DND may be shopping for new subs, sources say

[Ex-Dragoon]

I was re reading the argument Mark was making and the subsequent points made thereafter and I was wondering if anyone else sees the irony of the two air force guys making the argument for submarines to the ex CCG guy that I would have hoped knew better.

 

[Greymatters]

I was re reading the argument Mark was making and the subsequent points made thereafter and I was wondering if anyone else sees the irony of the two air force guys making the argument for submarines to the ex CCG guy that I would have hoped knew better. 

Everybody has an off day...

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I would concur but those were well thought out points

 

[a_majoor]

In one sense this is a good idea; given the long lead time to procure items like subs, ships, aircraft etc. doing our shopping now means something will actually be ready in ten years when we are doing an evaluation on the Victoria class subs ("Should I stay or should I go?")

Some other reasons come to mind:

Canada has different needs than most operators. For political reasons as well as economic ones we are very unlikely to get nuclear submarines, but we still need to patrol the longest coastline in the world, have some sort of under ice capability and in extremis be able to deploy over globe spanning distances to get where the action is. Overall, this would mean a larger, faster and more capable boat than is offered by the major Western powers. The modern U boats and their counterparts from Sweden etc. are optimised for their conditions (i.e. the North and Baltic seas), shorter cruises and easy access to shore facilities. Imagine our subs off the coast of Timor or in the Arabian sea, or generally operating out of the Indian Ocean (which may well be the Oceanic strategy of choice for WW IV) and you begion to see the problem.

Given these scenarios, we would want an extensively modified boat if it were to come from a foreign design, or perhaps be willing to start the R&D NOW to create the boat we want/need. This also gives us time to work on other peculiar problems like how to track things under the ice, or integrate diesel fuel cells (SOFC) or other advanced technologies into the design.

Even if we decide we are willing to forego under ice capabilities or glob spanning range, contracting out for a submairne will probably still take time, no one is building subs in a modular fashion like the type XXI anymore

 

[Neill McKay]

Imagine our subs off the coast of Timor or in the Arabian sea, or generally operating out of the Indian Ocean (which may well be the Oceanic strategy of choice for WW IV) and you begion to see the problem.

This raises a question I'd never thought about before: will the JSS have any capacity as a sub tender?  (And what, if anything, does a sub tender need apart from the usual facilities of an AOR-type vessel?)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Sub tenders are fading away, even the USN is giving up on the concept. To meet our aspirations of a player on the world stage though we need to go AIP for our subs if we want to deploy them around the world. And as Neill points out we might have to keep an out dated concept in operation to suit our naval needs.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A response to my points at "The Torch" from Cmdre (ret'd) Eric Lehre:

More on the submarine debate
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/11/more-on-submarine-debate.html

While the Brewster article [Mark] posted was not able to quote me more fully, I did outline that the current questioning of the submarine capability involved two sides. One side likely questioned the expense of submarines given the rising costs of other more immediate government and DND concerns - whatever they may be. On the other side are those who point out it may not be a particularly astute time to eliminate submarines given that nuclear submarines have always been and will continue to be the vehicle of choice for those seeking to move relatively quickly though the Arctic seas. Given the rush to lay claim to arctic offshore areas in pursuit of oil, the odds are this will be even more important. In addition, AIP submarines will surely join nuclear submarines in this and no one predicts the complete elimination of the arctic ice cover anytime soon.

Moreover, the Fall 2007 Issue of the Canadian Naval Review contains an interesting article by Captain Webster on Arctic waterspace management. Therein he makes the case that with submarines of any kind you participate in the western world's effort to manage submarine movements in a process akin to air control. Canada can thus exert considerable pressure on others to cooperate with us in the management of submarine movements in the waters off our Arctic simply by operating our current submarines on the borders of the ice edge.

