DND may be shopping for new subs, sources say

[Colin Parkinson]

Finally a Sub we can afford and the manpower requirements are minamal, not to mention a short learning curve.

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=a193cebe-6fd7-4224-9309-4f05ff28c252

 

[aesop081]

Even if we gave the MPAs a harpoon capability,  how are they going to stop this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KIPjz6z_Ze0

I guess you dont know much about how we do our buisness

 

[Sub_Guy]

If I think subs are expensive then I don't know much about AWW?


The cost of operating and maintaining a submarine fleet is much more expensive than the weapon systems on our surface ships

That specific clip was of a missile going up in the sky, sure it might take down an Aircraft, but the real blow will come from the deep my friend, and by the time you get your Emerg "T" Bearing XXX.... out on the radio, you will probably be seconds from a real bad day. 

 

[Navy_Blue]

Another article in the paper today folks. 

2007-11-08, Canada
Future of subs up in the air

Prime minister, top officials debating whether to scrap, upgrade or buy new
By MURRAY BREWSTER The Canadian Press
Thu. Nov 8 - 6:17 AM

OTTAWA — A wide-ranging discussion about the future of Canada’s troubled submarine fleet is taking place at the highest levels of the Conservative government, say political and defence sources.

The Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister’s Office are examining whether to “scrap them altogether, upgrade the existing boats or buy new,” said a political source.

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/Search/977352.html

Where there is smoke theres fire  ;D 

 

[karl28]

        I sure hope that the Gov doesn't  scrap the Subs . I may only be a Civilian but even I think there valuable assets to have . 
It would be nice to upgrade the ones that we have and than have a plan to buy new  replacements for  them with  in a  5-10 year time frame .

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall at that discussion. I wonder what alternatives they are discussing? Clearly if they are really concerned about the Arctic they would be discussing Nuke boats. We would have to borrow or buy those from the US methinks....or maybe the Brits have some used ones eh?  ;D

 

[guns_and_roses]

In modern times is it possible to have a navy like the germans had in ww2? Based on subs?  If i had the power id base our Navy on Carrier groups and subs.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Nuke boats would be nice, but in my opinion either the Type 212 or Gotland.... AIP is the way to go.

I wonder how Joe Public would react if the the PC party turfed the Victoria Class?  There has been nothing but bad press about these boats

We have not had a real operational submarine program since 98/99 it is coming up on a decade now, and if it takes 6-8 years to get new boats online (6-8 years from contract announcement?) it could be close to another decade before we have full operational capability when it comes to subsurface.  There is a lot of experience that will be lost, heck there is a lot of experience that has been lost since the O-boats, from where I sit it is scary time to be involved in the submarine program. 

 

[geo]

I wonder how Joe Public would react if the the PC party turfed the Victoria Class?  There has been nothing but bad press about these boats

A little bit like SAS and the DeHavilland Bombardier Q400. Many accidents that they blame on the plane & manufacturer.  They ground the aircraft and announce they will sell off their fleet.  Subsequently, the European Air Safety Agency researches and proves the problems are maintenance issues... (remind me not to fly SAS)

Not saying that we didn't look after our boats, from the moment that they became our boats.... but the Brits didn't do a great job when they mothballed them... then we took forever hemming and hawing before making the deal... The boats were rusting away and what O boat experience we had was getting older (or going out the door) while everyone waited.

How will Joe Public react?... Predictably.  How will the Gov't present it?... Predictably. It was the Liberal's fault - curse Stephane Dion!

 

[MarkOttawa]

Why we do not need submarines:

1) We face no naval threat off our coasts for which subs are needed.

2) Surveillance and sovereignty protection are much better done by surface ships, aircraft, UAVs and satellite.

3) Subs are not suited for fisheries protection; our Navy is the only one in the world--as far as I know--that uses this truly silly justification.

4) Providing diesel-electric subs for the USN to train against is not a key Canadian defence interest, however much the Navy likes the link.

5) We seem to be getting along fine now--and have for several years--with no effective submarine fleet.

