Are Submarines a required capability in a modern Navy??

[a_majoor]

  All that being said, if we do have an active Navy then yes, we should have subs to have an all encompassing Naval force. Unfortunatley, those who decided on the last purchase did so with the attitude of a 17 year old buying his first car. HOTWHEELS!

Several factors drove the purchase of the Upholders, including availability and price, but for Canada one key factor often overlooked by critics is the Upholder class was designed essentially as a nuclear boat without the reactor and has a much greater range (in theory) than most other conventional submarines; an important consideration given the length of our coasts and the distance from most probable deployments.

Sadly, things didn't work out the way everyone had hoped, so we have to look at the "least worst" choices, including giving up the capability, spending huge sums on the existing boats, buying someone else's boats or designing something for ourselves.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Several factors drove the purchase of the Upholders, including availability and price, but for Canada one key factor often overlooked by critics is the Upholder class was designed essentially as a nuclear boat without the reactor and has a much greater range (in theory) than most other conventional submarines; an important consideration given the length of our coasts and the distance from most probable deployments.

The Upholders were designed as something like a nuclear boat, but that was more to do with the sensors and combat systems not the range. They're actually pretty short-ranged, especially compared to the Oberons. Once we stripped out DCC, we pretty much lost the combat system superiority as well.

 

[Lard of the Dance]

  Thucydides;
 
I agree with you about the reasons behind the purchase of these 4 vessels, but haste and cost were also factors, I believe. Equal, or even better technology could have been pursued. As much as I would love to see the Brits take back their used garbage, our officials made the decision the accept them.

 

[a_majoor]

The availability of the subs (they were laid up by the RN) and cost (a "swap" of subs for access to Canadian training facilities) were motivating factors to be sure. Drunknsubmrnr has set me straight on the range thing (although I am pretty sure range was mentioned as a factor, I'll have to go back and try to find where I got that from), and at the time they were considered "top of the line".

In other threads, the main issues that caused the issues we face today were the then Liberal government dithering over closing the deal, and allowing the subs to deteriorate in drydock for several years before we could actually take hiold of them. No doubt a lot of "corporate knowledge" was also lost as experienced people retired or moved on to other positions.

As for what else was available at the time, I am not sure what would have been equal or superior to an "Upholder". Today we could probably get a better boat, but then again we now have two more decades of technology and experience to guide us.

 

[Larkvall]

If I remember correctly, when they purchased the subs the idea was to equip them with fuel cells (from Ballard Power) in order to extend their range. This would have given them the ability to patrol under the arctic ice.

 

[Galahad]

Fuel cells? Man, we should have bought 214's instead...

 

[STONEY]

And do you have the slightest idea what the patrol endurance and combat radius is of a 214 as compared to a Victoria is.  The 214 is used around coastal Europe and Med not long range open ocean thats why the Aussies had to get there boats designed elsewhere.  What is needed is a boat that can transit in the 1000's of miles to station and then patrol for a respectable time on station and then return ,and frankly the 214 although a fantastic boat just wasn't designed or ever intended to  do this.

Cheers

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

At the time the Upholders were built, the British were trying to sell us (and the RAN) a stretched long range version. It actually had a pretty good shot at CASAP until the SSN plan shut that down.

The Upholders themselves were designed to sprint to SPA in the GIUK gap from the UK, spend 4+ weeks on patrol, and sprint back. That works out to a SPA distance of about 1000 nm, or being able to patrol "somewhere" off St John's from Halifax. Pushing farther out from St John's will tend to eat into patrol time in a big way.

 

[Antoine]

I have done a quick search, looking at the NAVY web site of different countries, I have found also a list of NAVY ships and submarines by country. By comparing the proportion of submarines versus total fleet, it gives an idea about who has answered yes to your question.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp

http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp

However, I have zero military experience, so I am not pretending anything here. The list gives a quick idea, but it is not a deep analysis of the situation as I didn't check the accuracy of the sources. I can't say about the efficiency of each submarine type.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I have done a quick search, looking at the NAVY web site of different countries, I have found also a list of NAVY ships and submarines by country. By comparing the proportion of submarines versus total fleet, it gives an idea about who has answered yes to your question.

http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp

http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-submarines.asp

However, I have zero military experience, so I am not pretending anything here. The list gives a quick idea, but it is not a deep analysis of the situation as I didn't check the accuracy of the sources. I can't say about the efficiency of each submarine type.

the links you provided while nice, but it just lists who has what, your post does not answer the question on "Are Submarines a required capability in a modern Navy"

 

[Antoine]

Ex-Dragoon, I feel a bit out of my lane to answer the question,  :-[  but I'll say the following:

From what I've read, yes, submarines are required to diversify our fleet. I think that diversity is one of the best tools to approach, analyse and solve a problem if all the diverse components are well coordinated, and the complementarity is optimized. That is not an easy task !
Submarines look like a good functional complement to the fleet, it gives a three dimensional view and capability to the fleet, I mean boats sail along the surface that gives you the two dimensional capability and forces, OK, I know that warships can launch rockets and torpedoes but still submarines add the third dimension down as much as aircrafts added the third up.

Now, a bit out topic but we will have soon a third coast which is the North that is going to have a huge geopolitical impact. Everyone knows that people want to sail through it. Also a lot of gas, oil and so on could be found there. Many submarines are going to be there, I don't want to start a paranoia crisis, but I'm not sure that those submarines are going to be friendly to us. So having submarines will help us to secure our north sea? I think so but here I am totally out of my lane ! 

Many examples can be found about how efficient and deadly submarines can be. During the WWII, isn't true that some German submarines made up to St-Laurence river? Are submarines only efficient during cold war or world war types? I don't think so. Look at North Korea, they have high number of submarines in proportion to their fleet, why is that? What is in the back of their heads?

