Replacing the Subs

[dimsum]

Example, Link 16 is sort of "yesterday" now....

Kind of. Link 22 isn't designed to replace L16.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Pretty much all of that. The slow downs becasue of COVID have taken the heat and light off of the huge, underlying issues for awhile but we've got eyes bigger than our stomach, basically:

Transportation in Canada 2019​

Transportation in Canada 2019

Transportation in Canada 2019 Annual Report is tabled in both chambers of parliament according to the article 52 of the Canada Transportation Act. The report provides an overview of the transportation system in Canada for 201.

tc.canada.ca

Here's some examples of current rail limitations.
The rail tunnel between Sarnia-Port Huron is a single track, rebuilt about 25yrs ago to replace what was then a 100+yrs old tunnel. The new, single track tunnel can accommodate new inter-modal stack containers.

The rail tunnel between Windsor-Detroit is over 110yrs old, twin tracked, but only 1 of the 2 tracks can accommodate 'some' inter-modal stacked containers in a limited height fashion.

The rail bridge between the 2 Niagara Falls is close to 150yrs old and is a single track.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Here's some examples of current rail limitations.
The rail tunnel between Sarnia-Port Huron is a single track, rebuilt about 25yrs ago to replace what was then a 100+yrs old tunnel. The new, single track tunnel can accommodate new inter-modal stack containers.

The rail tunnel between Windsor-Detroit is over 110yrs old, twin tracked, but only 1 of the 2 tracks can accommodate 'some' inter-modal stacked containers in a limited height fashion.

The rail bridge between the 2 Niagara Falls is close to 150yrs old and is a single track.

Excellent examples.

Times that by a few hundred across the country, add 'no pipelines' etc, and you've got a national revenue crisis looming.... pretty much...

And with that, I have no idea how we got here from 'Sub Replacements'. You're welcome

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We would have to fix recruiting before even attempting to operate that many subs! And enhance fleet support services somewhere along the way.

One of the problems with having such a large country and yet such a small population (in my opinion anyway) is that not many Canadians feel ‘connected’ to the coasts, hence challenges in recruiting for the RCN.

Realistically, I’d be surprised if we even get 6. I’m betting that when/if this ever happens, it will be a 1 for 1 replacement with a newer class.


0.02

Even with recruitment problems I argue for 6, that means 2 in deep maintenance, 2 working up and 2 fully operational at any one time. 6 also that the yards have more time to complete maintenance with less demand from the operational side, meaning less OT and better quality control and more stable work for the repair facility. The RCN is guaranteed to have 2 operational subs and to that can be pushed to full operational at almost anytime. New subs may also help recruitment in that area as well.

 

[Happy Guy]

I am not suggesting that we should compete with our USN, UK and AUS allies but please note the numbers for attack submarines:

USN. 50 nuclear
UK. 7 nuclear
RAN. 6 Diesel-Electric (current), 8 (minimum) future nuclear. Cost AUS$ 90 Billion.

Our closest relevant comparison would be the RAN who has a huge coastline to protect and similar population size. Of course they are facing a direct threat from China. Canada does not have any overt direct threats, but as we have seen in the past few years, China is growing increasing aggressive and hostile. It does not hesitate to use it political and economic power to get what it wants. It has disregarded international laws - kidnapping of Hong Kong citizens back to China for reeducation. Unknown if they will, like Russia, assassinate their political enemies oversea. Plus Canada must be aware of the waning international influence and willingness of US to deploy and use force to maintain World order and peace - a topic for discussion: Will the USA honour its NATO commitments? Will Canada too? Will Canada deploy and support our Aussie and Kiwi cousins if they are threaten and in danger?

With the need for deep maintenance, work ups/training and operations I would suggest that we need a minimum of 9 subs : 3 x maintenance, 3 x workup/training and 3 x operational (Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic).

Given the future threats I believe that we should go nuclear - I know most people think that the overall procurement cost, maintenance, infrastructure and training costs will be prohibitive, but perhaps we can partner up with Australia to lower the costs.

Our immediate threats are: China, Russia and a potential rogue non-nation player.

