Canadian Submarine Capabilites (What can they do? Do we need them?)

[Ex-Dragoon]

The loss? I was unaware we planned on getting rid of them. No its not the death knell but nor would it help us. Modern naval warfare is 3 dimensional above, on and below the surface. To lose an aspect of that means you become ineffective, no matter how small of a force you have, much like how much the loss of tanks wil affect the army.

 

[George Wallace]

Then that is what I said.  The loss of the skill set of the "Tanker" would mean the death knell to the ARMY, in that the Cbt Team would be neutered.  The loss of the skill set of the "Submariner" would greatly affect the Navy, but not to the same extent.  Naval Task Forces would still be able to operate.  The Army, however, would not be able to effectively deploy a Cbt Team or any true fighting force that would credibly defend itself.

GW

 

[George Wallace]

For us its comparable, you said it was not as drastic. My point was to show it is and how serious the navy views it.

So again,,,,,,,,,I ask you......will/would it mean the "DEATH KNELL" of the Navy?

GW

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Would not mean the death knell but its a step backwards just like the loss of the Leopards. Its a big step back and a huge loss in capbility but the CF has always been able to adapt and overcome. Do I like the route its headed, hell no because I fear it would mean the deaths of people I know because they are give a POS. Same token without ASW training we once head it could mean my death. I am not partial to that idea at all.

 

[Inch]

George, I'm not totally immersed in the navy yet, but for the MH crews, practicing on imaginary subs can only get you so far.  We were out pinging on the Windsor a few weeks ago and we had to get her to slow down in order for us to track and "attack" her.  Without actual subs to practice on our skill set for our primary role is degrading, so for MH, yes, it's the Death Knell of our capability.  There was a time that if it was in the ocean, we could find it. It has a little to do with the equipment but more to do with the actual practice.  The same goes for the navy, if they can't practice hunting and killing, then they're now vulnerable to subsurface attack and I would say that the loss of a Submarine fleet is the Death Knell of the navy too.

Cheers

 

[12alfa]

I may walk the plank for this but........

I would think that the sub threat is almost gone as to harm our country. That said we should have some form of anti-sub trg'ing.

However.... we need other seagoing platforms more than billion dollar subs.

When a civi ship captian can hold the canadain army and it's veh's at sea for any reason we got problems.
Did we not have them guarded?
What the Hellllll was said guard doing?
Was he armed?  

Could subs help out in this operation?

We can hunt subs, but can't get our own equipment into deployments like other nations.
We can hunt subs, but can't supply troops abroad on operations from the sea like other nations .
We can hunt subs, but can't deploy a rapid reaction force to help out a UN mission when required (Rawanda) from the sea like other nations.

We can hunt subs......................


Oh "is the LeoC2 a tank?"...I would not know, I'm a reservist......right GW!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I would think that the sub threat is almost gone as to harm our country. That said we should have some form of anti-sub trg'ing.

IS it? The Chinese and NK are always working on improving their subs. Iran has Kilos. As I and Inch have pointed out our ASW has suffered from the lack of subs how would we have any sort of quality training without them?

However.... we need other seagoing platforms more than billion dollar subs.

True...we need a balanced naval force with subs being part of it.

When a civi ship captian can hold the canadain army and it's veh's at sea for any reason we got problems.
Did we not have them guarded?
What the Hellllll was said guard doing?
Was he armed?  

Could subs help out in this operation?

No idea about the guard but a sub could have been used to conduct surveillance and could have deployed a team.

We can hunt subs, but can't get our own equipment into deployments like other nations.
We can hunt subs, but can't supply troops abroad on operations from the sea like other nations .
We can hunt subs, but can't deploy a rapid reaction force to help out a UN mission when required (Rawanda) from the sea like other nations.

We can hunt subs......................

You say we can but I say we lost that edge. The best tool to kill a submarines is another submarine. An escort force with a sub increases its effectiveness dramatically.

 

[12alfa]

IS it? The Chinese and NK are always working on improving their subs. Iran has Kilos. As I and Inch have pointed out our ASW has suffered from the lack of subs how would we have any sort of quality training without them?


True...we need a balanced naval force with subs being part of it.


No idea about the guard but a sub could have been used to conduct surveillance and could have deployed a team.


You say we can but I say we lost that edge. The best tool to kill a submarines is another submarine. An escort force with a sub increases its effectiveness dramatically.

