• 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

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
656
Points
1,010
Just looking at a map and getting reaquainted with the North. It would seem to me, and I'm certainly not an expert, that it looks about the same distance from Esquimalt to Nanisivik as it does from Halifax to there. So, if I understand what you're saying Colin, a CCG ship leaves BC, refuels in Dutch Harbor (I'm guessing) then patrols it's Western Arctic area of interest. I'm just wondering, if the AOPS were all based from Halifax, if it wouldn't be much the same to have 3 leave Halifax, head up to Nanisivik, top off and have one continue on through to the western Arctic, have one stay centralized and one trend eastwards? As someone who is more familiar with the area and operation of vessels therein, I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
It's actually about a third again further to Nanisivik from Esquimalt than it is from Halifax. That detour around Alaska adds quite a bit of distance.

AOPS are Artic AND Offshore Patrol Vessels. The Arctic isn't their only job. As such the West Coast still needs them to do the Patrol part of their job.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,385
Points
940
Just looking at a map and getting reaquainted with the North. It would seem to me, and I'm certainly not an expert, that it looks about the same distance from Esquimalt to Nanisivik as it does from Halifax to there. So, if I understand what you're saying Colin, a CCG ship leaves BC, refuels in Dutch Harbor (I'm guessing) then patrols it's Western Arctic area of interest. I'm just wondering, if the AOPS were all based from Halifax, if it wouldn't be much the same to have 3 leave Halifax, head up to Nanisivik, top off and have one continue on through to the western Arctic, have one stay centralized and one trend eastwards? As someone who is more familiar with the area and operation of vessels therein, I'm interested to hear your thoughts.
Just spoke to a retired senior Captain I sailed with , this was his reply

We fill the Laurier to the brim on departure , even fill The flume tanks as don’t need them In summer. Mid summer in Arctic we always get some fuel to top up. It is sometimes NTCL barge or recent years a charter little tanker for all the ice breakers . The new navy fuel depot in east Arctic will change all. We often top up outbound in Dutch . Mostly for seakeeping for winter crossing
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
34
Points
280
It's actually about a third again further to Nanisivik from Esquimalt than it is from Halifax. That detour around Alaska adds quite a bit of distance.

AOPS are Artic AND Offshore Patrol Vessels. The Arctic isn't their only job. As such the West Coast still needs them to do the Patrol part of their job.
Oh no, I'm not suggesting that be done UNLESS we get a class of 6-7 OPV. I was suggesting to have the AOPS ported east coast for ease of access to arctic, if and when a replacement is built for the MCDV. I completely understand their current CONOPS have them envisioned to do far more than Arctic only work.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
656
Points
1,010
Oh no, I'm not suggesting that be done UNLESS we get a class of 6-7 OPV. I was suggesting to have the AOPS ported east coast for ease of access to arctic, if and when a replacement is built for the MCDV. I completely understand their current CONOPS have them envisioned to do far more than Arctic only work.
Ah roger. Hoisted in.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
124
Points
680
From my own experience in the Arctic its a long slog to get ships to the Western Arctic, the couple of times the WC did it with MCDV's they fueled in Dutch Harbor, by barge and at least once by CCG.

From the EC we sometimes topped in St.John's but more often enough we transited the West Coast of NL to cut down on transit distance and we stopped once in Cartwright and had a tanker truck come overland from Goose Bay to top us up. Once up there it was either Nuuk (preferred), Thule (did that once), and by CCG. I know of at least once frigate that went to Churchill and they had issues getting fuel by rail.

The CCG often in the past refueled us and I know they get tanked up by a small shuttle tanker from St.John't from the Woodward group. The thing about about the CCG is that they often move around and they are there for commercial traffic and it probably is a hassle for them. A number of years ago we needed fuel badly and was promised 100 cums from Pierre Radisson. They couldn't support us when we needed fuel because of commercial commitments but all of a sudden we were told to RV with them at Arctic Bay. We dropped everything, steamed all night burning considerable amount of fuel and was told to be ready to fuel at 6am. Had everything ready , got along side was ready to fuel and was told we would fuel "After the Breakfast", so we waited and when we were about to pump stated we were only getting 50 cums. Needless to say people were pissed. So we headed back and I got into St.John's with 12% percent fuel, the lowest I ever been.

