• 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
1,077
Points
940
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.
Yes, but the T 216 is "just" making it bigger, etc. The Shortfin was changing the entire power/propulsion system.
 

calculus

New Member
Reaction score
9
Points
180
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.
I wonder about endurance. I believe I have seen written that the RCN is looking for a design with better endurance than the Victorias, which are said to be able to patrol for about 45 days before resupply. The Type 212CD is only marginally larger, so I wonder if it would meet that criteria? I have not been able to find any information related to endurance for this design. I think I've seen written somewhere that the RCN would like a sub replacement to have somewhere around 70 days of endurance, which suggests a substantially larger boat.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
96
Points
280
The wrong government in power to be included in the defence arrangement of AUKUS unfortunately. I think the political environment in Canada precludes the technology transfer more than anything else whereas in Australia there is broad support for a capable military. So at present the Australians going for a nuclear submarine leaves one option of the table leaving the Dutch replacement sub and the above mentioned 212/218/216 as the two best fits
 

Maxman1

Member
Reaction score
82
Points
430
I wonder about endurance. I believe I have seen written that the RCN is looking for a design with better endurance than the Victorias, which are said to be able to patrol for about 45 days before resupply. The Type 212CD is only marginally larger, so I wonder if it would meet that criteria? I have not been able to find any information related to endurance for this design. I think I've seen written somewhere that the RCN would like a sub replacement to have somewhere around 70 days of endurance, which suggests a substantially larger boat.

And the 216 has a projected endurance of 120 days.
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
41
Points
530
I wonder about endurance. I believe I have seen written that the RCN is looking for a design with better endurance than the Victorias, which are said to be able to patrol for about 45 days before resupply. The Type 212CD is only marginally larger, so I wonder if it would meet that criteria? I have not been able to find any information related to endurance for this design. I think I've seen written somewhere that the RCN would like a sub replacement to have somewhere around 70 days of endurance, which suggests a substantially larger boat.
According to this webpage the Type 212CD will have an endurance of 6 - 8 weeks (42 - 56 days) - see para iii.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
559
Points
890
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.
You aren’t wrong. But that may be the very reason we do end up getting it…we have a history of that kind of thing 😉
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
503
Points
1,040
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.

lol, I don't think we operate with what anyone would consider a 'sustainable and robust' workforce for crewing. Usually one boat or more is in an extended work period, and they are offset by design, so you don't normally need a full crew there. Suspect they are like us and would be in trouble if they wanted to actually sail all their operational boats at the same time.

Similarly, we don't have 12 CPF crews sitting around, so lots of pier head jumping to meet the basis for 'safe at sea' crew levels, let alone sustained operations, which needs a lot more people (and a higher level of functioning equipment) to actually be combat capable. Lot of people are quitting for various reasons (including burnout and disatisfaction with some trade amalgamations and pier head jumping) which just compounds things. Our current ops tempo in the RCN continues to be unsustainable and the institution is going to break itself. We didn't even slow down wit COVID, and keep sending ships to sea far below the threshold where they would be allowed out as commercial vessels, (without actually understanding the risk we're taking on) all for peacetime operations.

I think we'll have to start tying up old ships to actually send any of the incoming AOPs to sea (as well as to afford the maintenance), but the RCN still wants to operate the MCDVs (and the Oriole!) so things are all spread dangerously thin.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
236
Points
680
You had to drag the Oriole into this? When I was still in, the crew of the Oriole amounted to five persons (Skipper, navigator, coxn, engineer and cook). Everybody else was a combination of NCDT's either between course or going on "adventure" training onboard her or from PAT platoon. I don't think that's exactly the straw that broke the camel's back.

I do agree, however, that the Navy is burning up people and should tie some ships alongside to properly man what it can at a reasonable sea/shore ratio. ... But does anybody remember what happened the last time the RCN tried to tie up half the MCDV fleet to the wall?
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
503
Points
1,040
The Oriole doesn't take much crew, but still eats up resources on the support side. When safety related installs are going slowly because of funding shortfalls and we're limited on what parts we can buy, then yes, I seriously question why we are spending money on the Oriole. It's neat, but basically a vanity project.

Some of the ships should be tied up for strictly safety reasons until we get basic systems fixed, which would help the crewing shortage. The MCDVs provide a pretty big bang for the buck though, so I'd actually suggest keeping them going while we fix some of the basic mechanical issues on a number of CPFs with a few of those in deep alongside maintenance periods. They are beat to crap going into the DWPs, and with the basic safety related PM completion rates in the 30-50% range, have a lot of systems that need massive amounts of repairs, even after the million+ hour DWPs.

