Status on Victoria-class Submarines?

[Eye In The Sky]

As a mere tactical level/line sqn operator, that stuff is all well above my pay grade and focus level.  8)

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

One reason for our 'under appreciation' of submarine warfare might be our focus on developing capabilities that are at odds with the more usual forms of general war, where subs are essential, e.g.,:

"No longer will the Canadian Forces be fixed on preparing for conventional, nation-state versus nation-state conflict. Now and for the
foreseeable future, the fight against the bear will be the exception. Instead, we will shift focus to dealing with failed and failing states and their inherent complexities. The fight against the ‘ball of snakes’ will be the norm."

- Brigadier-General Wayne Eyre

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/301/286/hill.pdf

A heavily armed stabilization force doesn't need more submarines, it needs more nation state 'stabilizers'....

I think it has more to do with our political masters and Canadian Society being fundamentally at odds with our military doctrine and the way we fight.

Specifically, Offensive Action.

It's why not only do we have trouble justifying Submarines, we also don't seem to want Armed UAVs, Attack Helicopters, Tanks, Offensive Cyber Capabilities, Fighter-Bombers, Naval Land Strike, Mine Warfare, putting missiles and bombs on CP140s, etc. 

I think submarines can be a profoundly useful tool against non-state actors.  They can find and locate insurgent activity without being detected and are a powerful and robust ISR platform. They can also, if properly equipped, provide a strike function.  The British, Americans and Russians have all demonstrated this capability in contemporary conflict.  The Russians having most recently used SLCMs on targets in Syria, launched from the Mediterranean.   

The Israelis also use submarines against Non-state actors and rumour has it some of the supposed Israeli "air strikes" in Syria and elsewhere were actually carried out by the Israeli Submarine Service.

You could in theory in the future have a small Canadian Naval Task Group in the Mediterranean with 2xType 26, A Resupply Ship and a Submarine.  Equipped with UUVs, UAVs, SLCMs, etc.  This could provide a very robust and powerful strike force.  Paired with a SOTF and an ATF based around a Six Pack of F35, Armed UAVs, CP140s (armed of course).  You've now got a potent force for conducting kinetic operations. 

 

[Swampbuggy]

Not an expert on naval warfare;  wouldn't an oiler be an 'easy target' and one adversaries would want to sink some ordinance into, especially if they knew you only had a handful'ish?

Sure, but don't you need them? Also, it's a way for "Canada to be back" by sending them off to allied exercises, NATO patrols etc without tying up a frigate. In other words, buys goodwill?

I get that we're part of an Alliance, etc but...

 

[JMCanada]

... I doubt the RCN will ever see a 12 sub fleet and 4 is too small. I imagine 7-8 subs will be the max. That's not a bad number ...

I partially agree. However i would rather prefer the 8-to-10 window.
Ideally with 10 units there may be 3 subs per ocean plus one under long, planned,  overhaul. Yet I would suggest to have  those 10 split as 6+4, with the last four as an Arctic oriented sub-class in terms of longer submerged endurance/range at the cost, for instance, of relinquished land-attack or SOF deployment capabilities.

That being said, as RAN is in the way of doubling the number of subs, from 6 to 12, shouldn't we expect the RCN to at least double from 4 to 8? That is my minimum minimorum (minimum out of the minimals).

 

[Sub_Guy]

That being said, as RAN is in the way of doubling the number of subs, from 6 to 12, shouldn't we expect the RCN to at least double from 4 to 8? That is my minimum minimorum (minimum out of the minimals).

Come on now, that’s not how we work.  With each big purchase we cut back. 

 

[Czech_pivo]

Come on now, that’s not how we work.  With each big purchase we cut back.

So that means that we scrap the entire Kingston class and replace the 12 with the 6 AOPS, correct?

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Come on now, that’s not how we work.  With each big purchase we cut back.

Didn't we pay extra money to have the weapons pylons taken off our CP140s?  That's Canadian Logic right there, pay more for less capability!

I can picture discussions in Ottawa concerning the Saudi LAV deal being similar:

"OMG, we didn't realize the Saudis were going to use those Armoured Vehicle thingys for their intended purpose!?"

 

[Sub_Guy]

I did hear we paid to have the laser designator removed from the camera on the Aurora.

