TKMS Type 212CD (Victoria class replacement megathread)

[daftandbarmy]

We've had Arctic deployments of submarines in the past, reportably including forays under the ice. Rest assured the RCN will do everything in a slow dilliberate manner with max safety. Keep in mind that it is a conventional submarine that do not have the power to surface through the ice like a nuke. I would think its safe to say, MIZ, ice edge will be the main zones of concern. I doubt we'll be transiting the NW passage submerged. The Arctic is just one area we'll be using these boats.

Like the GIUK gap, I'm guessing...

Geopolitics of the GIUK Gap: Past, Present, and Future​

Geopolitics of the GIUK Gap: Past, Present, and Future

The GIUK Gap – a mainstay of 20th century naval strategy – is taking on new importance amid mounting Russian naval activity, Arctic expansion, and emerging hybrid threats.

www.geopoliticalmonitor.com

 

[GR66]

Is there an urgent need for our submarines to deploy extensively under the ice pack? Russian SSBN's can launch from safely in Russian waters. Is any nation going to risk their SSN's attempting to transit the constricted and shallow NWP with its tricky currents under the ice pack? In the ice-free season we can guard the entrances with various aerial, surface and sub-surface assets.

I'd suspect our Atlantic fleet would focus on monitoring Baffin Strait and the Labrador Sea (and possibly the GIUK Gap) for anyone trying to exit into the Atlantic rather than operating under ice in the Arctic Ocean.

In the Pacific, neither the Chinese or Russians need to transit the Bering Strait to threaten our coast, so I imagine there we'll focus more on patrolling the approaches than transiting to the Arctic.

 

[Kirkhill]

Surveys with Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs)

Surveys with Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (AUVs)

science.gc.ca

 

[oldcpu]

We've had Arctic deployments of submarines in the past, reportably including forays under the ice. Rest assured the RCN will do everything in a slow dilliberate manner with max safety. Keep in mind that it is a conventional submarine that do not have the power to surface through the ice like a nuke. I would think its safe to say, MIZ, ice edge will be the main zones of concern. I doubt we'll be transiting the NW passage submerged. The Arctic is just one area we'll be using these boats.

That is interesting. I agree unlikely to have transiting the NW passage totally submerged.

Even with AIP/Lithium batteries, there are major limitations with a conventional submarine in the Arctic.

A submarine can only go for so far with using the AIP, before the submarine runs out of embarked AIP reactants (liquid oxygen (LOX) and hydrogen). And to the best of my knowledge, there is no submarine tenders nor replenishment ships in the world (? yet ? ) that replenish such. Nominally such replenishment of reactants have to be done at a shore facility (mind you - I could be wrong here).

That means, I believe, in the Arctic, even an AIP/Lithium battery submarine will need to snorkel (or simply surface) and use diesel engines so not to consume too much of the AIP reactants (and save the AIP reactants for under ice or other deliberate under water operation). I made a rough back of the envelope calculation reference AIP/lithium battery range (without using diesel engines) and my calculation suggested a Type-212CD could not patrol the Arctic without spending a fair amount of time snorkeling or on the surface using diesel engines. If it uses the AIP too much, it will consume its AIP reactants too soon.

It did have me pondering other aspects on this ... and how such aspects could lead to new projects or activities needing to be started sooner rather than later, but I have spammed this group a lot with such ... so maybe I should wait a day or two re posting about such.

 

[oldcpu]

Is there an urgent need for our submarines to deploy extensively under the ice pack?

Hopefully not. Extensively is difficult - which i discovered after some back of the envelope calculations on AIP reactant consumption.

I'd suspect our Atlantic fleet would focus on monitoring Baffin Strait and the Labrador Sea (and possibly the GIUK Gap) for anyone trying to exit into the Atlantic rather than operating under ice in the Arctic Ocean.

In the Pacific, neither the Chinese or Russians need to transit the Bering Strait to threaten our coast, so I imagine there we'll focus more on patrolling the approaches than transiting to the Arctic.