Those who might not initially cooperate are soon driven to do so because of fears of underwater collision and because cooperation just makes sense. Nations who do not have submarines are not invited to participate in this sensitive work. They are asked nothing and told nothing. This is no exception to this rule.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

JSS are not designed to support subs. Maybe a small freighter could be taken out of trade and modified to be a sub tender.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Anyone who wants Canada to have it's own Nuke subs has not looked at the subject much. Even Britain went with a US design and uses US Infrastructure to maintain the reactors. Conventional subs are being bought in large quantities right now and represent a threat to any navy that operates on the ocean. Did we buy the right subs for us? I think they were the right sub when offered, but suffered from neglect at the dock and lost some of their advantages. We should have looked at the U-214 class as the yard was building new subs with AIP capability, something that would have extended our reach under the ice. Subs are a force multiplier's and a area denial weapon, even when not being used. They could patrol the entrances to Arctic waters challenging US subs and letting them know that we know where they are, the US respects those that challenge them and would be more willing to compromise on the waterway use issue.

 

[a_majoor]

Anyone who wants Canada to have it's own Nuke subs has not looked at the subject much.

If you look back to the 1980's when nuclear submarines were openly contemplated by the Canadian Navy, you will see that it was political and economic, rather than operational requirements which scuttled the project. Both British and French designs were being seriously looked at, as well as some oddball ideas like the SSn, which used a very small reactor to charge the batteries, sort of like a diesel electric sub but without the diesel.......

The Americans were not inclined to cooperate (they felt our being able to operate under the ice would strengthen our claim to the NW passage), and Soviet subs were seen as the problem (the inherent strength of double hulls and potential plusses like liquid metal cooled reactors, 40 knot sprint speeds  and titanium hulls with improbable crush depths were all the rage in naval journals of the day), so something had to be done.

Strangely enough, many of the same factors are still in play, from Canada's operational requirements that suggest nuclear energy as one potential solution to the same casts of players and potential opponents (Russian nuclear submarines with double hulls, high pressure nuclear reactors, fast sprint speeds and improbable crush depths.....now dual purpose boats with torpedo launched cruise missiles).

I only point out that some sort of nuclear option makes sense in a strictly operational terms, costs and politics will always drive the process of what we get and only a very weird set of circumstances would allow the Canadian Navy to have their own nuclear boats.

 

[CougarKing]

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. :

A World War II-era USN submarine skipper once said: to submariners, there are only two kinds of ships: "other submarines and targets" (Please correct me if I said this quote wrong).

Even though the conditions today are different from both World Wars, maritime commerce or transportation is still very important and a submarine has been proven as a viable weapon that can disrupt an aggressor nation's shipping lanes. Note how German U-boats, first under the Kaiser and then under Hitler, nearly starved Great Britain out by attacking the convoys; people also overlook the fact that the Pacific War was also won as much by USN submarine crews who decimated Japan's merchant fleet and even much of the IJN's surface fleet, as by the carrier pilots and the Marines/GIs in island-hopping campaigns. Such was the impact of the submarine on both these island nations, who rely so much on maritime trade, that both the RN and later the JMSDF later developed a substantial ASW capability during the Cold War (because they feared waves of Soviet subs let loose on the shipping lanes if war came) and onwards. With this history recap in mind, is it true that the hint of a presence of an enemy sub in a modern war will be enough to tie down even up to a whole battle group of surface ships conducting ASW or at least make them steam on course very cautiously, or in zig-zag patterns?  All these points are just to reinforce/reiterate the previous justfications for our having subs, even though other larger nations' sub capabilities have evolved to the point of being able to carry SLBMs, other land attack munitions as well as insert covert operations teams into enemy territory undetected, which shows just how versatile and adaptable platforms submarines can be when it comes to finding new uses for them.

Nowadays, the convenience of air travel and air transportation of goods, etc., is so prevalent that this makes some people in fact forget or fail to realize the important fact that a lot of commerce still runs on freighters, tankers and other merchant vessels.

a_majoor,

BTW, in your last reply mentioning boats that did 40 knots or more, did you mean one of those Alfa Class submarines that go up to 43 knots?

 

[a_majoor]

Yes. The ALPHA scared the Bjeezus out of Western navies and inspired a flurry of advanced weapons programs like the Mk 48 ADCAP and the Seawolf class submarine in an effort to deal with them, not to mention a flurry of Tom Clancey novels as well  .

