OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 15,552
- Points
- 1,260
But can the submariners wear fleece toques when they are submerged and then change to Navy hats when they surface???
Priorities.....
Priorities.....
Replacing the Subs
- Thread starter Spencer100
- Start date
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,150
- Points
- 1,160
Again, I'm not in any way discounting the value of submarines. However, the quantity (or lack thereof) for Canada is the issue. Also, our physical distance from China/Russia seriously limit the offensive capability of conventional subs. Australia is a hell of a lot closer to the likely AO than we are and they are moving to nuclear subs because their conventional subs don't have the legs for offensive power projection.
If you can convince me that Canada will invest in a dozen nuclear subs then I'm all onboard. Not going to happen though. If however we're only going to get 4-6 conventional subs that have limited long distance offensive capability then I think serious consideration needs to be given to whether the investment is worth the potential opportunity cost. Twelve AIP subs? An easier sell for me but I think that's wishful thinking as well.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
In reality we need just as many it takes to defend against Help. 4 is fine. Show we have subs. That's about it. It's really not about a credible defence of Canada by the CAF. Just enough or more like just trying to look like close enough.
As many are saying we are not a serious country anymore.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
Halifax to Alert - `5500 km?
Halifax to Inuvik - `6500 km?
Esquimalt to Inuvik - `6500 km?
Esquimalt to Attu - `4500 km?
Attu to Jeju-Do - `4500 km?
Darwin to Taiwan - `4500 km?
Let the Aussies join the Brits and the Yanks on the mid ocean stuff.
Our needs are literally littoral - coastal subs that can sit quietly for weeks.
And Korea is converting to Hydrogen by generating Hydrogen at the point of use and converting it to electricity by PEM. Hydrogen is transported as diesel or methanol.
South Korea develops submarine hydrogen fuel cell using methanol reforming - Green Hydrogen News
High-purity hydrogen could be used to improve submarine performance with this technology.
energynews.biz
Blue hydrogen production gains traction, IDTechEx says - Green Hydrogen News
With the introduction of large-scale initiatives, money, and official support globally, blue hydrogen production is gaining traction.
energynews.biz
Diesel - 39 MJ/L
Gasoline - 34 MJ/L
Methanol - 16 MJ/L
Methane - 0.04 MJ/L
Natural Gas - 0.04 MJ/L
Hydrogen Gas - 0.01 MJ/L
Compressing and Liquifying gases increases density right enough - but at significant engineering and infrastructure costs.
If the "Bosses" seriously want to go the Hydrogen route then Blue Hydrogen, Natural Gas, Methanol and Fuel Cells are lead contenders
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,150
- Points
- 1,160
If you're looking for coverage of our littorals then there is a Canadian product that can do that: Cellula Robotics Solus-XL. The Aussies are already funding a version "Seawolf" for the RAN.
5,000km range. Autonomous operation. Can deploy a towed-array sonar and multiple listening stations. Can also potentially be armed. 10 tonnes. Could potentially be crane launched by AOPS?
Also capable of over the horizon communications:
You could have a significant fleet of these screening the coasts for the cost of 4-6 AIP submarines giving you greater coverage. When they (or their deployed listening stations) detect a sub they launch their micro-AUV to report the position and MPAs or the nearest CSC can respond.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
An intelligent Captor Mine?
Deployable off the back of the AOPS?
Can we keep the Orca Subs too? I was a massive Stingray fan.
- Reaction score
- 1,856
- Points
- 1,260
I was referring to the fact that we have 4 subs - the need is for 12 (as documented going back to the '87 White Paper) but its been suggested that if will beg for 12 we might get 6.
4 subs = penknife
6 subs = pocketknife
China has 79 subs and Russia has 64. The US has 68. Us moving from 4 to 6 does nothing at all in terms of helping the US out.
- Reaction score
- 1,856
- Points
- 1,260
Just keep a pair of dairy cows on board for their methane and milk......added bonus is freshly churned butter, cream, cheese and the occasional home-made ice cream.Halifax to Alert - `5500 km?
Halifax to Inuvik - `6500 km?
Esquimalt to Inuvik - `6500 km?
Esquimalt to Attu - `4500 km?
Attu to Jeju-Do - `4500 km?
Darwin to Taiwan - `4500 km?
Let the Aussies join the Brits and the Yanks on the mid ocean stuff.
Our needs are literally littoral - coastal subs that can sit quietly for weeks.
And Korea is converting to Hydrogen by generating Hydrogen at the point of use and converting it to electricity by PEM. Hydrogen is transported as diesel or methanol.
South Korea develops submarine hydrogen fuel cell using methanol reforming - Green Hydrogen News
High-purity hydrogen could be used to improve submarine performance with this technology.energynews.biz
Blue hydrogen production gains traction, IDTechEx says - Green Hydrogen News
With the introduction of large-scale initiatives, money, and official support globally, blue hydrogen production is gaining traction.energynews.biz
Diesel - 39 MJ/L
Gasoline - 34 MJ/L
Methanol - 16 MJ/L
Methane - 0.04 MJ/L
Natural Gas - 0.04 MJ/L
Hydrogen Gas - 0.01 MJ/L
Compressing and Liquifying gases increases density right enough - but at significant engineering and infrastructure costs.
