Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
- Thread starter Cdn Blackshirt
- Start date
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,231
- Points
- 1,160
Not sure which is fueling jetty but the most northwest dock which is also close to the fuel tanks appears to be the deepest part (If ever so slightly) of the harbour docks going from 10-12m by the chart. also likely a clean uniform soft bottom would be required. The harbour bottom is pretty constant at 10-12m until you get close to the entrance.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
I'm a little curious about a prior post in this thread on the Collins class. I viewed an online Australian news clip from earlier this year on their plans and the RAN seems to be in a very similar situation as Canada. The recent competition for the National Shipbuilding Strategy seems to omit future subs. Are there any plans being developed for an eventual replacement of the Victorias? Wouldn't the Collins replacement project be a perfect opportunity for a partnership for Canada?
A
aesop081
Guest
cartwright said:
Of course it did. Try and find a single shipyard in Canada that has the capability and expertise to build one.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 10
CDN Aviator
Thanks for the response. I didn't realize that the refits being performed in Victoria weren't enough of a starting point for developing the ability to build. So no matter which way we go, new subs will need to be built offshore? Are our requirements similar enough to those of Australia that at least we could benefit from collaborating on a common design? I read somewhere that they we getting input from the US.
Thanks for the response. I didn't realize that the refits being performed in Victoria weren't enough of a starting point for developing the ability to build. So no matter which way we go, new subs will need to be built offshore? Are our requirements similar enough to those of Australia that at least we could benefit from collaborating on a common design? I read somewhere that they we getting input from the US.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,454
- Points
- 1,010
Cartwright:
You may have read recently that our Defence Minister was down under to meet with his counterpart. They agreed on greater collaboration in the future, including in material acquisition matters. While we are both involved in the F-35 programs, the press release appeared to be broader.
I know that the Australians have already started working towards the next boats that will replace their Collins class about the same time our Victoria's are due for replacement. Since Australia and Canada have requirements for their submarine that are different than those currently produced by most submarine builders (a long range patrol boat - not coastal or short legs one - and either AIP or diesel - not nuke) except maybe Japan, who does not export its boats, I am pretty confident that this is one field that will see collaboration in the near future.
You may have read recently that our Defence Minister was down under to meet with his counterpart. They agreed on greater collaboration in the future, including in material acquisition matters. While we are both involved in the F-35 programs, the press release appeared to be broader.
I know that the Australians have already started working towards the next boats that will replace their Collins class about the same time our Victoria's are due for replacement. Since Australia and Canada have requirements for their submarine that are different than those currently produced by most submarine builders (a long range patrol boat - not coastal or short legs one - and either AIP or diesel - not nuke) except maybe Japan, who does not export its boats, I am pretty confident that this is one field that will see collaboration in the near future.
yoman
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
GAP said:
For those of you interested in the story (it's a video). http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/1221258968/ID=2161330279
Now with a very brief article.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/27/submarines-british-nuclear.html
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
This should be an interesting report to watch (video clip in link):
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111111/w5-deep-sea-dud-111112/
"W5 Investigates Canada's floundering submarine fleet
Steve Bandera, W5
Date: Sat. Nov. 12 2011 6:56 PM ET
Canada's navy is promising its Victoria-class submarines will by fully operational by 2013 -- nearly 15 years after the boats were purchased from the United Kingdom.
Speaking with W5's Lloyd Robertson on Oct. 28, navy commander Vice Admiral Paul Maddison said he understands Canadians' frustration with the submarine program.
"I understand why they would feel impatient. I ask all Canadians for patience. We are at the end of a long beginning," Maddison said.
Nearly $1 billion was paid for the boats, and another billion spent on their "Canadianization," including modification of torpedo systems and unplanned repairs necessitated by accidents such as the 2004 fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi that took the life of Lieut. Chris Saunders.
Canadian taxpayers can expect to spend an additional $1.5 billion on these submarines, according to Senator Colin Kenny, who has served on numerous parliamentary defence committees in Canada and NATO. Kenny believes Canada should jump ship on these subs.
"With this particular class we're sending good money after bad," Kenny said. "As a Canadian taxpayer I don't want us to waste any more money on a platform we're only getting to use a few days a year. It simply doesn't make any sense."
In the last decade, the four boats have been operational for less than 1,000 days, combined. If you do that math, that's out of an available 14,600 possible days the boats could have been at sea.
Maddison insists they will be fully operational and weapons-capable by 2013, with one submarine on each coast, a third "swing boat" and the fourth in deep maintenance.
Some critics think that Canada doesn't need any submarines at all.
