• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Replacing the Subs

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,104
Points
940
Oh considering we post their port visits right on Instagram, even once out of port I’m sure they could narrow it down pretty quick
That assumes that the PAOs don't wait a few hours/days/weeks before putting on social media.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
584
Points
890
You are both right. I wasn’t trying to sound like we are incompetent when it comes to OPSEC - submarine operations. Not at all. (Albeit reading what I wrote now, comes across that way. My apologies.)

My main point was that figuring out when our subs are in port and when they aren’t isn’t hard.

And even if the Command Team & PAOs wait a week or two, the local media of wherever the port is, is usually excited to report a visit.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
78
Points
280
Navy kicks off long-anticipated push to replace Canada’s beleaguered submarine fleet

OTTAWA — The Royal Canadian Navy is launching its long-anticipated push to replace Canada’s beleaguered submarine fleet, setting the stage for what will almost certainly be an extremely controversial debate around the need for such vessels.

Defence officials revealed to The Canadian Press this month that a dedicated team is being created to start figuring out what Canada needs in new submarines as the sunset on the military’s existing fleet draws steadily closer.

The move responds to a growing sense of urgency within defence and industry circles about the need to start work on such a project given the age of Canada’s existing submarines and the amount of time needed to design and build such vessels.

“The CAF is establishing a Canadian patrol submarine project to inform timely governmental decision-making about a potential replacement class of submarines, and avoid any gap in submarine capability,” navy spokesman Lt.-Cmdr. Jordan Holder said.

“In order to enable timely decision-making at some future point regarding a replacement class of submarines and the avoidance of a gap in submarine capability, the CAF required a replacement project to be initiated this year.”

Yet the decision to move ahead also kick-starts what is expected to be a tough conversation for the navy around the need for new submarines given the high cost of building and operating such vessels, and the many problems that have afflicted its current fleet.

Questions about the costs and benefits of submarines have circulated since Canada bought four second-hand vessels from Britain in 1998. The government at that time argued it was getting a bargain by paying only $750 million for the four Victoria-class vessels.

Yet the vessels have since spent more time in dock for repairs and maintenance than at sea, with Ottawa sinking billions of dollars into the fleet over the past 20-plus years to address a series of problems and incidents including fires and faulty welding.

The most recent incident saw HMCS Corner Brook suffer what may have been permanent damage last year after an errant test damaged the submarine’s main ballast tank. Corner Brook previously ran aground in 2011, while a fire broke out on board in 2019.

The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year.

A new fleet of submarines may address many of those problems, but Australia’s recent experience suggests building a new fleet won’t be smooth sailing — or cheap.

The Australian government, which has been working for more than a decade to buy 12 French-designed submarines, revealed last year that the diesel-electric vessels will cost more than $80 billion — or more than $6 billion each.

The new cost was nearly double Canberra’s original estimate, and more than the $60 billion Canada plans to pay for a whole new fleet of 15 state-of-the-art frigates to replace its fleet of Halifax-class warships over the next two decades.

Australian officials are now struggling with what to do with the project in the face of severe public and expert criticism.

The Liberal government’s defence policy committed in 2017 to extending the lives of Canada’s four Victoria-class submarines, with sources pegging the cost at more than $2 billion to keep them operating until the mid-2030s.

Yet the defence policy did not set any money aside for replacements.

The navy continues to argue that submarines are critical for defending Canada, particularly as rivals such as Russia and China become more aggressive and this country’s Arctic waters become more accessible due to climate change.

“Canada’s submarine force provides a key strategic asset with formidable surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities, as well as the ability to control or deny access to a substantial ocean or littoral area,” Holder said.

“Submarines are a key element of a balanced fleet that enables the Royal Canadian Navy to project power responsively and effectively far from Canada’s shores, with the inherent flexibility and staying power required to succeed across a broad mission set.”

Holder was nonetheless quick to add that the decision to start work on a possible replacement “does not commit the government to any specific course of action, but instead preserves the time to make an informed decision when required.”

Defence analyst David Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute says there is a strong argument to be made on the need for Canada to have submarines given Russia and China have both ramped up their respective underwater capabilities in recent years.

But he suggests there is nervousness in the navy as new subs will cost a great deal at a time when the government will be looking to set aside billions to upgrade North America’s defensive network and other procurement projects are running over budget.

“I’d be nervous,” he said. “We’re talking about making a pretty significant financial investment. And across defence, there’s a whole bunch of budget pressures that have emerged on all kinds of projects.”
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
665
Points
1,010
I noticed that there were suddenly a number of RCN Submarine Videos on the YouTubes the last few weeks:
Victoria Class Video
HMCS Corner Brook undocking

And suddenly the project office is now stood up to look at options and begin the long political fight for submarines.
It's like there was a plan or something.

To help the RCN go and like the videos, subscribe to the channel. Watch to the end, even on double speed. It activates the youtube algorithm so that it will come up as one of the first things searched for when looking for submarine information by the public and press.

