Status on Victoria-class Submarines?

[Humphrey Bogart]

:dontfeedmods:
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.

But that's always been the plan.  My understanding is the plan was to have one submarine available in 2019 but then the Navy made a conscientious decision to sail both boats hard in 2018 which resulted in us having none available now.

Corner Brook also caught fire during welding which delayed its return to service further.

Basically, with only four boats, you will always have a boom and bust cycle if you try and sail submarines simultaneously on both coasts for extended periods of time.

 

[Uzlu]

Basically, with only four boats, you will always have a boom and bust cycle if you try and sail submarines simultaneously on both coasts for extended periods of time.

Any navy that wants at least one submarine deployed at all times, requires a minimum of five submarines in the fleet.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Any navy that wants at least one submarine deployed at all times, requires a minimum of five submarines in the fleet.

Kind of sucks that we’re a 3 ocean country.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Kind of sucks that we’re a 3 ocean country not equipped or funded properly and struggle to keep a single sub in the water at all, let alone 1 on each coast.

FTFY  ;D

 

[MarkOttawa]

Also it would seem the current sub refits are not the serious and very costly--$1.5/$3B-- modernization that then-Navy head VADM Norman said in 2016 was needed to keep the boats really useful until mid-30s:
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/edmonton-journal/20160620/281797103286477

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Czech_pivo]

FTFY  ;D

I luv ya man -
I’m on this sight to better understand the issues all of you are facing daily so that I can speak out and advocate to the elected officials and general public.

Without a doubt more is needed.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Any navy that wants at least one submarine deployed at all times, requires a minimum of five submarines in the fleet.

:nod:

This is compounded by the fact our two fleets are separated by about 6000km of land mass in between them. 

In all reality, if we wanted a continuous submarine presence on both coasts simultaneously, we would need 8-10 boats.

 

[daftandbarmy]

:nod:

This is compounded by the fact our two fleets are separated by about 6000km of land mass in between them. 

In all reality, if we wanted a continuous submarine presence on both coasts simultaneously, we would need 8-10 boats.

Just order a bunch from the US and ask BC to pick up the tab again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_CC-1

 

[Navy_Pete]

:nod:

This is compounded by the fact our two fleets are separated by about 6000km of land mass in between them. 

In all reality, if we wanted a continuous submarine presence on both coasts simultaneously, we would need 8-10 boats.

Not sure about the west coast, but we're running out of jetty space as it is in Halifax, so aside from the vessels, both bases would need an upgrade/expansion.  If we ever go nuclear, would need new facilities outside of populated areas all together to get the security cordon set up.

 

[Dale Denton]

Is this possible for us to do this so we could operate in the arctic during different seasons and further? Instead of blowing holes too shoot, use them to breathe instead?

Russian submarines to get unguided shells to break ice

The new projectiles are tested on submarines of Borey-class project 955 and Yasen-class project 885, sources in the Defense Ministry said. The unguided rocket-propelled munitions confirmed the ability to break any ice drift. The projectiles are necessary to ensure underwater missile launches and to surface floating rescue capsules and evacuate a crew in distress. Submarines can engage the projectiles under ice and in a surfaced position, the sources said.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2020/january/7985-russian-submarines-to-get-unguided-shells-to-break-ice.html

Not sure about the west coast, but we're running out of jetty space as it is in Halifax, so aside from the vessels, both bases would need an upgrade/expansion.  If we ever go nuclear, would need new facilities outside of populated areas all together to get the security cordon set up.

Hate to shamelessly plug my ideas, but if we tacked on to a Virginia-lite program (details below), they could theoretically and temporarily placed in an already secured USN yard.

- Buy an American Virginia-Class SNN, take away some capabilities (SDV, less VLS tubes for example).
- They have expertise in design, building, maintaining them. Have existing global infrastructure and support available.
- Buys much goodwill with US relations, giving us a political 'chip' to use for another issue we want their support on.
- The CDN$ going to them may likely buy the political class off in terms of the US not wanting us to have SNNs.
- Have the US yard set up/support a small shop in Canada (partnership with Davie?), set them up as an apprentice the larger US firm.
- Send RCN teams to USN yards to learn the new trade.
- 'Lease' a slip in a Pacific/Atlantic USN yard.
- Will never happen.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Not sure about the west coast, but we're running out of jetty space as it is in Halifax, so aside from the vessels, both bases would need an upgrade/expansion.  If we ever go nuclear, would need new facilities outside of populated areas all together to get the security cordon set up.

Chances of them stationing the East Coast AOPS out of St. John's? instead of Halifax?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Did they sell off jetty space in HFX? At one point all 4 280’s, 6-8 steamers, PRE, PRO, all 3 O boats, Cormorant and a whack of other smaller ships were based there, with room for whole visiting fleets such as NATO  standing forces.

 

[GR66]

Hate to shamelessly plug my ideas, but if we tacked on to a Virginia-lite program (details below), they could theoretically and temporarily placed in an already secured USN yard.

Even with nuclear power plants being the best solution to providing lots of carbon-free electricity to combat climate change, nobody in power is willing to face the anti-nuclear backlash by suggesting we build more nuclear power plants.  If THAT is a no-go then purchasing nuclear powered "war machines" will never, ever, EVER happen.  No point even wasting any more keystrokes dreaming about the idea regardless of any possible merit.

:2c:

 

[Cloud Cover]

Ontario and I believe Saskatchewan are investing in new nuclear technology research for power. But you’re right, Canada will never have a nuclear powered “anything” in its military.
Is there an actual plan to replace the submarine fleet. My last understanding is that project does not exist.

 

[stoker dave]

I will further add that to operate nuclear powered vessels, it is absolutely essential to have 100% compliance with all documented procedures at all times.  That is the ONLY way to assure the safety of the vessel.

DND does not have the necessary culture of "procedural compliance" to safely operate nuclear powered vessels.  A prime example is the incident involving a smoke detector in the wardroom.  If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor. 

 

[Cloud Cover]

I will further add that to operate nuclear powered vessels, it is absolutely essential to have 100% compliance with all documented procedures at all times.  That is the ONLY way to assure the safety of the vessel.

DND does not have the necessary culture of "procedural compliance" to safely operate nuclear powered vessels.  A prime example is the incident involving a smoke detector in the wardroom.  If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor.

Fucking A.
Milpoints inbound.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I will further add that to operate nuclear powered vessels, it is absolutely essential to have 100% compliance with all documented procedures at all times.  That is the ONLY way to assure the safety of the vessel.

DND does not have the necessary culture of "procedural compliance" to safely operate nuclear powered vessels.  A prime example is the incident involving a smoke detector in the wardroom.  If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor anything....

FTFY

 

[midget-boyd91]

I will further add that to operate nuclear powered vessels, it is absolutely essential to have 100% compliance with all documented procedures at all times.  That is the ONLY way to assure the safety of the vessel.

DND does not have the necessary culture of "procedural compliance" to safely operate nuclear powered vessels.  A prime example is the incident involving a smoke detector in the wardroom.  If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor.

Zzzinggg!

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Is this possible for us to do this so we could operate in the arctic during different seasons and further? Instead of blowing holes too shoot, use them to breathe instead?

Russian submarines to get unguided shells to break ice

I wouldn't want to be on a SSK that relied on that...and, tactically...well.

 

[CBH99]

Not a bad idea if you need to break through the ice, but can't find a suitable spot?  Or need to break it up a bit more to be safe?

From the crew rescue capsule perspective, it seems to make sense.  Especially if their focus is clearly arctic operations in this case.



I know nothing about submarines other than the basics - doesn't seem like a bad option to have if need be though?