Are Submarines a required capability in a modern Navy??

[Navy_Blue]

Are Submarines a required capability in a modern Navy??

Before we get out off topic in another thread I figured I would throw this out to you all. 

It was discussed in the AOR thread that our Subs may or may not be replaced as they see their service lives come to an end.  It was suggested that the Submarine community doesn’t sell their usefulness to the public well enough to be noticed.  I would say our media doesn’t care about the subs enough unless they are blacked out stuck at sea or costing the tax payers more money than they think they are worth.  To the Canadian press our navy is not news unless its bad news and with the subs it’s even worse.

To my knowledge most if not all navies keep there Submarine operations and methods very secretive.  If you were in Halifax you might notice that there is one Sub in the Water and if you asked what was under the white tent you would be told another is there.  A keen person might start counting and consider that Victoria is in the ditch out west totaling 3 hulls.  That means at this time one is missing.  Unless you are part of that community or have a clearance to know you will never really be told what the 4th hull is up too.  They will give you brief details but you will never really know.  You could account time for training but they have been truly in operational situations in the past few years and have been very useful. 

Just because you can’t read about them in the Trident doesn’t mean they are not serving our navy just as effectively as the Skimmers are in the Gulf, or off Africa.  They get do it all with little or no recognition, tax free perks or Foreign Service pay.

I would still say you would be cutting off a very important piece of the entire CF if you didn’t plan to replace the subs at some point in the future. 

 

[romeokilo]

Are Submarines a required capability in a modern Navy??

I would still say you would be cutting off a very important piece of the entire CF if you didn’t plan to replace the subs at some point in the future.

I think you answered your question. 

 

[Galahad]

Military vessels are inherently expensive, because they must fulfill so many requirements, and submarines even more so, add to that there are very few places that can build them, and they are very expensive to maintain, you have a big problem from the taxpayers point of view.

I would think they are a very important asset for the navy to be taken seriously, though I must admit, I would not want to serve on them, I was on a tour of the Chicoutimi, and lets just say I'm about 12 inches too tall

As an aside, maybe we should have bought some Type 214 submarines instead, perhaps they would have been cheaper in the long run...

 

[TimBit]

As an aside, maybe we should have bought some Type 214 submarines instead, perhaps they would have been cheaper in the long run...

Not only would they have been cheaper, but they have extended underwater capability, so they could have patrolled the Arctic, and we might even have pitched in on development and have had some knck backs for CDN industry.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

One thing that has been missed is how much our ASW capabilities have eroded since the O Boats were retired and the Victoria class has been semi introduced. I think the fixed and rotary wing types will also agree that there is a big difference between hunting an EMATT and an actual thinking sub.

Its a sobering reminder to get a picture of your ship taken through a submarine periscope how dangerous and useful a submarine is.

 

[- m i l l e y -]

Submarines provide many capabilities that surface ships cannot.  One major one being underwater surveillance and "covert" operations.  As EX-Dragoon pointed out

Its a sobering reminder to get a picture of your ship taken through a submarine periscope how dangerous and useful a submarine is.

Surface ships cannot sneak up undetected on enemy ships and sink them, or secretly watch foreign ports from a distance.  Yes, there may be certain problems associated with the current submarines in use, however, one should not come to the conclusion that the submarine program should be scrapped all together.  A good multi-role, multi-capable submarine would provide great advantages to the Canadian Navy in ways surface ships cannot.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Surface ships cannot sneak up undetected on enemy ships and sink them, or secretly watch foreign ports from a distance.

Want to make a bet on that?

 

[- m i l l e y -]

Obviously not as you have more experience with that than I do.  However, I believe that they still do not come close to having the same capabilities as subs do with respect to secrecy.

 

[whitehorse]

In framing the question the way you have then the answer is of course we need them. But let me ask the question in another way ...

Given increasingly tight defence capital budgets and the nature of assymetric warfare (Alqaeda doesn't operate warships and therefore is invulnerable to submarines) what is the likelihood that we will need this capability? Remember we ahve never fired a submerged torpedo in anger against anyone in our history as a country. Moreover even if we have the capability would we use it or remain outside of the conflict involved? (e.g. - if China were to invade taiwan or if NKorea invade SKorea would we simply sit it out and therefore not use the capability?) Yes it is better to have the capability and not need it than vice versa but for the last 100 years we have chosen the nature of our involvement in our conflicts. Our geography allows for this.


Therefore we are in a position make choices about we want versus what we might need in some future conventional conflict. Having submarines represents a serious capability, so would having an aircraft carrier or cruise missiles or ICBMs. The question should be what is the likelihhod we will want this capability in the future and would we use it if we had it?  Submarines are lethal machines but not very useful at MIO (satellites and UAVs are cheaper at detecting vessels trying to do blockade running).

The other issue is money. As I have stated in other parts of this blog we wont be getting a lot soon therefore we should choose wisely and accept the fact that we wont get all we want. I for one think that given our ongoing committment to the war on terror we should stick with multi-purpose combat capable FFH and DDH because they offer the most flexibility in an uncertain world. Moreover long standing public opinion would appear to supprt this.

Its a sobering reminder to get a picture of your ship taken through a submarine periscope how dangerous and useful a submarine is

It sure is and I was shown one of an MCDV in a periscope. However driving your submarine through an undetected mine field is somewhat more uncomfortable.  - We all need one another.