"I think the days of Canada's submarine fleet are over," said Steven Staples, president of the Ottawa-based research group Rideau Institute that advocates cuts to military spending.
"If we're going to defend ourselves or monitor other submarines, we can do that from helicopters," Staples said. "We can do that from surface ships, from aircraft using sono-buoys. Some of our satellite technology can monitor submarines. (The) submarines we have can't even go under the Arctic ice."
The Commander of Canada's navy disagrees. He says that a submarine's defence capability is in its power to deter. And at least one of the submarines will test-fire a torpedo in 2012.
"Canada's a maritime nation," explained Maddison. "The economy floats. And when there are pressures, by piracy, by illegal activity, by regional conflict, if Canada's going to stand alongside our allies and make a difference, we will need submarines."
Transpolar route to become more important
Forty-five nations currently operate at total of 450 submarines around the world, according to Maddison. Retired submariner and former navy commander Vice Admiral Bruce Maclean estimates that another 150 submarines worth about $100 billion will be built in the next decade.
"In the twenties, thirties, forties and fifties we may actually see a transpolar route across an ice-free North Pole as the preferred transoceanic highway for goods at sea. It will make the Arctic even more important in terms of Canadian national interest," Maddison said.
By the late 2020s the current Victoria-class submarines will require replacing, said Maddison. Senator Kenny, thinks that instead of waiting Canada should replace the Victoria-class with new diesel-electric submarines as soon as possible.
"The nuclear submarines that the Americans or Brits use are much more noisy," Kenny said, adding that the Victoria submarines are "past their best before due date."
Kenny said Canada should consider licensing the design of a submarine from a European country, like Germany, and have six to eight of them built in Canada, a process that will take five to seven years before new subs could be added to the fleet.
But the navy is proceeding full steam ahead with trying to get the Victoria-class subs into service, presumably with the government's blessing.
"There is no indication, that I have seen, that there is any desire to do away with the Victoria class," Maddison said.
He has a more pressing problem to deal with.
In September, Maddison commissioned a "submarine capability study" whose final report is due at the end of the month. The study's convening order, a copy of which was obtained by W5, states that "force generation of qualified, experienced personnel to crew the submarines remains a challenge." Translation: the Canadian Navy needs more submariners.
"I will need at least 380 qualified submariners, ideally about 430. Right now I've got about 300," Maddison admitted.
"Once we get those boats running, success will beget success. We'll attract more Canadians into the submarine service and that will be good," Maddison assured W5."
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20111111/w5-deep-sea-dud-111112/
"W5 Investigates Canada's floundering submarine fleet
Steve Bandera, W5
Date: Sat. Nov. 12 2011 6:56 PM ET
Canada's navy is promising its Victoria-class submarines will by fully operational by 2013 -- nearly 15 years after the boats were purchased from the United Kingdom.
Speaking with W5's Lloyd Robertson on Oct. 28, navy commander Vice Admiral Paul Maddison said he understands Canadians' frustration with the submarine program.
"I understand why they would feel impatient. I ask all Canadians for patience. We are at the end of a long beginning," Maddison said.
Nearly $1 billion was paid for the boats, and another billion spent on their "Canadianization," including modification of torpedo systems and unplanned repairs necessitated by accidents such as the 2004 fire aboard HMCS Chicoutimi that took the life of Lieut. Chris Saunders.
Canadian taxpayers can expect to spend an additional $1.5 billion on these submarines, according to Senator Colin Kenny, who has served on numerous parliamentary defence committees in Canada and NATO. Kenny believes Canada should jump ship on these subs.
"With this particular class we're sending good money after bad," Kenny said. "As a Canadian taxpayer I don't want us to waste any more money on a platform we're only getting to use a few days a year. It simply doesn't make any sense."
In the last decade, the four boats have been operational for less than 1,000 days, combined. If you do that math, that's out of an available 14,600 possible days the boats could have been at sea.
Maddison insists they will be fully operational and weapons-capable by 2013, with one submarine on each coast, a third "swing boat" and the fourth in deep maintenance.
Some critics think that Canada doesn't need any submarines at all.
"I think the days of Canada's submarine fleet are over," said Steven Staples, president of the Ottawa-based research group Rideau Institute that advocates cuts to military spending.
"If we're going to defend ourselves or monitor other submarines, we can do that from helicopters," Staples said. "We can do that from surface ships, from aircraft using sono-buoys. Some of our satellite technology can monitor submarines. (The) submarines we have can't even go under the Arctic ice."
The Commander of Canada's navy disagrees. He says that a submarine's defence capability is in its power to deter. And at least one of the submarines will test-fire a torpedo in 2012.