I don’t know if it is true or not, but life would have been much easier with it.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The new buzzterm seems to be 'fitted for, but not with'.

Canada has the 140 pylons and at least 1 aircraft had them installed in recent years (never carried stores on them though, AFAIK).  Re: the MX-20 and removing the LD...yup.  We are good at watering down our already small capabilities.  :not-again: 

Kind of embarrassing to be ONSTA/ONTGT and have a strike asset ask you for your code...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The new buzzterm seems to be 'fitted for, but not with'.

Canada has the 140 pylons and at least 1 aircraft had them installed in recent years (never carried stores on them though, AFAIK).  Re: the MX-20 and removing the LD...yup.  We are good at watering down our already small capabilities.  :not-again: 

Kind of embarrassing to be ONSTA/ONTGT and have a strike asset ask you for your code...

This is my point, what sort of logic is this?  There is none, it's illogical to own a strike platform and then take away its ability to strike.

 

[dimsum]

The new buzzterm seems to be 'fitted for, but not with'.

That's not a new buzzterm.  I vaguely remember the MCDVs "fitted for, but not with", a bow thruster.  They were already pretty manoeuvrable, if slow, but a bow thruster could have let them slide sideways (or so I was told) while departing or coming alongside.

 

[Stoker]

That's not a new buzzterm.  I vaguely remember the MCDVs "fitted for, but not with", a bow thruster.  They were already pretty manoeuvrable, if slow, but a bow thruster could have let them slide sideways (or so I was told) while departing or coming alongside.

Thats an accurate statement.

 

[daftandbarmy]

This is my point, what sort of logic is this?  There is none, it's illogical to own a strike platform and then take away its ability to strike.

Well, as you know, in the Infantry we have a bayonet but it's really weak and breaks all the time. This makes it useless for it's intended purpose i.e., stabbing people to death in an adrenaline fuelled frenzy.

Maybe they are just being more realistic and decided it was 'all or nothing'.... 

 

[MilEME09]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632

All four of Canada's submarines were tied up last year for repairs and maintenance — news that has the opposition Conservatives questioning whether the Liberal government can keep the second-hand fleet afloat for another two decades.

Gee its almost as if we need more,and new subs

 

[Navy_Pete]

That's not a new buzzterm.  I vaguely remember the MCDVs "fitted for, but not with", a bow thruster.  They were already pretty manoeuvrable, if slow, but a bow thruster could have let them slide sideways (or so I was told) while departing or coming alongside.

As a trainee, spent about a week hanging around MOG5, so went down to poke around an uncrewed MCDV (think it was parked before going to a docking). Was on my own, and when I got to the bow thruster compartment spent about 30 minutes looking for the bow thruster in a mostly empty compartment about 20' long.  Eventually gave up and asked someone because I felt like a failure for not being able to recognize it, but was a good way to sear 'fitted for not with' into my mind forever. Think there was space for it, but no mounts or hull penetrations. The azipods make it pretty maneuverable, but with a bow thruster they could just slide sideways, so pretty handy if you need to stay in a specific spot while maintaining your heading.  Also great for parking.

We have all kinds of systems that are 'mission fits' that there is just enough for one or two deploying ships, which is pretty dumb if we ever go to war, as they are generally pretty important in a warzone.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632

Gee its almost as if we need more,and new subs

In response to a written question before Parliament, the Department of National Defence said the boats "spent zero days at sea" in 2019, but three of the four would return to service at some point this year.

:Tin-Foil-Hat: Not much of a deterrent...

-
...a written statement recently put before the House of Commons indicates the navy wants to keep the boats "operationally effective until the mid-2030s."...

Maybe "operationally effective in 2020" is a more realistic goal to aim for at this point??

 

[Jarnhamar]

At least if our submarines aren't sailing then they're not catching fire right?

 

[daftandbarmy]

At least if our submarines aren't sailing then they're not catching fire right?

"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for." John A. Shedd

 

[Colin Parkinson]

To be fair the year before they really pushed these boats.

 

[Czech_pivo]

:dontfeedmods:

To be fair the year before they really pushed these boats.

We pushed two of the four, as only two were in the water in 2018. The other two weren’t in the water at all in 2018 or 2019.