In any event, whatever may think of the need for subs, this acquisition has been a disaster and is sucking money that could be better used elsewhere--e.g. amphibious ships and vessels with real sea-going capabilities unlike the MCDVs.

By 2012 we might actually have all four subs in service. At which time all of them will already be at least twenty years old.

It would indeed be a shame if the subs were "scrapped" but a sensible decision. Though basing such a decision on Arctic relevance would be politics run mad. What would arctic-capable subs of our own actually do? No good for general surveillance. Torpedo underwater intruders in peacetime whose secret passages pose no legal threat to our sovereignty claims in northern waters?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[geo]

Ouch!

(good rant Mark!)

 

[Sub_Guy]

Why we don't need an army

1. The only way an army is going to get to our country is via air or sea (need for submarines there)

2. We face no real threat over land from an enemy force (and if we did they would coming from the air or sea)

3. Shovel your own driveway

I could sit here and make a list for everything we don't need and back it up with silly reasons.  The ocean is much like the air (3 Dimensional) , patrolling on the surface is great, but what about the sub surface?  The submarine is an invaluable asset, go ask Argentina what they think about the subsurface threat.... 

Should we get rid of our CF-18's too?  Because they patrol the skies and we face no real threat from the skies right?  (See New Zealand)

But I am sure someone will be thinking "what about the Russian bombers, those are a threat"  They are even less of a threat than a SSBN hanging out in our backyard.

Good rant though.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Question for you Mark.....why do you think that the Chinese think building a submarine capability is important?
http://www.strategypage.com/military_photos/200471823.aspx

 

[aesop081]

1) We face no naval threat off our coasts for which subs are needed.

How about the foreign subs that transit through our waters ?  Furthermore, can you categoricaly say that we will not face such a threat 10 years or more from now ?

2) Surveillance and sovereignty protection are much better done by surface ships, aircraft, UAVs and satellite.

Maritime surveillance is best done 3-dimesionaly. Above, on and below the surface.

3) Subs are not suited for fisheries protection; our Navy is the only one in the world--as far as I know--that uses this truly silly justification.

I'll give you that one.  But just like we can use the CP-140 for that in peacetime, we can use the subs for other things.

4) Providing diesel-electric subs for the USN to train against is not a key Canadian defence interest, however much the Navy likes the link.

How about providing D/E submarines for the training of Canadian ASW forces ?

5) We seem to be getting along fine now--and have for several years--with no effective submarine fleet.

How would you know ?

No good for general surveillance.

Oh...please explain  :

Torpedo underwater intruders in peacetime whose secret passages pose no legal threat to our sovereignty claims in northern waters?

Best way to track a sub is with another sub.  Again, can you categoricaly say that we will not have to respond to underwater challenges in our waters in the future ?  If you can i would like to have the same crystal ball you have.  Right now you just sound like :

Mark
from Ottawa and here to help

:

 

[CougarKing]

Question for you Mark.....why do you think that the Chinese think building a submarine capability is important?

IN HOC SIGNO,

To answer your question on Chinese subs:

The PLAN/Chinese Navy needs submarines partially to blockade Taiwan and as a way to assert their claim over the Yellow Sea, East China Sea and South China Sea without the luxury of large carrier battle groups. Their having so many Ming, Song and Romeo Class SSKs left over from the Cold War, as well as newer types like the Han, Yuan and Kilo Class subs, means that their naval doctrine might have been based on the Soviet Navy as well before the Moscow-Bejing schism that was in full swing by the end of the 1960s. So far the Han class is the only Hunter-Killer (like Fast-Attack SSBNs of the USN) SSN the PLAN has, though it is noisy and anything but fast.

Furthermore, the Chinese also maintain a marginal SSBN capability with their Xia Class sub- and that newer Jin Class SSBN spotted on Google Earth- to supplement the missile brigades of the PLA Second Artillery whose mission is to give the CCP leaders the option to strike back. The "No Strike First" nuclear missile policy advocated by Mao still remains the doctrine of the PLA Second Artillery's units; you will see that policy stated in any Sinologist's books about the PLA which even mention China's strategic missile forces, such as those by David Shambaugh.