Won't go into details on a public forum, but if we weren't exempt from the Canadian Shipping Act and had to pass some kind of commercial inspections before sailing, most of the CPFs would be alongside until things are fixed. That standard falls well below what you need for a warship to recover from battle damage, and we're not meeting it in a lot of cases.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,411
Points
1,060
Won't go into details on a public forum, but if we weren't exempt from the Canadian Shipping Act and had to pass some kind of commercial inspections before sailing, most of the CPFs would be alongside until things are fixed. That standard falls well below what you need for a warship to recover from battle damage, and we're not meeting it in a lot of cases.

Really?

scared eric cartman GIF by South Park
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
111
Points
430
I just hope that we are smart enough to buy 6 subs of a class that someone else has already bought and minimise the Candianizing of them.
Question, why only 6? Why not 9? Allowing us to have 2 operating on the West coast at all times and 1 on the East with the other 6 in various of maintenance and gearing up for operations.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
547
Points
910
I just hope that we are smart enough to buy 6 subs of a class that someone else has already bought and minimise the Candianizing of them.
Question, why only 6? Why not 9? Allowing us to have 2 operating on the West coast at all times and 1 on the East with the other 6 in various of maintenance and gearing up for operations.
What is an acceptable ratio of deployment to pier side time?

I would think the RCN would be better suited with Nuke boats (and Nuke Ice Breaker etc) - and the recent AUSUKUS agreement would be a solid option for 6.
New boats should allow for a 1:1 ratio at least - and surge more if needed in extremis.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
503
Points
1,040
What is an acceptable ratio of deployment to pier side time?

I would think the RCN would be better suited with Nuke boats (and Nuke Ice Breaker etc) - and the recent AUSUKUS agreement would be a solid option for 6.
New boats should allow for a 1:1 ratio at least - and surge more if needed in extremis.
Nuke propulsion would require a massive infrastructure upgrade (possibly new naval bases) and a 10 year+ lead time to train people up. Not saying it's not feasible just would be really expensive to set up and maintain.

The US explicitly blocked us from getting nuke boats last time, so that train may have sailed during the Cold War(to mix metaphors).
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
547
Points
910
Nuke propulsion would require a massive infrastructure upgrade (possibly new naval bases) and a 10 year+ lead time to train people up. Not saying it's not feasible just would be really expensive to set up and maintain.

The US explicitly blocked us from getting nuke boats last time, so that train may have sailed during the Cold War(to mix metaphors).
I suspect if the Cons win today - the US would be happy if the RCN wanted to join the party.

While it may take time, and money - no time like the present to start -- the RCN not having a nuke boat kind of abrogates the Arctic to the USN or less friendly folks...
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
1,999
Points
1,160
I suspect the US declination was solidly politics-based, not technology.

A D2O-moderated CANDUMAR reactor wouldn’t be out of the realm of the possible either. Well-regarded safety compared to graphite-moderated boiling-light water reactors.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,372
Points
940
I picked 6 non-nuke as its realistic given our budgets, manning and training. It means each coast has one in refit, one operational and one in training at any one time.

Couple of interesting bits


212CD sis about the same size as the Victoria Class
 

Czech_pivo

Full Member
Reaction score
111
Points
430
Nuke propulsion would require a massive infrastructure upgrade (possibly new naval bases) and a 10 year+ lead time to train people up. Not saying it's not feasible just would be really expensive to set up and maintain.

The US explicitly blocked us from getting nuke boats last time, so that train may have sailed during the Cold War(to mix metaphors).
I thought, from reading here somewhere previously, that the Cons back in the early '90s had been able to convince the US to allow the transfer of IP over to us in regards to the Canada class. The recession and the loss of the '93 Federal election were the 1-2 punch in stopping it from moving forward. Add to the mix the 500$ million penalty we had to pay (thanks Chretien for that) for breaking the EH101-RCN helicopters to rub some more salt into the wound.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
96
Points
280
I picked 6 non-nuke as its realistic given our budgets, manning and training. It means each coast has one in refit, one operational and one in training at any one time.

Couple of interesting bits


212CD sis about the same size as the Victoria Class
I tend to agree lets keep our dreams as small as possible less chance of them being crushed. And like I pointed out in the aussie sub thread if we want a nuclear boat we can get one used from the UK like last time


I'm all in favour of us having nuclear subs I just don't see it being realistic. Opportunity to join with Australia on this would be impressive and I don't see the US opposing it this time around unless they view us as that leaky from an intelligence standpoint. Why the French-Australian collaboration didn't work is hard to say from the outside. Maybe it's a cultural thing or the Australians were asking too much, but it looks like they managed to make it work on a lot of other deliveries including one nuclear project in Brazil

 
Top