The Chinese and NK are always working on improving their subs. Iran has Kilos.

This in it self does not pose a threat to most people, now to the anti-sub players they as we all do use it for their oun exestinse.They would as you know get through the US anti-sub net to enter Canadain waters.

No idea about the guard but a sub could have been used to conduct surveillance and could have deployed a team.

Survellance can be done via sats that we have spent millions also, as for boarding we have other platforms that could reach the ship faster and at a lower cost if we wanted to board it, in fact we did not want to board as it would show Canada in a bad view in the people minds, no it's best to let who ever take what they want. The Kadie was a embarasment for everbody, but mostly for our ability to secure our equipment and the ability to retake it if nessary.

Our navy if i read this correctly has for the most part in the last 20 or so years been deployed in operations to support the blockade or supporting the UN and the US in operations dealing with duties other than anti-sub tasks. I think we should remove ourselves from the task, focous on what we have been doing and aquire the platforms to do the job, not train or buy kit to do cold-war training, or preceaved threaths from under the water, but hey thats just my 2 cents, I may be wrong.

(spell check not working AGAIN!!!!)

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

12Alfa lets not turn this into a pro/against sub debate.  Save for another topic.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

This in it self does not pose a threat to most people, now to the anti-sub players they as we all do use it for their oun exestinse.They would as you know get through the US anti-sub net to enter Canadain waters.

Does not pose a threat to most people? Hello but you have been sniffing too much fumes if you believe that. Have you not read the above views of myself an Inch on how much the navy has suffered from the lack of having submarines in our navy. How do you expect the navy to eventually protect a JSS loaded with nice green army equipment if we haven't exercised against submarines? We've tried and it just does not work playing a simulated threat. They are more likely to get through an ASW screen because we have lost our proficiencies to detect and hunt subs.

Survellance can be done via sats that we have spent millions also, as for boarding we have other platforms that could reach the ship faster and at a lower cost if we wanted to board it, in fact we did not want to board as it would show Canada in a bad view in the people minds, no it's best to let who ever take what they want. The Kadie was a embarasment for everbody, but mostly for our ability to secure our equipment and the ability to retake it if nessary.

Ummm we rent time from other nations for their surveillance asets. We don't have any of our own and when they are tasked we are out of luck. Yes but the key sometimes is stealth and sometimes you don't want the other side to know you are there. Sometimes you know when that KH11 is going to be overhead and can evade it. Merchant grade radar cannot pick up a sub periscope and on the rare times it can the operator does not recognize the fact he has seen a sub periscope as they are not up long enough.

Our navy if i read this correctly has for the most part in the last 20 or so years been deployed in operations to support the blockade or supporting the UN and the US in operations dealing with duties other than anti-sub tasks. I think we should remove ourselves from the task, focous on what we have been doing and aquire the platforms to do the job, not train or buy kit to do cold-war training, or preceaved threaths from under the water, but hey thats just my 2 cents, I may be wrong.

Yes you are very wrong, and there is not such thing as a percieved submarine threat. Stick your head out of your hatch sometime and read about naval warfare. Submarines are the hottest vessel type on the international arms market its a threat that wil not go away to say what you have said just tells me you are clueless on the subject.

 

[Inch]

Lance, that was a fine rant, I agree completely and couldn't have put it better myself.

12Alfa, subs are intimidating presences. You don't know they're there, they can run silent so that unless you're actively pinging and giving away your position, you can't find them. If you want to know how intimidating, just as a WW2 RCN vet that did the North Atlantic crossings constantly waiting for the German U-boat to make it's "presence" known by launching a torp and sinking a ship.  The irony of this whole Armour/Submarine thread is that the argument for keeping tanks is that the army doctrine hasn't had a major overhaul so tanks are still required and to my knowledge naval warfare hasn't had a major overhaul either so how could subs and cold-war training, or perceived threats from under the water become non-factors? As long as the bad guys can get Subs, we need an anti-sub capability to protect our fleet which includes helos and Submarines.

Cheers

By the way, last time I checked, US subs didn't protect Canadian Sovereignty or Cdn waters, think about that statement and then tell me again about this US anti-sub net that protects our warm pink bodies.

 

[12alfa]

Lance, that was a fine rant, I agree completely and couldn't have put it better myself.

