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

[Ex-Dragoon]

Halifax Shipyard Limited(HSL) is contracted to work on the Iroquois and the Preserver.

I also believe you cannot compare construction of an oil rig to that of a submarine. Too entirely different roles and tolerances needed. it like saying because I can change put a picture on my wall I can build a house. If we want to build subs we will have to get someone i.e. the Germans in to open up a yard here in Canada and I don't see that happening.

 

[a_majoor]

The big fear is if the subs are taken out of service during the inquiry, they are taken out of service forever. Possible? Maybe.

The erosion of our industrial base is more worrysome, not only will we not be able to provide for our own needs, but the lack of shipyards with skilled workers will make maintenance, upgrades and mid-life extensions difficult to impossible to do as well. That would be a poor reason to loose our Naval capabilities.

 

[jmacleod]

Much as I hate to say this, Canadian Shipyards appear to no longer have the capability to design
and build a submarine, particularly a nuclear submarine - look at the technical details focused on
the USS Seawolf, (on the net) and the resources of Ingalls Shipbuilding (now a Northrop-Grumman
company) or the Electric Boat Company, both major US based shipyards specializing in vessels for
the US Navy. The complexity of nuclear submarines was assessed by DND and Canadian Navy
personnel - probably some of your readers are aware of this, or participated in the proposal to
provide nuclear submarines to the Canadian Forces. The decline of Canadian shipyards has been
the focus of many questions in the House of Commons, and was critical in the 1980's for support
of the nuclear submarine acquisition proposal, and work for shipyards which participated in the
Patrol Frigate Program upon conclusion. Saint John Shipbuilding noted for it's highly skilled workforce
no longer builds ships, and probably never will again, despite the high quality of the Canadian Navy's
Patrol Frigates- one final point-Canada, needs a submarine resource for a variety of sound, tactical
and practical reasons, not the least of which is the outstanding quality of Canadian Forces Submariners.
MacLeod

 

[a_majoor]

Perhaps we are being a bit too pessimistic. It is true under current conditions, we have really limited abilities to do conventional shipbuilding or design.

Consider, though, a new shipbuilding contract will be worth billions of dollars; a huge incentive to get or gain the skills required. Also, if we don't focus on the "legacy" stuff quite so much, but make our statement of requirements in terms of required and desired capabilities, other players might get into the game with innovative new ideas.

In the aerospace world, the big companies like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin were humbled by Scaled Composite Aircraft, who built a complete spacecraft system and have flown it operationally for a mere $20 million (SpaceShip One). Building rockets is probably in the same "order of magnitude" as a modern warship in terms of tolerances, quality control and electronics, so we have a demonstration it can be done.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

But do we ignore the "legacy" aspect in the hopes that we can gain something additional?

 

[a_majoor]

I would hope "legacy vs unconventional" isn't a zero sum game. What I am thinking of is similar to what happened near the end of the Second World War. The German Navy was in dire need of U boats, and advanced capabilities as well. The conventional Type VII U boats (legacy equipment in our terms) were expensive, labor and material intensive, and gradually being outmatched by the Allies.

The Navy commissioned new classes of U boats to meet the changing demands, and at the same time, demanded the new boats could be quickly put into service. The new designs (Type XVII and Type XXI were the best known) embodies some very advanced technologies, were designed and built as modular sections, and were being laid down fast enough to start making up for losses in the North Atlantic. When the "Walther" AIP system proved unreliable, oncoming  boats were modified to use a highly upgraded electric drive system. All this despite the chaos of German war planning, materials shortages, bombing attacks, poor quality slave labour and a lack of trained crews to man and fight the U boats. (similar stories exist with the German armaments industry and aircraft production).

So we do have historical evidence that with the right incentives in place, "legacy" capabilities can be leapfrogged if necessary. For our purposes, we might end up with the ships being "built" or grown or whatever, and the legacy shipyards responsible for the final assembly and outfitting. IF the Legacy shipyards cannot do the job, well, someone will for a billion dollars a pop.

 

[bubba]

well boys all i got to add is it ain,t nuclear fission to put some deisol's in a can.toleraances exdragoon turn into procedures which can be built.right now there's thousands of unemployed tradesmen in this country,don,t tell me what we can build and what we can't.no disrespect meant,but ive been travallin all over worken and any thing can be built.it just come's down to MONEY..so take a little pride in your countries trademen.engieers on the other hand well that's a different story..

 

[NavyGrunt]

well boys all i got to add is it ain,t nuclear fission to put some deisol's in a can.toleraances exdragoon turn into procedures which can be built.right now there's thousands of unemployed tradesmen in this country,don,t tell me what we can build and what we can't.no disrespect meant,but ive been travallin all over worken and any thing can be built.it just come's down to MONEY..so take a little pride in your countries trademen.engieers on the other hand well that's a different story..

Im not sure if Im reading you right Bubba- but right now we cant build. Its not that we dont have faith in tradesmen, we have the skilled labor required but we dont have the facilities. Nobody is crapping on tradesmen. Your right about the money- we have to build facilities....but then we need to prove that we need those facilities for more than one run of ships. Otherwise the dry docks will fall into disrepair before being scrapped again. And the cycle will continue. We need the government to say "we need these ships built and after that- refit these, then we are going to replace these subs" We need a commitment from the government to keep replacing and building(even if on a smaller scale) otherwise it wont be worth the investment by the civilian contractors the government will no doubt hire. Thoughts?