The ALPHA was a very interesting boat, but in real life it turned into a titanium pumpkin, and of the seven that were built, none seem to be in service anymore. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfa_class_submarine

 

[Navy_Blue]

Regardless of weather I expect it to work or not.  The JSS according to the SOR shall be capable of supporting the Victoria Class underway.  Anyone I have talked to doesn't think it can happen.  Possibly if fitted right in a sheltered area and in calm weather the JSS or Tanker could.  At sea underway would be risky in terms of safety and environment.

 

[NCS_Eng]

Just as an FYI for those keeping tabs on this thread, I was recently in Ottawa for the Navy's annual C4ISR Conference, and during a presentation by DGMFD/DMRS 9 (The Sub Project guys) they addressed the issue of buying a new sub class as ludicrous, and that all cost projections done show that it would bankrupt the Navy (They put a very rough dollar figure at 4b for the initial acquisition and and an additional 6b in service support). I expect this is the information that was passed to the government for their report so I don't think we will be seeing anything else on the subject.

The Victoria class isn't going anywhere. Also of intrest to this thread is that the Victoria class service life extension program (SLEP) has no funding and isn't guaranteed to happen (unofficially 50/50).

Also offtopic but also interesting, apparently the Destroyer replacement program is now officially back on the books (IE we are no longer putting all our eggs in the SCSC basket). Its now known as DRP (Destroyer Replacement Program) and its brand new (only official as of July 07).

 

[Spencer100]

Also offtopic but also interesting, apparently the Destroyer replacement program is now officially back on the books (IE we are no longer putting all our eggs in the SCSC basket). Its now known as DRP (Destroyer Replacement Program) and its brand new (only official as of July 07).

That is very interesting.  How would DRP effect the SCSC? We would not run two programs would we? 

Mod: I guess this should be a new thread.

 

[newfin]

If this DRP news is true then that is the most interesting bit of news in a while.  I never did like the idea of 1 hull for 2 different purposes.  And I wish that we would build something proven for a change.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

If this DRP news is true then that is the most interesting bit of news in a while.  I never did like the idea of 1 hull for 2 different purposes.  And I wish that we would build something proven for a change.

Halifax class frigates were not proven either but they have more then adequately proven their worth and are a well regarded class throughout the world.

 

[NCS_Eng]

Halifax class frigates were not proven either but they have more then adequately proven their worth and are a well regarded class throughout the world.

Absolutely. There is enough experience left in Canada in regards to shipbuilding and designing that we don't have to look off the shelf.

The DRP is still very much a paper project, and given its relative newness and lack of traction in Ottawa it is likely to stay that way for a while. The big challenge will be to sell this project to the politicians, given the other high profile (and funded) ships like JSS and the new patrol ships. The CADRE project (the old new destroyer program) remained unfunded and unloved for the decade or so it was on the books, and I really don't know if the current climate has changed enough to warrant bringing it back.

The other big challenge will be staffing the project if it ever moves past the initial stages. The Navy is looking at running JSS, the new Patrol ships, HCM and DRP on around 450 people. For comparisons sake, the Halifax Class project in the 80s had a staff of 450, and that was ONE project. Interesting times ahead for the navy.

 

[a_majoor]

The other big challenge will be staffing the project if it ever moves past the initial stages. The Navy is looking at running JSS, the new Patrol ships, HCM and DRP on around 450 people. For comparisons sake, the Halifax Class project in the 80s had a staff of 450, and that was ONE project. Interesting times ahead for the navy.

When you consider that much smaller staffs worked on much larger or equally challenging projects in WW II (often incorporating entirely new generations of technology) using only paper and pens and getting projects out the door and in service in a few years or less it seems astonishing that so much horsepower is being expended today with theoretically more educated personnel supported by advanced IT equipment (in WW II, "computer" was a job description, not a piece of machinery or electronics) to do one project over a decade or more.

 

[NCS_Eng]

When you consider that much smaller staffs worked on much larger or equally challenging projects in WW II (often incorporating entirely new generations of technology) using only paper and pens and getting projects out the door and in service in a few years or less it seems astonishing that so much horsepower is being expended today with theoretically more educated personnel supported by advanced IT equipment (in WW II, "computer" was a job description, not a piece of machinery or electronics) to do one project over a decade or more.

I take it you've never worked in a PMO before?