If the "Bosses" seriously want to go the Hydrogen route then Blue Hydrogen, Natural Gas, Methanol and Fuel Cells are lead contenders
- Reaction score
- 22,049
- Points
- 1,360
Like room service, I’m pretty sure the Air Force has exclusive rights to ice cream?
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,553
- Points
- 1,160
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 11,390
- Points
- 1,260
The US Navy had entire ships for producing ice cream.
Ice cream barge - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Those guys island hopping during WW2 deserved every scoop of ice cream they got.
The Brits also had floating brewing facilities for beer.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
The USN is cancelling its large AUV programme (Snakehead) but the Brits have just recently ordered theirs (Manta)
Navy cancels 'Snakehead' large undersea drone competition after decade of development - Breaking Defense
The Navy may be left with a large gap in its family of UUVs at a time the service leaders say they are ready to integrate the technology more deeply into the fleet.
breakingdefense.com
This Is Our First Look At The Navy's Snakehead Unmanned Submarine
Snakehead can be launched from a nuclear submarine and will accommodate many future tasks including intel collection.
www.thedrive.com
XLUUV ordered for UK Royal Navy - Baird Maritime
Building on the experience the service has gained from trials of the Manta experimental uncrewed underwater vehicle (UUV), the UK Royal Navy (RN) recently placed an order ..
www.bairdmaritime.com
On the other hand the US is proceeding with Small UUVs
HII underwater drones buzz Buzzards Bay as firm readies its tech for Navy's unmanned fleet - Breaking Defense
During Breaking Defense's recent visit to a UUV manufacturing plant, HII officials stressed their modular design, in line with the Navy's unmanned vision of plug-and-play technologies.
breakingdefense.com
And Medium UUVs
It seems to track with the UAVs
Global Hawk was backpedalled.
Reapers are being sidelined
Bayraktar is less useful
RAF cancels its "Mosquito" loyal wingman in favour of "other more cost effective solutions" and stands up two Swarm squadrons.
Is there a suggestion, coming out of Ukraine, that miniaturization and numbers are war winners?
Rather than taking expensive manned platforms and trying to squeeze the "men" out of them, creating a small number of exquisitely expensive targets, is it easier to make a large number of cheaper and expendable systems that will support a system effect even when a number of the cheap "nodes" are destroyed?
Is it cheaper / easier to make munitions smarter, smaller and cheaper, while extending their range, than it is to make large, expensive platforms that cost so much they must be defended at even greater cost?
Those UUVs are essentially the size of small missiles (potentially delivered by GL/SL rockets, or aircraft (manned or unmanned)) and the size of large torpedoes (potentially delivered by submarines and ships (including AOPS types and ships of the Light Amphibious Warship and Large Unmanned Surface Vessel type)). The LAW/LUSV is essentially an Offshore Supply Vessel of the Port Moresby/Anticosti types operated by the RCN prior to acquiring the Kingstons.
The Tiny and Nightmarishly Efficient Future of Drone Warfare
Russia’s war on Ukraine has given us just a peek of the world to come.
www.theatlantic.com
US Navy apparently gearing up to use drone swarms in the future
A budget document from the U.S. Navy shows that it plans to study how drone swarms can be used to attack and defend.
interestingengineering.com
The swarm beats both distance and EW by line of sight comms relays (visual and laser).
- Reaction score
- 21,948
- Points
- 1,260
Don't be so certain there.
Global Hawk is going to be/being replaced by an as yet still classified stealthy option, and there may or may not be an armed version of the same.
Reapers went over to CIA to get around the usage in times other than war.
The trick is seeing what you need, and having equipment for those needs.
We are long way from mass usage of mega swarms.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
- Reaction score
- 21,948
- Points
- 1,260
You go to war with the Military you have...
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
GR66
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,150
- Points
- 1,160
To paraphrase Emmanuel Macron - Four makes you a vassal not an ally.
This line of reasoning really cracks me up. The thought that you can defend Canadian sovereignty by doing "just enough" not to have the Americans intervene. Guess what? If (when) push comes to shove and our "just enough" isn't enough in a real crisis then the US WILL intervene and our sovereignty will be lost. Only by being able to REALLY contribute on our own can we protect our sovereignty.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
You know, it can be a disadvantage to be a rich winner. Complacency dulls you.
If you are a motivated poor loser you figure out how what it takes to pierce the enemy's armour.
Straight from the local smithy's bench.
If you are a motivated poor loser you figure out how what it takes to pierce the enemy's armour.
Straight from the local smithy's bench.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
We accepted vassalage long ago - either vassals of the French, the Brits or the Yanks.
1604 the natives accepted the French when Champlain chose sides in favour of the Huron over the Iroquois.
1763 the Brits ruled
1931 Canada became independent
1940 Canada became a vassal of the US (Ogdensburg)
Canadian politicians never aspired to control Canada. Canada fully expected the Brits to defend it and were quite perturbed when Gladstone reduced his own taxes by withdrawing his troops from Canada and forcing Canadians to pay for their own defence needs - however they saw them. And there was no great satisfaction at being lumbered with Rupert's Land at the same time.
Canada has always done as little as possible, scrounging where it could.
Mind you.
That is not a uniquely Canadian trait.
The Yanks quit Britain when they were required to pony up the tax revenues to make good the losses Britain had incurred defending them from the Bourbons of France and Spain and their Indian allies.
Similar threads
