Status on Victoria-class Submarines?

[drunknsubmrnr]

Are the weapons used by Canada greatly superior to those used by Germany, Italy, France, UK, etc? 

Well....there are different strengths and weaknesses to every system. We mostly use very very old Mk 48 mod 4 fish with a handful of mod 7's.

If you didn't want any chance of an Otto fuel leak, you'd probably want the German DM2A4. They're electric and relatively quiet but pretty slow.

If you wanted screaming fast performance at shallow depths over a short range, but not so much at deep depths you'd want Spearfish. It has a gas turbine engine that provides significantly variable output at significantly different external pressure. Coincidently, RN submariners have been trained for close to a century now to make short-range attacks at shallow depths.

If you wanted really good performance at all depths and an Otto fuel leak doesn't faze you, go with modern Mk 48's. They're fast on the surface and still relatively fast at depth. As far as system capability goes, they're the Starship Enterprise of torpedoes.

The combat system is pretty much determined by the torpedo you use. ie don't pick an American combat system with British torpedoes, unless you really have too much money and need to spend it. And don't think you can get full capability out of a modern torpedo if you don't have a full capability combat system.

What would the cost comparison be (very approximately) for retrofitting a 4 sub fleet versus replacing Canada's stock of munitions?

The boats have little enough life left that there isn't any point in major upgrades now. The RAN spent over $1 billion to put a modern combat system into the Collins, and it would probably cost close to that to upgrade the torpedoes to mod 7's as well.

It's probably best to just buy new boats. Apparently the new German Type 216 is aimed at the RCN among others.

 

[AlexanderM]

The Type 216 would do very nicely.  At the moment the endurance for AIP seems to be 3-4 weeks, perhaps by the time we purchase it will be even longer.  Still, wouldn't be bad to have a boat that could lurk around up north undetected for a month at a time. 

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

AIP isn't all that useful, but if we buy the 216 we'll have to get it anyway. The Germans are unlikely to sell the boats without it.

 

[Haletown]

Things could be worse, as is happening in Spain.


http://digitaljournal.com/article/350661

 

[OldSolduer]

:facepalm:

Things could be worse, as is happening in Spain.


http://digitaljournal.com/article/350661

Maybe we should just get out of the business altogether?

 

[AlexanderM]

AIP isn't all that useful, but if we buy the 216 we'll have to get it anyway. The Germans are unlikely to sell the boats without it.

Is that because all one can do is lurk, can't catch anything or keep up with anything?  I read that the Spanish AIP system can generate at least 300kW.  If that is sustained, I'm wondering what speed it translates to?

 

[Monsoon]

:facepalm:
Maybe we should just get out of the business altogether?

Now that the sub capability is up and running? That would be strange timing.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Maybe we should just get out of the business altogether?

Instead of buying new ones? I think that's what is going to happen. I don't think the current funding is enough to replace the surface fleet one-for-one, and there definitely isn't enough to fund a new submarine purchase as well. Even if the funding became available it would probably make more sense to put into the surface fleet than replace the current boats.

There's no point in paying off the current boats now that they're working about as well as can be expected.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Is that because all one can do is lurk, can't catch anything or keep up with anything?

Pretty much. It's a trickle-charger. It lets you keep a charge in the battery without having to snort, but that's the only major difference. It doesn't help with conducting domestic routines and all the other noise-making issues associated with normal operations, or increase the very slow transit speed, or increase the top speed.

I read that the Spanish AIP system can generate at least 300kW.  If that is sustained, I'm wondering what speed it translates to?

Not as high as you'd think. It has to cover hotel load as well.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

To add to drunksubmrnr, consider the MCDV's: They carry four mains for propulsion that generate about 1.2 MW when all running and they don't have to provide "hotel" charge. That gives you 15 knots on a ship of 970 tons.

Your Spanish boat, with a quarter of that power on AIP and hotel load to provide out of it, has to push a 2400 tons submerged boat. Sure a sub is more hydrodynamically efficient than a MCDV, but you are still only talking of 3 to 4 knots while on AIP, otherwise you start drawing down on the batteries. And if the sub runs into a fight or has to escape from a datum quickly and draws the batteries down, the AIP speed will be even lower for quite a while during the recharge period. When it comes to recharging or transiting, it is a lot faster and more efficient if it is at all possible, to do it on diesel while snorting.

 

[AlexanderM]

Application for lurking up north comes to mind.  Move at 4 knots and listen.  Could be used a limited amount under ice, as long as batteries are charged to get back out?  So boat would charge batteries with snorkel, then use to get into position, then lurk for a couple days, then use batteries to move on.  Still moving at 100 miles per day, 2800 miles in 4 weeks, at 4 knots.  Wouldn't be helpful to partol up north?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I suggest you look up this past discussion on use of submarine in arctic sovereignty mode, so we can keep this thread for its own purpose of dealing with the VIC class.

http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/96172.0.html

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

And Byers weighs in...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/06/11/conservatives_should_scrap_submarine_fleet_or_buy_new_ones_thinktanks_say.html

Conservatives should scrap submarine fleet or buy new ones, think-tanks say
Canada’s submarine fleet has never lived up to its expectations, says a report by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute.