Anything to help dispel myths and help the public be informed.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
608
Points
940
As long as they don't suggest building domestically we should be okay on price and timeline. Let either the Americans or the French for example build them. They have the yards, and experience, we don't.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
78
Points
280
As long as they don't suggest building domestically we should be okay on price and timeline. Let either the Americans or the French for example build them. They have the yards, and experience, we don't.
I do not think the Americans will be building nuclear-powered attack submarines for Canada. And the last diesel-electric submarines built in America—the Barbel class—was built in the late 1950s.
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
39
Points
330
Glad the process has finally started. This is really gonna be an uphill battle since multiple parties have kicked all the 'defence' cans down to where we are now.

Norway and Germany recently ordered 6 Type-212CDs for $8B CAD. Accounting methods and requirements aside, that's reasonable.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,104
Points
940
I noticed that there were suddenly a number of RCN Submarine Videos on the YouTubes the last few weeks:
Victoria Class Video
HMCS Corner Brook undocking

And suddenly the project office is now stood up to look at options and begin the long political fight for submarines.
It's like there was a plan or something.

To help the RCN go and like the videos, subscribe to the channel. Watch to the end, even on double speed. It activates the youtube algorithm so that it will come up as one of the first things searched for when looking for submarine information by the public and press.

Anything to help dispel myths and help the public be informed.
I thought it was because they had issues with submariner retention. But this makes sense too.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
665
Points
1,010
As long as they don't suggest building domestically we should be okay on price and timeline. Let either the Americans or the French for example build them. They have the yards, and experience, we don't.
Wait for it... if that's the cost of the government signing off the RCN will take it in a hot minute.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,104
Points
940
As long as they take the lessons learned (learning?) from the Australian debacle to heart...

A new fleet of submarines may address many of those problems, but Australia’s recent experience suggests building a new fleet won’t be smooth sailing — or cheap.

The Australian government, which has been working for more than a decade to buy 12 French-designed submarines, revealed last year that the diesel-electric vessels will cost more than $80 billion — or more than $6 billion each.

The new cost was nearly double Canberra’s original estimate, and more than the $60 billion Canada plans to pay for a whole new fleet of 15 state-of-the-art frigates to replace its fleet of Halifax-class warships over the next two decades.

Australian officials are now struggling with what to do with the project in the face of severe public and expert criticism.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
584
Points
890
The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year.


Just curious about this statement in the article. Does that sound reasonable to any of you Navy folks? It just seems high, at my initial glance.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,104
Points
940
The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year.


Just curious about this statement in the article. Does that sound reasonable to any of you Navy folks? It just seems high, at my initial glance.
I'm not a submariner but subs are not cheap to maintain. Lots of things that could go wrong on a sub above and beyond the issues of a surface ship.

e.g. salt water corrosion all over the vessel, anechoic tile and pressure hull maintenance/repair/replacement, etc.

 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,407
Points
940
The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year.


Just curious about this statement in the article. Does that sound reasonable to any of you Navy folks? It just seems high, at my initial glance.
The cost of not keeping up on the maintenance is much higher as Argentina and Indonesia found out.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
584
Points
890
The cost of not keeping up on the maintenance is much higher as Argentina and Indonesia found out.
Completely agreed. I was more-so curious about the $300M cost, as that breaks down to $75M per boat annually.

Is that including salaries, fuel, etc? Or is that daily/monthly maintenance, or taking the submarine out of the water entirely for more detailed maintenance? (The weapons are bought, and ship's systems are already bought/installed.) I have no doubt that the number posted in the article is wrong, it just 'seems' on the high side?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
665
Points
1,010
Glad the process has finally started. This is really gonna be an uphill battle since multiple parties have kicked all the 'defence' cans down to where we are now.

Norway and Germany recently ordered 6 Type-212CDs for $8B CAD. Accounting methods and requirements aside, that's reasonable.
For a very small coastal / Baltic submarine. I think we should be looking at the Dutch sub-competition as a basis for what is reasonable in the Canadian operational context. All the top diesel subs are in competition there.

The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year.


Just curious about this statement in the article. Does that sound reasonable to any of you Navy folks? It just seems high, at my initial glance.
Yes, it's a reasonable estimate.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,040
Points
1,160
The Defence Department has also pegged the cost of maintaining and operating the Victoria-class submarines at around $300 million per year.


Just curious about this statement in the article. Does that sound reasonable to any of you Navy folks? It just seems high, at my initial glance.
Having seen #’s for CF-188 O&M and ISS, it sounds entirely plausible…
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
665
Points
1,010
I think subs are relatively cheap to operate for their effect vs the surface fleet. A single sub and an MPA can do the same RMP that three frigates with embarked aircraft (give or take) can do.

A surface ship with all its sensors and effectors plus the embarked helo can really get up there in cost.
 
Top