HavokFour
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,691
- Points
- 1,040
Somewhere in the middle, not too fast that we can't keep up with training enough crews and not too slow that retention of said crews becomes a problem.
Replacing the Subs
- Thread starter Spencer100
- Start date
Somewhere in the middle, not too fast that we can't keep up with training enough crews and not too slow that retention of said crews becomes a problem.
- Reaction score
- 87
- Points
- 280
this is what CTV is saying:
- Reaction score
- 18,399
- Points
- 1,160
I think you find people a lot more interested in joining and staying if they get to play with a shiny new state of the art sub with much better berthing and smaller crews than the Vics.
oldcpu
New Member
- Reaction score
- 48
- Points
- 330
With regard to the emphasis on schedule, my understanding from media reporting is that the RCN has advised the Canadian government that both designs are technically acceptable, and that the remaining factors to decide on which submarine to procure are primarily industrial benefits and delivery schedule.
Having said that, I agree completely with you that the RCN faces a significant manpower challenge. Manning and sustaining a future fleet of 12 submarines will be exceptionally difficult unless there are major improvements in recruitment and retention. I see this, in part, as a "crisis of invisibility," and I've written a paper on that topic.
With respect, though, I think an earlier delivery of the first Canadian Patrol Submarine (for example, 2031 instead of 2032) would actually help address the manpower challenge rather than make it worse.
If I may explain...
My assumption is that transitioning from one submarine class (such as the Victoria class) to a completely new class would likely take several years. More specifically, I believe that transitioning from one class of submarine (such as the Victoria class) to another would, unrealistically, take three years, and more likely around five years (with moderate optimism).
If either TKMS or Hanwha Ocean were able to deliver an operational submarine to Canada as early as 2031, it would allow the RCN to begin building expertise in operating, maintaining, and training on that specific class while the remaining boats are still under construction.
To crew that first submarine, the RCN would probably have to "rob Peter to pay Paul" by reallocating experienced personnel from one, or perhaps two, of the least operational Victoria-class boats. That would create the initial nucleus of maintainers, instructors, and operators for the new Canadian Patrol Submarine class.
Using the KSS-III Batch II as an example, while it requires only a crew in the mid-30s, it has an extra dozen or more bunks that could be used for trainees.
Where I think today's manpower shortage will have its greatest impact is not necessarily on boat #1, or perhaps not even on boat #2, but on boats #3 through #12. Those later submarines will require a sustained and very significant effort in recruitment, training, and retention — far greater than I fear is currently in place.
So, getting back to your original point, I believe an earlier delivery of boat #1 is one of the key elements needed to help solve the future manpower challenge. It gives the RCN more time to build the expertise needed for the new class.
The broader challenge, however, remains what you note, and what I have previously described as the "crisis of invisibility." In my opinion, unless that issue is addressed, recruiting and retaining sufficient submariners for boats #3 through #12 will remain the real long-term challenge.
- Reaction score
- 10,190
- Points
- 1,140
TKMS must pay you well, or you have a lot invested in them...
Between now and 2035, the RCN has a lot of time to train new Submariners. Particularly now that some sub specific trades are being developed, so sailora dont need to qualify surface before going subs in some trades.
