Status on Victoria-class Submarines?

[drunknsubmrnr]

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

That would indicate a need for upgrading all of the Auroras, not half of them. You can't do much with SSKs under the ice.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

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

We wouldn't be on that list with or without SSK's.

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.

The RAN sorted out most of the technical problems fairly quickly. Their main issue is keeping crews in the middle of a mining boom, to the extent that retention bonuses are making some PO stokers better paid than the boats captains. As the boom is fading out, the crew situation is getting better to the point that they now have 2 operational, and that will probably rise to 3.

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 ?

Our old boats were bought because they were cheap, not the worlds best. The RCN made it very clear that if they were to only have SSK's, they wanted Barbels. The Barbels would have cost twice as much. That being said, the Oberons had a major global supply chain. The Victorias don't. We're unlikely to ever have more than one obsolescent boat operational for significant periods of time. Is that capability really worth the opportunity cost?

 

[Monsoon]

We're unlikely to ever have more than one obsolescent boat operational for significant periods of time. Is that capability really worth the opportunity cost?

So the fact that we have three operational now (and that they're not "obsolescent") is just a flash in the pan?

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

So the fact that we have three operational now (and that they're not "obsolescent") is just a flash in the pan?

Two...and one is crippled with a bad donk. It'll take a long time and lots of spares to make Windsor fully operational. Those spares will have to come from somewhere, and there weren't all that many submarine versions of that genset made. That sort of issue is going to be repeated a lot while we have these boats.

All we've been able to do with these boats since we got them is to have one operational, and the other either completely tied to the wall or tied-up-and-waiting-for-people-or-parts. Either way, we can keep one operational over a period of time, and that's all. That's not necessarily bad, it's about what we could do with the TRUMPs.

The boats are about as current as an IRE was in the mid 90's. It could get off a bunch of 3" rounds, but putting it up next to modern ships made it obsolescent at best.

 

[HB_Pencil]

Question for you DSubmrnr

How is lifecycle calculated for submarines? Is there an underwater equivalent for cycles or time at depth operated at? Or is it just a milestone that indicates a larger shifts in cost ect. Really my question is whether the 2030 timeframe is really a hard limit... or is it something that we can stretch out

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

There are calculations for hull life depending on how it's been used etc. However, that process has already been run for those boats, and that's how they came up with 2030. Remember Chicoutimi was laid down in 1983, and at that point she would have been planned to be disposed of somewhere around....now. 

The only other boats I can think of that are that old are some of the US fleet boats from WWII. I think the ROCN navy still operates a couple of those, although I haven't heard of either of them diving in years.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Raeside proposes a another role for the subs

http://www.timescolonist.com/raeside-s-view-1.17418

 

[Tralax]

Is it mainly cost reasons that we aren't considering purchasing new/used nuclear submarines?

 

[CombatDoc]

Is it mainly political cost reasons that we aren't considering purchasing new/used nuclear submarines?

FTFY.  Yes to both.

 

[Monsoon]

Is it mainly cost reasons that we aren't considering purchasing new/used nuclear submarines?

Yes, they're colossally expensive to build and maintain, and require an enormously expensive supporting infrastructure. They're also colossally loud underwater (you can't just switch a nuclear reactor to "off" and run silent), so they aren't of much use if what you're primarily interested in doing is discreetly finding out what other folks are up to.

 

[Tralax]

Thank you for your replies to my question.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

They're also colossally loud underwater (you can't just switch a nuclear reactor to "off" and run silent), so they aren't of much use if what you're primarily interested in doing is discreetly finding out what other folks are up to.

Newer generations have variable-speed machinery, and can be more quiet than conventional boats. They're also quite handy if you're found and have to get out of Dodge really quickly.

 

[kratz]

For the past hour I have been watching the boat manouvering on the surface of Bedford Basin, from my deck.

It's great to see her out again.

 

[The Bread Guy]

B.C.’s shipbuilding and repair industry will get a shot of good news today when the Harper government announces a five-year, $531-million contract extension to repair and upgrade Canada’s fleet of four diesel-electric submarines, The Vancouver Sun has learned.

The contract, following a similar agreement struck in 2008, will protect roughly 200 jobs at the Department of National Defence’s Fleet Maintenance Facility in Esquimalt, according to a federal official.

Another 200 jobs will be protected at locations elsewhere in Canada, he said.

“This significant federal investment will support more than 400 high-quality jobs, improve the long-term sustainability of B.C.’s shipbuilding industry and provide the best tools for Canada’s sailors,” he said in a prepared statement.

The contract was won in a competitive bid by Babcock Canada Inc., a subsidiary of the British multinational firm Babcock International Group PLC ....

Victoria Times-Colonist, 4 Jul 13

 

[The Bread Guy]

The latest Fact Sheet from the Info-machine (also attached if link doesn't work), including where each sub is at maintenance-wise - here's a summary table:

 

[Haletown]

The story in summary form.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/sub-support-contract-creating-canadian-controversy-04563/

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Quite possibly from a PAO in DND. It's not that bad in the scheme of things, I seen far more glaring errors everyday in print.

 

[GAP]

Navy submarine damage severe, internal report says
HMCS Corner Brook hit seafloor off British Columbia in 2011
Rob Gordon, CBC News  Jul 16, 2013
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2013/07/16/ns-navy-submarine-damage-hmcs-corner-brook.html

Slamming into the seafloor at 11 km/h damaged one of Canada's submarines more severely than the navy originally admitted to the public, new documents obtained by CBC show.

The Royal Canadian Navy's Damage Assessment and Options Analysis report for HMCS Corner Brook tells a story of a submarine suffering "extensive damage" from "tearing and dents" that left a gaping, two-metre hole in the submarine’s bow.

Seawater was "roiling" in the parts of the submarine and two of its torpedo tube doors had been torn off when it rammed the ocean floor off British Columbia two years ago.

The submarine had 60 people aboard, including some of the most experienced and senior submariners in the navy, when it rammed the rocky seafloor while cruising 45 metres below the surface.

Two sailors were slightly injured during the June 4, 2011 collision.The navy's official board of inquiry blamed Lt.-Cmdr. Paul Sutherland, the sub's captain, for the collision.

The inquiry was closed to the public and the navy only released a one-page summary of the hearing.

The navy has publicly called the accident a "fender bender" which resulted in no structural damage. But the navy's internal report tells a much different story.
more on link

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The damage in the actual documents doesn't sound that bad. Most of the damage was to the fiberglass dome.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Running any vessel into rocks at 11 kts is going to cause all sorts of unseen damage and issues. Even my 17' Double Eagle would suffer damage equal to at least 25% of the purchase price.