With the amount of fuel capacity Nanisivik has (7.5M liters) supporting CPF's AOPS and MCDV's you are looking at top ups via shuttle tanker from St.John's let alone supporting the CCG. Honestly I hope they still go to Nuuk occasionally as you can ashore there and get fresh food without difficulty.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
77
Points
280
Long wait for Canada’s new, useful subs, expert says

“It would be a question of how long it takes a government to make a decision,” David Perry said. “You’re probably looking about 20 years before you’d have the first submarine that actually hit the water someplace.”

Submarines help a navy’s offense and defense, but Canada must be careful how it renews its fleet, says one military expert.

The Canadian Armed Forces recently announced it’s actively considering how to replace its current submarine fleet. David Perry, VP and senior analyst for the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, told the Western Standard the 1998 purchase of four repair-prone subs from the UK provided valuable lessons.

“Ultimately, you get what you paid for, because we bought those at a bargain-basement price, secondhand,” Perry said of the four subs bought for $750 million.

“We got submarines that had never been fully operated, were effectively mothballed, there were only four of a particular class in the world. And we didn’t have good access to all the documentation, etc. So, with submarines and military equipment, as in many other things, you got to pay attention to what you’re paying for. And things that can be cheap upfront may be a lot less over several years of actually owning the things.”

Perry said Canada should draw on outside expertise to make the right purchase, buy abroad to draw on their experience, and not tinker with the design after it’s been agreed upon. That done, Perry lists many attributes submarines provide a navy.

“There’s a totally defensive aspect to them. If you put one in your own coastline then you can help keep people away,” Perry said.

“It’s also a platform that can collect a lot of intelligence and surveillance. If you send it off the coast of somewhere else that has got sensors that it can pick up information on ships or other submarines, or other military activities, depending on what kind of capability you put on it.”

A sub is also useful on offense.

“It’s stealthy. it’s harder to find. And then if you deploy one in conjunction with a warship, that means that an opposing force has to be worried about not just things that are floating on the water, but things underneath it. So it’s can pack a lot of offensive punch depending on how you fit it out,” Perry said.

“If Canada operates submarines… in waters with them, [the U.S. and U.K.] will share a lot of information with related submarine activity that we wouldn’t necessarily have access to otherwise…and having your own submarine really kind of gives you another qualitative increase in your ability to conduct anti-submarine warfare.”

For months, the Canadian military has tried to move past a sexual misconduct scandal that included obstruction of justice charges against Chief of Defense General Jonathan Vance. Perry is not sure the fleet renewal will help the military change the dominant story.

“I don’t know that this is necessarily it because there’s a long way between beginning to start looking at something and actually getting there (but) it would be a good thing to have more of a conversation about what actually we want the military to do, what kinds of things we’re going to ask it to do in the future, what kind of missions, what kind of operations, and less time talking just about the problems that it’s had,” he said.

Anyone expecting Canada to get new subs this decade will be disappointed, and the 2030’s don’t look good either. Perry said the wait will be long due to some necessary timelines.

“One would be how long it takes the navy to work on this to the point where it can brief the government and get basically a go-ahead about whether or not the government would provide funding to a project like this. And I would imagine that will take…two to four years,” Perry said.

“Then, of course, it would be a question of how long it takes a government to make a decision. You’re probably looking about 20 years before you’d have the first submarine that actually hit the water someplace.”
 

FormerHorseGuard

Sr. Member
Reaction score
31
Points
280
20 years, I bet it will be sooner, some other country will be replacing their subs and have some cast off equipment, one of a kind, and we will jump all over them like a it is a new puppy coming home for the first time, then realize they were 20 year old rotting hound dogs with no teeth, just to rebuild and decide we need to start looking for new ones. UK needed training area, we got subs, Aussies needed room for aircraft, we got used hornets. Aussies getting new subs, waving the used SUB Signs at Canada, they would match your new hornets, come buy us
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
97
Points
280
We've often questioned how much our subs cost and I've never been able to find the article I read some years ago that detailed it. But this article from ASPI discusses how much the current Collins Class submarines are costing and the transition to the new Attack class.


"With around $670 million for sustainment, $225 million for workforce and $300 million for upgrade projects, the Collins class’s direct costs are in the order of $1.2 billion per year."
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,385
Points
940
Great find, i wonder how our numbers compare on fuel and personal?