12Alfa, subs are intimidating presences. You don't know they're there, they can run silent so that unless you're actively pinging and giving away your position, you can't find them. If you want to know how intimidating, just as a WW2 RCN vet that did the North Atlantic crossings constantly waiting for the German U-boat to make it's "presence" known by launching a torp and sinking a ship.   The irony of this whole Armour/Submarine thread is that the argument for keeping tanks is that the army doctrine hasn't had a major overhaul so tanks are still required and to my knowledge naval warfare hasn't had a major overhaul either so how could subs and cold-war training, or perceived threats from under the water become non-factors? As long as the bad guys can get Subs, we need an anti-sub capability to protect our fleet which includes helos and Submarines.

Cheers

By the way, last time I checked, US subs didn't protect Canadian Sovereignty or Cdn waters, think about that statement and then tell me again about this US anti-sub net that protects our warm pink bodies.

12Alfa, subs are intimidating presences.

To who? Just who is being intimidated? The Serbs when we were in the Balkins? To the Talabin, as we r in Afgan? To the Anti-UN forces in Hadia, Middle East?

We are not facing or haven't faced a threat from any nation in the last 20 years that have the capability to deploy subs against us, or a surface fleet. Any sub/ship would be detected long before reaching Canadain waters by the US, with their war on terrior nothing is getting near the N american land mass, land,sea, or in/under the water.

Yes they don't   patrol "Canadian Sovereignty or Cdn waters", but they do watch waters on the way to our landmass.

To say we need subs to protect our country is a waste of money, to say we need them for training, i can swallow, somewhat.

The threat is just not there, unless you can provide some info where a nation has deployed them against us in the last 20 years.
We need ships to support the deployments we are currently doing, i would think.

It's like the army buying MRLS systems, why? we would never use them, or the airforce buying attach helo's, we have never needed them, and won't with the current operations, or need them in the future if the goverement has it's way, helll they find tanks offisive.

Money spent on roll-off roll-on ships would I think would have been a bit wiser.

But if you can deploy   equipment and troops by subs, i may change my mind.

keeping tanks is that the army doctrine hasn't had a major overhaul so tanks are still required and to my knowledge naval warfare


Two different subjects, Doctrine and warfare.

We (I don't think) deploy our fleet in harms way without other nations, correct? Have we deployed the subs to escort said fleet? Or has the other nations deployed their subs?

Until I see how we and the other nations deploy subs in current UN or peace making duties I'm not sure we need them, when we need other platforms more. Can you give us some hard data to back up the buying of said subs and what role they play in the current deployments?
Please.

 

[DJL]

This in it self does not pose a threat to most people, now to the anti-sub players they as we all do use it for their oun exestinse.They would as you know get through the US anti-sub net to enter Canadain waters.

Forget about North Korea for the moment, but due to the vast increase in China's Navy (Brown and Blue water, Surface and Sub-Surface) and the growing tensions over Taiwan, I'd think it to be prudent, at this time, not to pair away from the Navy it's subs.

Now based on the fact that the majority of the increased numbers of Chinese subs, are infact SSKs (as opposed to nukes) the threat of Red Chinese subs in the Juan de Fuca straights are lessend. (Mind you, the boomers from Bangor like the the straights......but thats an "American problem") With that said, the threat of Red Chinese subs from as far South as the Gulf of Tonkin to as far North as the Sea of Japan is real.

Now if any potentail conflict between the West and Chinese were to happan, it would be a safe bet to place money on Subs being used by both sides......

To who? Just who is being intimidated? The Serbs when we were in the Balkins? To the Talabin, as we r in Afgan? To the Anti-UN forces in Hadia, Middle East?

Far be it for me to put words in Inch's mouth, but I think s/he's trying to get the point across that subs are intimidating to us or any other navy that has to face them in a war, be they British subs "intimidating" the Argies, German wolfpacks starving Great Britain or American gatos doing the same to the Japanese.

We are not facing or haven't faced a threat from any nation in the last 20 years that have the capability to deploy subs against us, or a surface fleet. Any sub/ship would be detected long before reaching Canadian waters by the US, with their war on terrior nothing is getting near the N american land mass, land,sea, or in/under the water.

Define threat. Put the Soviets and Chinese aside, but let's "pretend" that the growing tensions with Iran surpass the boiling point if/when the Americans and/or Israel pull a "Al Tuwaitha" on the Ayatollah's nuclear facilities. Now Iran's responce is to blockade the Straits of Hormuz with their Kilo subs, is that not a threat towards our economy by halting the flow of oil? What about a threat of North Korean subs blockading Japan? Would that not "threaten" our economy?

