parliamentary session than PP did in 20 years as an MP. He's also personally visit Germany and SK to push this project, which again, is more than I can remember any PM doing for defence.
In the six months he's had, with about 3 months of Parliament actually being in session, so far his track record looks pretty good from what I can see.
Do you actually have any examples of what you think he hasn't done since getting elected? So far he's doing the opposite of a lot of the things you were worried about from his books, but re-evaluating what you are going to do about a complex problem years later when the context is very different isn't a sign of weakness or a character flaw, that's basic intelligence.
- Reaction score
- 1,317
- Points
- 1,160
I could think of one country
Ukraine's harbours are all on the Black Sea, so they would have to pass through the Bosporus to get there. And I believe Turkey is blocking any military vessels from doing that.
- Reaction score
- 7,530
- Points
- 1,160
We ran for years with zero AORs, after decades with 2 AORs, so 2 JSS is 'enough' for sure. More would give us additional capability, but I think would be a want, not a need.
The biggest restriction on the RCN is people to operate the ships, the next is people to maintain and support the ships, followed by funding to do it properly.
More ships without figuring out people doesn't actually give us anything, and even with the ISSCs for entire classes we're starting to bottom out on qualified and capable people to support things, even from industry. Relying on Class societies is a terrible idea, as most of them just follow checklists, which works when it's a checklist for a cargo ship, designed to do cargo ship things. That falls apart very quickly, even with ships like JSS that used a largely commercial rule set for the design, as it's not designed to do commercial things, and added on owner requirements like CBRN, which has major impacts on system designs, material selection etc.
- Reaction score
- 4,264
- Points
- 1,260
Barge it down the Duna.
- Reaction score
- 2,646
- Points
- 1,090
Hopefully the Russian invasion of Ukraine will be over in 6 yrs or more when we start looking at divesting the Victoria's. Not sure how useful they would be
- Reaction score
- 7,530
- Points
- 1,160
Given that we can't maintain them and have been operating them for 20 years, with a built up industry around it no reason to think Ukraine could (or would want to).
They have already hugely interfered with Russian Black sea marine activities with fairly straightforward surface drones as well as Himar attacks, and Russia is severely limited what it can bring into it's Black Sea fleet anyway.
Fast tracking this procurement is a very good move. It would be fun to be a fly on the wall in the two Proposal Rooms and for their Red Team proposal reviews
If I was TKMS I would be seriously wondering how to sell a long delivery schedule to a customer in a hurry
If I was HO, I would be seriously wondering how to sell a boat equipped with a VLS system that takes up 15% the length/mass of the submarine on offer, a dedicated technology and weapon system your potential customer has no requirement for, doesn’t need and doesn’t want, equipment they would need to maintain at their cost.
If I was TKMS I would be seriously wondering how to sell a long delivery schedule to a customer in a hurry
If I was HO, I would be seriously wondering how to sell a boat equipped with a VLS system that takes up 15% the length/mass of the submarine on offer, a dedicated technology and weapon system your potential customer has no requirement for, doesn’t need and doesn’t want, equipment they would need to maintain at their cost.
- Reaction score
- 2,646
- Points
- 1,090
Hanwha has said they can ditch the VLS if we want. I dont think we want to
Since, Hanwha has already started the last of KSS-3 they need this order to keep the line hot while they design the follow on sub. The last boat is expected to be delivered in 2031 according to Navalnews Hanwha Ocean cuts steel of third KSS-III Batch-II Submarine - Naval News
I wonder if the S Korean's can or will adapt the VLS to UUCV launches?
Rainbow1910
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,503
- Points
- 810
The RCN has specifically asked about land attack and anti-ship missile capability within the RFI itself, and the general trend within the Navy as of late has been to invest in these 'excess capabilities'. See the plans to purchase and operate Tomahawk from the River class in the future. VLS is an effective way of having this capability integrated while not taking up valuable space within the torpedo magazine that horizontally launched systems need. VLS is a potentially very valuable bit of futureproofing and a good deal of additional lethality.
Saying it is a system they have "no requirement for, doesn't need and doesn't want" is an assumption that I personally wouldn't be comfortable making as an outsider looking in.
Similar threads