I agree that diplomacy is the best approach, but Theodore Roosevelt said it best : "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far"
In short use diplomacy, but if that fails be able to back yourself up with the willinginess to use might.

 

[Weinie]

I am not suggesting that we should compete with our USN, UK and AUS allies but please note the numbers for attack submarines:

USN. 50 nuclear
UK. 7 nuclear
RAN. 6 Diesel-Electric (current), 8 (minimum) future nuclear. Cost AUS$ 90 Billion.

Our closest relevant comparison would be the RAN who has a huge coastline to protect and similar population size. Of course they are facing a direct threat from China. Canada does not have any overt direct threats, but as we have seen in the past few years, China is growing increasing aggressive and hostile. It does not hesitate to use it political and economic power to get what it wants. It has disregarded international laws - kidnapping of Hong Kong citizens back to China for reeducation. Unknown if they will, like Russia, assassinate their political enemies oversea. Plus Canada must be aware of the waning international influence and willingness of US to deploy and use force to maintain World order and peace - a topic for discussion: Will the USA honour its NATO commitments? Will Canada too? Will Canada deploy and support our Aussie and Kiwi cousins if they are threaten and in danger?

With the need for deep maintenance, work ups/training and operations I would suggest that we need a minimum of 9 subs : 3 x maintenance, 3 x workup/training and 3 x operational (Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic).

Given the future threats I believe that we should go nuclear - I know most people think that the overall procurement cost, maintenance, infrastructure and training costs will be prohibitive, but perhaps we can partner up with Australia to lower the costs.

Our immediate threats are: China, Russia and a potential rogue non-nation player.

I agree that diplomacy is the best approach, but Theodore Roosevelt said it best : "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far"
In short use diplomacy, but if that fails be able to back yourself up with the willinginess to use might.

Why does it take 2 years to do an upgrade on a sub. Not trying to be snotty here. Does technology change that much that we can’t do a plug and play. Why even 12 months?

 

[Stoker]

Why does it take 2 years to do an upgrade on a sub. Not trying to be snotty here. Does technology change that much that we can’t do a plug and play. Why even 12 months?

Because upgrading a submarine that operates under hundreds of meters of water is a very different process then upgrading say a surface ship. We have a whole SUBSAFE process that must be followed to ensure the safety of all crew.

 

[Happy Guy]

Quick question - can an air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarine break through Arctic ice like the nuclear subs? If not, should we even consider AIPs and leave the Arctic unpatrolled when it is winter / Northwest Passage ice covered?
I'm not really well versed about ships and submarines.

 

[Stoker]

Quick question - can an air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarine break through Arctic ice like the nuclear subs? If not, should we even consider AIPs and leave the Arctic unpatrolled when it is winter / Northwest Passage ice covered?
I'm not really well versed about ships and submarines.

No one has ever tried as no one is foolish enough to go under the ice. The endurance/power is still not there.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

- It was interesting talking to American pers when the Liberals decided "bombs are bad, m'kay?" in Iraq. Was a little harder to hold your head up high...

- It was interesting talking to American pers when the Liberals decided "bombs are bad, m'kay?" in Iraq. Was a little harder to hold your head up high...

I was stationed in AFSOUTH J2 (Naples, Italy) from 99-03. For the most part we were well regarded, however, Chretians actions were noted by the Americans and it didn't help that a certain female Liberal MP was going around making anti-US statements/actions which were also noted.

 

[OldSolduer]

I was stationed in AFSOUTH J2 (Naples, Italy) from 99-03. For the most part we were well regarded, however, Chretians actions were noted by the Americans and it didn't help that a certain female Liberal MP was going around making anti-US statements/actions which were also noted.

Oh I remember her. A wing nut of the First Order. The PM should have had her in his office in a one way session of counselling ala The RSM way, and if she didn't like it well boot her butt out of caucus.

 

[CBH99]

Pretty much all of that. The slow downs becasue of COVID have taken the heat and light off of the huge, underlying issues for awhile but we've got eyes bigger than our stomach, basically:

Transportation in Canada 2019​

Transportation in Canada 2019

Transportation in Canada 2019 Annual Report is tabled in both chambers of parliament according to the article 52 of the Canada Transportation Act. The report provides an overview of the transportation system in Canada for 201.

tc.canada.ca

It sounds like the rail transport system is efficient when not facing any challenges, but can screech to a halt if anything happens as the trains are dependent on the rail system to be fully functioning at large? (I was just read the one part on the performance of the rail system.)