As far as the idea that without submarine we are not really a navy I find this idea somewhat arrogant. Our participation in WWII and Korea was at a time whe the RCN had no submarines. We were certainly a real navy then. Moreover our naval committment to the current conflict has been without the use of submarines. Therefore I dare ask do we really need them?

 

[- m i l l e y -]

Whitehorse, you have made some very strong and thought provoking points that definately make you think about the original question difinately.  First off, being from Halifax, like most others, I routinely see our submarines dockside awaiting the drydocks for repair/upgrade; this does bag the question "is it worth it?".  At the time being our submarines remain quite "useless" while our surfaces ships do all the work.  As you have pointed out with the lack of funding and the assymetric warfare, maybe it is safe to say that our money would be better spent elsewhere (within the Navy that is of course).

 

[Sailorwest]

What is the purpose of having submarines in Canadas Navy. My somewhat naive impression is that they are primarily there to provide allied antisubmarine surface and air forces something to train against. I would not deny that the subs in the past have been used in more significant operational roles doing covert surveillance but my full knowledge of that is limited to what might have been made public. The question comes down to whether it is an appropriate use of limited resources (financial and maintenance) in keeping a submarine capability whose primary function is to provide ASW training opportunities or would it be preferable to have JSS, AOPV, or new AOR capability? I think for a lot of folks, who are not in the submarine community, those other capabilities are probably more tangible  and meaningful to the role of the Canadian Navy. No offence intended to the sub community but I just don't see subs as significantly more valuable in achieving that goal  to justify the cost.

 

[Navy_Blue]

We are not just there to let the Yanks have someone to train with.  Torps will not be too far in the future and I think Harpoon not long after. 

As far as the cost we spend a lot of money to keep one sub running and the others progressing to a point they hopfully will run in the future.  At the point we do get them all Canadianized and more modern equipment is fitted I think they will prove worth the effort and cost. 

For Skimmers sneaking up on people I have two words...Deceptive lighting  ;D  It works very well. 

 

[aesop081]

What is the purpose of having submarines in Canadas Navy. My somewhat naive impression is that they are primarily there to provide allied antisubmarine surface and air forces something to train against.

Thats what impression everyone was under WRT to the Oberons. Read the 2008 issue of the Maritime Warfare Bulletin for details.

 

[Sub_Guy]

For Skimmers sneaking up on people I have two words...Deceptive lighting  ;D  It works very well. 

It does work wonders....  But that deceptive lighting is useless once the sun appears on the horizon!

 

[Journeyman]

...for the last 100 years we have chosen the nature of our involvement in our conflicts. Our geography allows for this.

I would also cite our geography, but to say that maintaining sovereignty over the world's longest coastline demands a comprehensive naval capability....243,792 km of reasons for a balanced fleet, with submarines for those tasks not suitable to surface or naval aviation assets.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

And add to what JM has stated once our subs go then the USN and the RN will not be required to even to do a courtesy notice to us that they have subs transiting through our waters...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I would also point out that the standard calculation is that it takes 8 units (any combination of submarines, ships, helos and patrol aircraft) to detect, track and destroy an enemy submarine.  Therefore, having even one submarine in the water at a time requires another nation to bring 8 units of something to the fight and even then, there is an uncertainty principle.

So, if you want to bring it down to money, even a 500 million dollar conventional submarine with a crew of 50, takes something like 2-4 billion dollars in assets and up to 600 personnel to effectively counter.  Cost effective?  You be the judge...

Not to mention subs can do some covert stuff that skimmers cannot.  Just as skimmers can do stuff (like showing the flag) that submarines are not good at. I should note that the argument that our current fleet of submarines might be useful in an Arctic environment is not a particularly good one, given that their speeds and radius of operation is to slow/small, given the distances involved- not to mention the whole ice thing.  If we want to arctic ops with submarines, we have no choice but to go nuclear.  And we can all imagine how that project would go over.  Again.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Are Submarines a required capability in a modern Navy??

That would depend on what the government wants the navy to do. Without a credible policy statement (and we don't have one), the answer is "It depends."

The boats we have are basically good for clockwork mice, and maybe some ISR as long as there isn't too much traffic and combat is unlikely. With a combat system upgrade and new weapons, they'd be good for basically anything a submarine can be tasked for, as long as it's fairly local.

 

[aesop081]

With a combat system upgrade and new weapons,

Hopefuly, the Mk48 7AT goes ahead.

 

[ltmaverick25]

Didnt one of our submarines just receive a CDS commendation for the operations it conducted over the past year or so?  Assuming that I am not mistaken, I would interpret this as meaning that our submarines are indeed taking part in worthwhile and relevent operations.  We may not know about them all the time, but such is the nature of the silent service.

We need to maintain submarines for many reasons.  As we all know they have capabilities that surface ships do not, but they also allow for ASW training, which in my view is indeed a legitimate mandate when not conducting ops.  If we continue to allow our ASW abilities to erode then what use will our multi purpose surface ships be in the event of a conflict against submarines?  We need to maintain this corporate knowledge, but subs and ASW so that we can be prepared for whatever the future has in store for us.  To plan only for what is in front of us right now is a classic Canadian mistake.