 

[bubba]

hey aaron,yeah were kinda on the same page.your right the gov got to make a commitment,but i dought we'll see it.really hope im wrong.there a big part of the reason are ship yards are in bad shape.retooling is not a problem but work has to keep comin in to make it worth while like you said.the gov just does't get it.i got to get ,but if you want pm me,i'll try and give ya some imput on the shipyards

 

[jmacleod]

Back to the original topic. My opinion: Canadian Submarines should continue to serve, undergo
upgrades, and a planning policy put in place to replace them eventually. Back to shipyards - I wrote
many letters to former Conservative MP Elsie Wayne, Saint John NB, who, if she had been on the
government side would have been in Cabinet in my opinion. Mrs. Wayne was unquestionably in
support of more work from public sources for Saint John Shipbuilding, but the Irving's had a major
problem dealing with Federal bureaucrats in PW&GSC. The question of where the Irving Group of
Companies built their oil tankers. They are designed and built in yards in Taiwan and Korea for
economic reasons. Irving, a huge conglomorate, is a profit driven organization (has to be), but
they could not effectively counter a charge that they were not truly participating in the shipyard
trade, if they would not invest their own resources (they have no shareholders) in building their
ships in Canada. The bureaucrats involved were dedicated, smart civil servants, not the bad guys
who still oversee Federal work in all Canadian shipyards, but Federal work is not enough, and the
international financial climate does not accept the costs associated with Canadian shipyards. Of course
the argument arises, why not subsidize? U.S. Yards were subsidized up until 1986 - when the
Federal subsidies were withdrawn, U.S. shipyard production of non-miltary vessels dropped by over
80%. The future of Canadian shipyards is a complex problem, not amenable to a simple solution.
MacLeod

 

[Big Foot]

As far as I'm concerned, the Brits should give us our damned money back, and more so we can go get working submarines. In light of the numerous design flaws of the boats and the fact that they were in such bad shape, why we bought them in the first place is beyond me. Its only a matter of time before more sailors die because of these deathtraps.

 

[G .Dundas]

As far as I'm concerned, the Brits should give us our damned money back, and more so we can go get working submarines. In light of the numerous design flaws of the boats and the fact that they were in such bad shape, why we bought them in the first place is beyond me. Its only a matter of time before more sailors die because of these deathtraps.

  Thank you for your comments however in my case I intend to withhold judgement until I have more information.Btw what is your background in marine and electrical engineering?

 

[FastEddy]

Nope..we don't need submarines not at all, after all like the experts point out there is no one out there who may threaten us.   :

The  major question is not, if we need Submarines, but why are we buying some bodys elses JUNK.
If other Countries can afford to by Submarines that can pose a threat, why are we buying equipment
that is out-matched and out-dated ?.

 

[a_majoor]

The major question is not, if we need Submarines, but why are we buying some bodys elses JUNK.
If other Countries can afford to by Submarines that can pose a threat, why are we buying equipment
that is out-matched and out-dated ?.

Not so fast there, the Upholder class is an SSN without the N, and much more suitable for Canadian needs than the short range diesel boats other countries use. The problem is the political dithering while they were laid up caused them to deteriorate. If I was to sell you a 1997 Neon that has been on blocks for the last five years, don't you think it will take a bit of work to recondition? (Now if you decided to "cheap out your reconditioning work, imagine the problems later...)

Perhaps if we were really serious about the "sub thing", we might consider leasing some ex-USN 688 "Los Angeles" class boats and basing them on the West Coast. I doubt the PLA is ready for a "round the world" deployment in the near future.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The   major question is not, if we need Submarines, but why are we buying some bodys elses JUNK.
If other Countries can afford to by Submarines that can pose a threat, why are we buying equipment
that is out-matched and out-dated ?.

I guess that I missed the part on your profile where you indicated your previous operational experience in a naval environment...

 

[Infanteer]

Funny, everyone derides the Upholder class, but from all the Submarine books I've read, it was considered the best diesel electric submarine in the world.  When I first heard we were getting them, I was rather excited that Canada would be getting a top-line boat.

Despite the recent death, I still anticipate the deployment of four very good SSK submarines that will allow us to maintain (and hopefully expand) our submarine capabilities.  If anything, the article shows us why.

 

[FastEddy]

I guess that I missed the part on your profile where you indicated your previous operational experience in a naval environment...

How observant of you. However my reply did not need experience in or of the subject matter.
Second Hand is still Second Hand. Also, as a rule of thumb concerning Marine Vessels, Use It or Loose It
we all know that.
My argument was that our Submariners deserve the newest and best equipment available. Their profession is Risky and Dangerous enough.
And again, maybe you can enlighten us, how the Chinese can do it, but we have to settle for second best or less.

 

[Infanteer]

My argument was that our Submariners deserve the newest and best equipment available.

Ok, can you find a better SSK on the market?

 

[Acorn]

Ask the Australians about the costs and problems associated with "build-your-own" submarines and "latest and greatest." The final result of the Collins class was a very good sub, but the teething problems and media (and uninfomed self-proclaimed "expert") mewling was horrendous. I'd be willing to bet that even with all the problems we are suffering in getting the Upholders on line, they are trivial compared to what the folks from Oz went through. The Collins, by the way, is very similar to the Upholder in capability.

Acorn

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

How observant of you. However my reply did not need experience in or of the subject matter.

Gotta love opinions...they are like a**holes as everyone has one.