BTW, the article link you provided misspelled the Chinese sub class name, featured in the article, as the "Yaun" when they mean "Yuan". That name is the Mandarin name for rule of that dynasty of Mongol rulers who occupied China for about a 100 years; Kublai Kahn, one of the Yuan Emperors, was supposedly the grandson of Genghis Kahn. Some analysts have speculated that the Yuan may have been based in part on the Kilo Class SSKs the PLAN already has a few of.

Here's a Jin Class SSBN overhead picture, btw, as well as the link to the article describing it:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2007/07/the-jin-class-s.html

 

[Greymatters]

MarkOttawa and DolphinHunter, both are good reads. ('Shovel your own driveway' - ha! love it)

However, as much as I believe that subs are not 'invaluable', I agree with DolphinHunter that they are key to any true demonstration of soveriegnty.  There's no sense flying the flag on the surface with frigate and airframes when US and Russian subs can cruise through our waters whenever they feel like it.  Sure, Joe Civi doesnt know its happening (except for the occasional news story), and we can pretened we dont know the subs are going through our waters where we claim soveriegnty, but it only means that our allies laugh behind their hands at us.  Not the best of reasons for keeping a sub, but national dignity is as good a reason as any.

"5) We seem to be getting along fine now--and have for several years--with no effective submarine fleet."

For shame! Isnt this the same argument the government has been throwing at the military for the last 20 years?   "We seem to be getting along fine without (fill in the blank - tanks, new fighters, new ships, NVD's, ammo for training, courses for troops, new heavy airlift, helicopters that can airlift more than 8 people, etc.)"  And look where that got us?  A list of stuff we need thats a mile long, and a treasury board moaning about it.  We can cut corners on a lot of things and get away with it, but the CF must be able to operate in all four battlespaces to be effective.  

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

The PLAN/Chinese Navy needs submarines partially to blockade Taiwan and as a way to assert their claim over the Yellow Sea, East China Sea and South China Sea without the luxury of large carrier battle groups. Their having so many Ming Class and Romeo Class SSKs left over from the Cold War, as well as newer types like the Han, Kilo and Yuan Class subs, means that their naval doctrine might have been based on the Soviet Navy as well before the Moscow-Bejing schism of that was in full swing by the end of the 1960s.

The point is that there are plenty of nations in the world that think that submarines are an important asset. They are a force multiplier as you alluded...they don't have carrier battle groups so they have to have something to level the playing field. For us they are an important part of having a blue water navy.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

It is sad to see there are some people out there that do not see the necessity or understand of the submarine in naval warfare. :

Well said to IHS, Greymatter, Cdn Aviator and Dolphin Hunter. Very well put.

 

[Navy_Blue]

Our fleet east and west today is like a three legged dog.  The tankers are hurting, the 280's are tired, the CPF's are just starting FELEX and our subs well we know what they are like.  If we loose our Sub (yes Sub  :warstory we might as well strap on the wheels and let the Navy drag its arse around.  Its an interesting time to be in the mix.  Its a make or brake time for us.

 

[GAP]

MacKay says scrapping sub program not on the table
Updated Fri. Nov. 9 2007 10:39 AM ET The Canadian Press
Article Link

ANTIGONISH, N.S. -- Defence Minister Peter MacKay says Ottawa isn't considering scrapping Canada's troubled submarine fleet.

MacKay was responding to a report that suggested the Privy Council Office and the Prime Minister's Office are weighing the future of the sub program, with options ranging from scraping them altogether to buying new boats.

The defence minister says he wants to see the four submarines operational as soon as possible, calling them "good vessels'' to enforce Arctic sovereignty and protect Canada's coastline.

The four Victoria-class submarines, which Canada bought used from Britain in 1998, have come under criticism for delays, mounting costs, their limited Arctic capabilities and the perception they're "lemons.''

But despite those setbacks, and the fact that only one of the subs is fully operation, MacKay insists the program has his full support.

He's asked for recommendations on how to proceed with the program, but says that's due to financial and legal considerations regarding the bidding process and not because the future of the subs were in doubt.
More on link