By: The Canadian Press, Published on Tue Jun 11 2013

OTTAWA—A pair of think-tanks say the Harper government should either announce plans to scrap its glitch-plagued submarine fleet — or begin the process of replacing them before any more tax dollars are wasted.
The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Rideau Institute say the Victoria-class submarines, purchased second-hand from Britain in the late 1990s, are within a decade of ending their service life, and have never lived up to expectations.
A report written by defence and law academic Michael Byers and researcher Stewart Webb asks whether Canada, bordered on three sides by oceans, even needs submarines.
Byers says he doesn’t see a strong case for submarines, but remains open-minded and would like to see the government make a coherent case for the capability.
He says the stealth coastal surveillance aspects of subs is rapidly being overtaken by unmanned aerial vehicle technology.
The national shipbuilding strategy is silent on whether the Conservative government intends to replace the current submarine fleet, something Byers says means the decision has either been made, or the file is being horribly mismanaged.

My opinion is that the file has been mismanaged. I don't think the government has an actual plan to replace the boats by their use-by date, and they're unwilling to admit it.

 

[The Bread Guy]

And Byers weighs in...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2013/06/11/conservatives_should_scrap_submarine_fleet_or_buy_new_ones_thinktanks_say.html

And here's a link to the Byers+Webb report, "That Sinking Feeling:  Canada’s Submarine Program Springs a Leak".

 

[Journeyman]

...asks whether Canada, bordered on three sides by oceans, even needs submarines. Byers says he doesn’t see a strong case for submarines....

I would think that being bordered by three oceans, of itself, would suggest a utility for submarines....  ???

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's difficult to see past the arms of his chair.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I would think that being bordered by three oceans, of itself, would suggest a utility for submarines....  ???

That indicates a utility for a navy, not necessarily submarines any more than there's a requirement for an aircraft carrier.

 

[PanaEng]

That indicates a utility for a navy, not necessarily submarines any more than there's a requirement for an aircraft carrier.

ignoring the fact that 1 1/2 of those oceans are covered in ice for most of the year...

 

[STONEY]

Make a list of all the Navy's in the world of any importance that don't have Submarines. There aren't any.

Take a good look at all countries sub programs and you would see that they all have problems and many are worse than ours.  The Aussies built 6 brand new boats instead
of buying the boats we bought and are having nothing but problems.  They are having a problem just keeping 1 of the 6 operational.

Our last boats were one of the worlds best of their time but we very seldom ever had them all operational at one time. If you look at any sub fleet you would find a very small percentage operational at any one time . That's the nature of the beast but if you want to play in the big leagues ?

Cheers

 

[HB_Pencil]

It's difficult to see past the arms of his chair.

What bothers me about these two is that neither has any training in military affairs, strategic studies, defence procurement ect. Byers' PhD work is in international law. Yet they seem to have a new report every week on widely disparate topics and then are portrayed as "experts" on the topic in the media. Look at the bibliography; its made up completely of internet resources and a couple of books. They don't talk to any experts, their analysis is really simplistic.  If I were to write an article on this I'd arrange an interview, talk to some formers officials, or request an ATIP for some documents. Byers? Cite some stuff he could google and to meet your preconceived notions.

Nothing better reflects that than the discussion on page 25 talking about China. Having just read two books on china's efforts to expand its power in South east asia (Trapped Giant and Regional Disorder.) Their whole analysis can be summed up by a statement they make:

"In the circumstances, the question needs to be asked: does Canada really want to participate in a submarine race based on speculative concerns about a country that has been embraced by the Harper government as central to our trade and foreign policy?"


Lets see here. China biggest trading partner is Japan... and we're witnessing a full blown arms race emerge between the two. The United States, South Korea, Vietnam, Malaysia, India, Australia, and Philippines are all major regional trading partners of China. Yet each one is stocking up on new capabilities including submarines in the case of SK, US, India, Malaysia and Australia. Most of these states have significantly larger trade relations and much more direct security interest at stake. And what about our relations with those countries in the region, like Japan? Are we just going to ignore their security concerns?

Want an useful analysis? Tell me how the navy can meet our security interests in the region. Give me some analysis about how we should purchase and position our capabilities to respond to a potential crisis? Don't blindly state that we don't need capabilities because we shouldn't antagonize a country that every one of its neighbours (even the ostensibly neutral ones) are preparing to defend against.


Mile wide and inch deep.