From the links I have put, I was concerned about countries of our size (population and economical) having a fleet that seems better equip than ours. Don't get me wrong, I am not talking about the quality of our NAVY where I am convinced that all members work hard and they are first class soldier, I am just talking about money thrown in equipments.

So like I said, I would like that our NAVY being competitive on the water as much as under the water. I would like that our eyes and ears are first class sharps on the surface as well as below it and that we can take action in the 3-dimensional maritime space. Thus I believe that submarines are mandatory to secure sailors on the surface, to occupy the sea space and to keep our fleet competitive.

P.S. I have edit the present post to clarify some of my sentences.

 

[starseed]

The Upholder class was a bad compromise. There were studies done on the feasibility of Canada buying and operating Nuclear subs back in the 80s, the rationale of course being the ability to patrol the ice cap. Diesel-Electric subs can do it to some extent but since they combust oxygen to run, they have a finite ability to stay submerged  (I don't know exactly how long they can stay submerged, but I believe it's only a matter of days). Since the ice cap covers over 4million square kilometers, it's an issue. They could patrol the NW passage when it is open, which is important, but the NW passage isn't the only potentially important spot in the Arctic.

SSNs, ie Seawolf/Trafalgar, Astute Class -  are well beyond the forces budget, so while D-Es can't do some things that would be a big asset, one can look at it as better than nothing to at least have (edit: diesel electric) attack subs. One could also argue that since if we ever get into a shooting war with other modern submarines and/or surface ships, it'll probably be as part of a NATO battle group/allied carrier group, attack subs aren't really something Canada needs if they can't do the job needed with regard to enforcing arctic sovereignty.

Personally I feel with the Northwest Passage starting to open for nearly half of every year, having some way to patrol it is a worthwhile investment for the CF. The Upholders may not be at all ideal, but they are a requirement in my opinion.

 

[a_majoor]

The uber question is are submarines required in a modern navy?

The answer is quite clearly "yes", since subs are the only weapons platform which combine "invisibility" with long endurance. We know subs come in all shapes and sizes, but combining desired speed, endurance and weapons/sensor load out is mostly an engineering challenge.

Canada has rather unique needs which from an engineering veiwpoint can only be resolved with SSN technology today, something we don't have the political will or financial resources to do. Even partial solutions using conventional or AIP technology would require essentially custom solutions, no other nevy really has the same set of circumstances we do. Since we don't really have the political will or resources to do that either, we must make due with what we have.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Why is "invisibility" a requirement?

 

[a_majoor]

Why is "invisibility" a requirement?

It gives you the option of covert entry/exit and surprise for lots of different missions, something no surface ship, ground unit or aircraft can do for prolonged periods. As well, a submarine is a big enough platform to carry lots of firepower and sensors, once again something few other units can do.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Yes, those are things that submarines do. I still don't see why they are requirements vs "nice-to-haves".

 

[a_majoor]

At this point it is more like arguing about philosophy or theology; yes they are "nice to have", but also make it possible to have an entire range of capabilities that are not otherwise possible. Perhaps you might not notice not having these capabilites if no one else has them either, but once you are in a competative situation then extending existing capabilities and getting new capabilities which cause the enemy forces to become further extended is desirable as a minimum, and necessary to the smaller force as an equalizer. Being a very small force, we need all the equality we can get.....

 

[gwp]

At this point it is more like arguing about philosophy or theology; yes they are "nice to have", but also make it possible to have an entire range of capabilities that are not otherwise possible. Perhaps you might not notice not having these capabilites if no one else has them either, but once you are in a competative situation then extending existing capabilities and getting new capabilities which cause the enemy forces to become further extended is desirable as a minimum, and necessary to the smaller force as an equalizer. Being a very small force, we need all the equality we can get.....

To provide some context for the requirement to have a balanced fleet of surface ships, submarines and aircraft.

The three dimensions of sea control are surveillance, patrol and presence; and response.  Although just about every ship and aircraft can do at least one of these tasks, the best and most efficient means of exercising control over an area of ocean is to use a combination of systems. 

An aircraft can conduct surveillance over and under some 300,000 square nautical kilometres of water during a 10-hour patrol, and it takes about 5 aircraft to maintain continuous surveillance of that area.  While aircraft have excellent surveillance capacity, thier presence and response capabilities are limited by time, distance and fuel.

A single submarine with a crew of 40 can cover some 125,000 square kilometres continuously over a 40-50 day patrol and has an excellent surveillance and presence capability with an ability to respond.  In combat situations, a submarine has even greater ability to respond to a threat to national security.

Three or four frigates or destroyers combined into a task group with helicopters and a support ship, (with over a thousand crew) can remain on station for about 30 days and continuously cover an area of just under 200,000 square kilometres providing surveillance, presence and response at the same time but without the stealth of a submarine.

Consider Canada's West Coast.  The size of the Pacific Economic Exclusion Zone is about 460,000 square kilometres.  Keeping this under surveillance and with an adequate patrol and response capacity provides work enough for a squadron of 5 aircraft, a submarine and a surface task group.  On the other hand the Atlantic EEZ amounts to about 2.9 million square kilometres; five times that of the West Coast.

Submarines are an economic force multiplier.

Fixed sonobouys and space based surveillance have no patrol or response capability. 

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

You're mixing apples and oranges; A task group is a lot different outlay than a single submarine!

It looks like aircraft are a lot more efficient than either surface ships or submarines in terms of surveillance capabilities.

There isn't much a submarine can do to respond to a maritime situation other than keeping it under surveillance or vapourising it. I still don't see a submarine as a requirement Nice to have sure, but probably not as nice to have as fixed-wing naval aviation. Definitely not preferable to keeping the surface fleet going.

 

[Navy_Blue]

Wow +1 there gwp