That makes a lot of sense to me. Still, I think even if patrolling in those locations is the plan, ... the training and skill to operate under the ice for as much as a couple of weeks, could be something that goes along with such an operation.

Obviously that is my speculation.

It gets into questions, if in peace time, a Russian nuclear submarine is spotted at a bottleneck, going through the entrance to the North West passage, is it trailed for a few days under the ice? or is it wished a nice voyage using the underwater telephone? ( I jest - obviously ).

 

[YZT580]

Hopefully not. Extensively is difficult - which i discovered after some back of the envelope calculations on AIP reactant consumption.



That makes a lot of sense to me. Still, I think even if patrolling in those locations is the plan, ... the training and skill to operate under the ice for as much as a couple of weeks, could be something that goes along with such an operation.

Obviously that is my speculation.

It gets into questions, if in peace time, a Russian nuclear submarine is spotted at a bottleneck, going through the entrance to the North West passage, is it trailed for a few days under the ice? or is it wished a nice voyage using the underwater telephone? ( I jest - obviously ).

perhaps this conversation is identifying one of the potential benefits of the Korean option: that is converting the last 4 subs to nuclear powered; a potential option that I don't believe the 212 can deliver

 

[Swampbuggy]

With regards to JSS being used as sub support vessels…

I think I read somewhere on these threads that a true support vessel for submarines would require dynamic positioning. I stand to be corrected, but I don’t believe the BERLIN/BONN/JSS class are equipped with that. Nor are the AOPS for that matter, if one were to try and employ them that way.

Genuinely curious if there’s an alternative answer that makes the dynamic positioning less important?

 

[Underway]

With regards to JSS being used as sub support vessels…

I think I read somewhere on these threads that a true support vessel for submarines would require dynamic positioning. I stand to be corrected, but I don’t believe the BERLIN/BONN/JSS class are equipped with that. Nor are the AOPS for that matter, if one were to try and employ them that way.

Genuinely curious if there’s an alternative answer that makes the dynamic positioning less important?

Arctic is shallow. Finding an anchoring area where dynamic positioning is irrelevant works. Ideally that's better than dynamic.

Years ago I was talking to someone and he felt the minimum number of replenishment vessels was around six if we're being serious.

We aren’t all that serious. Are we?

4 is the correct answer. 6 is too many given current expected fleet numbers and mission sets. If Canada had significant overseas responsibilities then 6 would be the right number, but we don't.

I think we all hope the same.

I confess to having a fear that the shift the RCN will face, going from only 1 operational active sea going submarine (out of quantity 4) to having instead having up to 4 to 5 operational active seagoing more capable AIP/Lithium battery propulsion submarines (out of quantity 12) will be a difficult to adjust to major culture shock internal to the navy reference the new capabilities, with 'ripples' up and down the structure of the command chain, the training chain, and the maintenance chain (and "ripples" through to both recruitment and retention efforts). Its a big and potentially exciting challenge ahead for the navy.

I for one welcome the culture change. Shock is to negative, its going to be a change and one for the better.

Um. Observation.

The RCN has a group called "Route Survey" who retain high quality Klein tow-fish side-scan SONAR systems that are capable of generating high accuracy bathymetry.

This group sailed somewhat regularly on MCDVs, and would focus on Q-Route surveys (harbour entrances mostly) to do comparison updates and such.

I suspect that with the AOPS having some ice capability, they may find themselves with an in-house RCN capability to conduct some under-ice surveys to help generate updated charts.

With newer semi or fully autonomous UUVs, they may be able to do stand-off surveys from the edge of the ice even.

That may help submarines with their under-ice navigation a lot.

Also - they accuracy capability of modern RLGNs (Ring Laser Gyro Navigators) has come a long way since the old MK.29 we had originally on the CPF's. The MK 49 on the Frigates is pretty darn good.

What they may have nowadays...? I'm sure it's even better with the following generations (MK 49 is 25+ years old)

NS

There is work going on to have public charts and protected charts now. The RCN is keeping their surveys to themselves in a number of places.