However, that number doesn’t include some key elements. One is fuel. A full tank of diesel will cost several hundred thousand dollars. Another cost that isn’t included is even bigger, namely the uniformed personnel operating and maintaining the submarines. While each submarine has a crew of around 55, a much larger number than six lots of 55 is needed to have a robust, sustainable workforce. The navy has done well in increasing the number of its submariners over recent years and Defence informed the Senate earlier this year that that total had reached 881, although there were still some shortfalls. ASPI analysis (page 70) concluded that the average cost of each permanent ADF member was $160,000 a year five years ago, but submariners receive special allowances and retention bonuses so we could be looking at $250,000. Overall, the cost of the uniformed submarine workforce is probably more than $225 million.
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
8
Points
180
Posted this long ago in the "Dutch ships and the possibillities for Canada"section;

Here's another one(complete)

Walrus-class subs:precurement (in 1994' money)2 billion for 4,makes 500 million a pop.Latest updates 100 million.(optics,sonar,masts,electronics)

Post Kosten per jaar (in miljoenen euro's)(costs per annum in million euros)
Personele kosten * 19,65 (personal,375 pplxwages of about 50K euros+alowances)
Jaarlijks onderhoud 10 (yearly maintenance)
Op zee en buitenland ** 0,6 (fuell,logistical)at sea and abroad
Instandhoudingsprogramma *** 2,9 (maintenaceprogrammes) for life of 35 yrs(divided)
Afschrijvingen **** 25 (depreciation) excl rest worth
Totaal 58,15 miljoen euro
* 375 pers. x middelloon van 50.000 euro plus vaartoelagen
** brandstof, logistiek, etc.
*** bij gemiddelde levensduur ozbt van 35 jaar
**** excl. restwaarde

this number is about 0.83% of total defencebudget(about 7 billion,now less because it's about 8 Billion by now)
every sub has about 50 ppl on board.

gr,walter
 

Maxman1

Member
Reaction score
82
Points
430
"Can we get nuclear subs, but can they be non-nuclear" is an idea so stupid I'm surprised it didn't come from Canada.

The Germans designed the Type 216, a 4,000 tonne double-hulled sub when Australia was looking for a diesel-electric sub, with air-independent propulsion, six 21 inch torpedo tubes, up to three vertical multi-purpose locks which can be equipped with up to seven missile modules with 24 cruise missiles each, and even a deck gun. Maybe we should jump on that.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,385
Points
940
"Can we get nuclear subs, but can they be non-nuclear" is an idea so stupid I'm surprised it didn't come from Canada.

The Germans designed the Type 216, a 4,000 tonne double-hulled sub when Australia was looking for a diesel-electric sub, with air-independent propulsion, six 21 inch torpedo tubes, up to three vertical multi-purpose locks which can be equipped with up to seven missile modules with 24 cruise missiles each, and even a deck gun. Maybe we should jump on that.
Just as the French design was a heavy modification of their existing design, so was the Type 216 a heavy modification of a existing design.
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
18
Points
180
Can say I was not expecting Australia to go nuclear, can we get on board too?
If we take a read to ASPI...

" The officials said such a technology transfer was unlikely to happen again. ‘This technology is extremely sensitive. This is, frankly, an exception to our policy in many respects. I do not anticipate that this will be undertaken in other circumstances going forward. We view this as a one-off.’ "


And while they speak in the news about building eight submarines in Australia, the RAN might be still considering twelve. Might this imply direct sales of the other four either from US or UK? This may well be under consideration in the 18-month period set to arrive to conclusions.

“Instead we should buy 12 of a proven design which is already in the water. We want long-range hunter-killer vessels. We also want them to be able to stay submerged for long periods to avoid detection. Nuclear does this in spades.”

 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
77
Points
280
The Germans designed the Type 216, a 4,000 tonne double-hulled sub when Australia was looking for a diesel-electric sub, with air-independent propulsion, six 21 inch torpedo tubes, up to three vertical multi-purpose locks which can be equipped with up to seven missile modules with 24 cruise missiles each, and even a deck gun. Maybe we should jump on that.
The problem with the Type 216 is that no country has ordered it. That means Canada would probably be the only country operating it. So it might be less risky to operate submarines already used or building for other NATO countries like the Type 212CD.
 
Top