"Canada's a maritime nation," explained Maddison. "The economy floats. And when there are pressures, by piracy, by illegal activity, by regional conflict, if Canada's going to stand alongside our allies and make a difference, we will need submarines."
Transpolar route to become more important
Forty-five nations currently operate at total of 450 submarines around the world, according to Maddison. Retired submariner and former navy commander Vice Admiral Bruce Maclean estimates that another 150 submarines worth about $100 billion will be built in the next decade.
"In the twenties, thirties, forties and fifties we may actually see a transpolar route across an ice-free North Pole as the preferred transoceanic highway for goods at sea. It will make the Arctic even more important in terms of Canadian national interest," Maddison said.
By the late 2020s the current Victoria-class submarines will require replacing, said Maddison. Senator Kenny, thinks that instead of waiting Canada should replace the Victoria-class with new diesel-electric submarines as soon as possible.
"The nuclear submarines that the Americans or Brits use are much more noisy," Kenny said, adding that the Victoria submarines are "past their best before due date."
Kenny said Canada should consider licensing the design of a submarine from a European country, like Germany, and have six to eight of them built in Canada, a process that will take five to seven years before new subs could be added to the fleet.
But the navy is proceeding full steam ahead with trying to get the Victoria-class subs into service, presumably with the government's blessing.
"There is no indication, that I have seen, that there is any desire to do away with the Victoria class," Maddison said.
He has a more pressing problem to deal with.
In September, Maddison commissioned a "submarine capability study" whose final report is due at the end of the month. The study's convening order, a copy of which was obtained by W5, states that "force generation of qualified, experienced personnel to crew the submarines remains a challenge." Translation: the Canadian Navy needs more submariners.
"I will need at least 380 qualified submariners, ideally about 430. Right now I've got about 300," Maddison admitted.
"Once we get those boats running, success will beget success. We'll attract more Canadians into the submarine service and that will be good," Maddison assured W5."
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I've talked to submariners about it and mentioned to them that I want to volunteer for sub training, and the response is usually "That's great, but you need to be HOD qualified first." I guess I'll have to wait a few more years first then... :facepalm:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Call MOG 5 and I'm sure they can get you loaded on your BSQ!Chief Stoker said:
- Reaction score
- 701
- Points
- 1,160
Lex Parsimoniae said:
Sorry i'm too old and have too much self respect ;D. The fact being a lot of surface personnel just do not want to sail on those boats, some of it because of their less than stellar safety record and all the bad press.Some of the submariners are there because they know they don't have to sail much and I heard them brag about it as much. There is a lot of resentment towards them throughout the fleet. Are the reasons valid? I guess time will tell but its doesn't help much when there is a constant list of negative things about the Upholder class in the media. Eventually there will be forced to send more personnel there and they won't be volunteers either.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Chief Stoker said:
They aren't the worst off compared to some trades, and subs only have two engineers; the EO and the CSEO, which is why they want you to be HOD qualified first. I plan on talking to my career manager about it when I see him, I figure if I'm going to a shore posting next fall anyways, I thought I could do BSQ while I'm waiting to go back to sea to get my HOD qual, and then go to a sub right after that. But it depends on what they want, and of course needs of the service first, so I'll just focus on my current posting for the time being.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
It's not for everybody for sure. The large amounts of sea days compared to the surface fleet (getting worse with HCM), lack of day workers, no Internet, crew shortages and resultant pier head jumps, significant qualification packages, reduced duty watch rotations at all rank levels, etc are major turn-offs for some. Others see the team spirit, interesting deployments (even if you can't talk about them when you get back), increased responsibility at junior ranks, lack of surface fleet spit & polish "BS", increased pay, and elite status as more than compensating.Chief Stoker said:
PS: I find it intesting that you admit most skimmers avoid submarines because they don't like going to sea. Dolphin 28!
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
The Victoria Class has a fixed crew size due to escape capacities (PM me with your forces.gc.ca address and I will explain more fully if you wish). Ergo there isn't bunk space to do trades training such as HOD packages. It would work better for you to do your AILS, AILV, etc and then start sailing aboard a boat while the knowledge is fresh.MSEng314 said:
The STO at MOG 5 could explain in more detail - drop down to '4 Trap' on NC Jetty and ask around.
NavalMoose
Member
- Reaction score
- 62
- Points
- 460
I think Chief Stoker meant that some submariners are there because the boats don't sail much, not general service personnel avoiding boats because they sail too much. I could be wrong, after all I was never one of the "elite" just a "skimmer". If you ever want to know how superior a submariner is, just ask him, he'll tell you...over and over. ;D