To say we need subs to protect our country is a waste of money, to say we need them for training, i can swallow, somewhat.

Do you not think that having our surface force trained in ASW is protecting our country?

But if you can deploy   equipment and troops by subs, i may change my mind.

What if to deploy our equipment and troops, in a safe manner, we need a navy that can defend against all threats? (including subs)

 

[Bograt]

This is a ridiculous discussion. It is like arguing which appendage is more valuable (The right arm is much more important than the left leg...). Unfortunately, it is typical in the current political climate to position one branch against one another. It is important that understand that both capabilities are fundamental to a fully functional military.

The reliance of DND to use civilian contractors to transport troops and equipment is unacceptable. I do not need to mention the boarding several years ago of a ship that was refusing to dock and a significant portion of Canadian army equipment on board.

For those that suggest that we do not need ASW capability I would politely ask them to remove the smoke detectors from their home. Why do you need it when you have never had a fire.

Do not fall into the trap of arguing with your brothers at arms.

My 2 cents.

edited for accuracy. Thanks

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

12 Alpha I really see now why people get so frustrated with you. No matter how much they argue with you and point out your errors you are convinced without a doubt you are right.

We (I don't think) deploy our fleet in harms way without other nations, correct? Have we deployed the subs to escort said fleet? Or has the other nations deployed their subs?

This statement alone shows me you have no clue what you are typing. If you did you would know that submarine movements is one of the closest guarded secrets a military has.

 

[Infanteer]

If anything, the potential for a "rogue nation" to get ahold of an old Russian sub and arm it with a nuke of some sort giving it the capability to take out a CVBG would mean that there is an increased need for the best ASW platform out there, a hunter/killer.

Doesn't Iran have a little fleet of Diesel subs?   Quite things that they are, they could make some trouble in the Straits of Hormuz if they wanted to.

Other then that, my knowledge, like 12Alfa, doesn't extend beyond Tom Clancy's Submarine, so I'll let you guys ride the whale from here.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Doesn't Iran have a little fleet of Diesel subs?  Quite things that they are, they could make some trouble in the Straits of Hormuz if they wanted to.

You are correct, they are using Kilos (and trying to get more) plus their own locally produced midget submarines.

 

[Torlyn]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I (like infanteer) derive my submarine knowledge mostly from books and no practical experience...  Something I've been mulling over here though, is that our northern passage seems to be opening up more every year.  I know that the Danes have used it, and have been overfishing (along with the Faroes) close to or near our territorial waters...  Now, if this passage is going to be used more, for the transportation of goods/materials/whathaveyou, gives foreign nations th ability to approach north American installations closer and closer, shouldn't we have something that isn't hindered by surface ice to be able to patrol our waters?  (Our subs can do that, right?)  Is that a viable purpose for the subs?

Another thing is that sure, "the" cold war is over, and that particular need for submarines isn't as manifest as is has been in the past, we still need to be able to protect our waters from economic damage too, correct?  I know that the MCDV's spend time patrolling against foreign fishermen illegally fishing in Canadian waters, pollution detection/prevention, and the like, so doesn't it stand to reason that we should have the ability to patrol this northern area (as there is lots of ice, probably under it for some parts) and have the ability to detect others that might use it?  I mean, if another country has claim to an island in our northern waters, they have the international right to fish within 200 nm of that land body, don't they?  Using their conservation methods...  WE need to protect the north somehow, and I think if we had a more capable submarine presence, it might at least give other countries pause before they attempt anything like this.

12Alpha, the line of thought you seem to be going off on seems to stem from "if it hasn't happened yet, why worry about it".  If we can think about doing something, be damned sure someone else with less friendly intentions has done the same...  Just because nobody flew a plane in to a building in Canada doesn't mean it might not happen.  I know in Calgary a lot of us spent time that day looking at the banker's hall twin tower complex downtown...

T

 

[Garbageman]

shouldn't we have something that isn't hindered by surface ice to be able to patrol our waters?   (Our subs can do that, right?)   Is that a viable purpose for the subs?

Our subs are diesel-electric, and therefore need to snorkel regularly to allow air for the diesels.  This pretty much prohibits anything but nuclear subs (or icebreakers) from patrolling iced-over areas.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The mid life refit of the Victoria's is looking at AIP so that will give our SSKs a limited capability to operate under the ice.