If anything comes along and disrupts anything, mass freight comes to a standstill or is sluggish to move.

Would additional rail tracks constructed over similar but different routes help?

I am not suggesting that we should compete with our USN, UK and AUS allies but please note the numbers for attack submarines:

USN. 50 nuclear
UK. 7 nuclear
RAN. 6 Diesel-Electric (current), 8 (minimum) future nuclear. Cost AUS$ 90 Billion.

Our closest relevant comparison would be the RAN who has a huge coastline to protect and similar population size. Of course they are facing a direct threat from China. Canada does not have any overt direct threats, but as we have seen in the past few years, China is growing increasing aggressive and hostile. It does not hesitate to use it political and economic power to get what it wants. It has disregarded international laws - kidnapping of Hong Kong citizens back to China for reeducation. Unknown if they will, like Russia, assassinate their political enemies oversea. Plus Canada must be aware of the waning international influence and willingness of US to deploy and use force to maintain World order and peace - a topic for discussion: Will the USA honour its NATO commitments? Will Canada too? Will Canada deploy and support our Aussie and Kiwi cousins if they are threaten and in danger?

With the need for deep maintenance, work ups/training and operations I would suggest that we need a minimum of 9 subs : 3 x maintenance, 3 x workup/training and 3 x operational (Pacific, Atlantic and Arctic).

Given the future threats I believe that we should go nuclear - I know most people think that the overall procurement cost, maintenance, infrastructure and training costs will be prohibitive, but perhaps we can partner up with Australia to lower the costs.

Our immediate threats are: China, Russia and a potential rogue non-nation player.

I agree that diplomacy is the best approach, but Theodore Roosevelt said it best : "speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far"
In short use diplomacy, but if that fails be able to back yourself up with the willinginess to use might.

just some overall thoughts on this post - great post btw

- Unknown if China will assassinate their political opponents overseas? I think the answer is very much a yes, and most likely has already happened.

- Will the US honour it’s NATO commitments? Yes I believe they will.

One of the best ways to regain whatever influence has been lost to China, is to show up to the fight ready to take charge and support their NATO allies.

Political influence, economic influence, military influence tends to substantially increase for the country that shows up ready to help one that is in need. “Anybody need some F-35’s? ahem”


- The need for 9 submarines. In an ideal scenario, that would be great - it just won’t happen though. Not anytime soon.

The public would balk at the cost. But I wouldn’t worry too much about that, the Canadian public focuses on whatever the media tells them to, so I’m sure we could draw their attention elsewhere in no time.

And we would have to essentially go from being a primarily surface fleet navy to a primarily sub-surface navy. And since a lot of our current commitments revolve around waving the flag operations, being seen is important.

 

[JMCanada]

Quick question - can an air-independent propulsion (AIP) submarine break through Arctic ice like the nuclear subs? If not, should we even consider AIPs and leave the Arctic unpatrolled when it is winter / Northwest Passage ice covered?
I'm not really well versed about ships and submarines.

Not being an expert, from the technical point of view I see two issues for that:

First, breaking through Arctic ice should be a problem of buoyancy and reinforced hull. Probably not a big tech. problem for oceanic submarines of about 4,000 tonnes and above.

Secondly, patrolling the Arctic for nuclear boats is easy as they have virtually unlimited fuel which translates into high speeds when needed and no worries about endurance (just supplies).
Designing an AIP submarine to patrol the Arctic requires a naval authority (RCN/DND) to set up the criteria on the endurance, range and speed of the patrol.

Grossly speaking, take for instance a 40 days submerged patrol to cover up to 6,000 nm (including 1,500 nm, 25%, as reserve) at about 7 knots. This would require an AIP about double the power of existing ones (600-700 kW vs 250-350kW) AND a fuel reserve about 4-6 times the reserves of typical AIP boats (*). Fuel reserves mean both Hydrogen in different forms (for fuel cells) and Oxygen (liquid, LOX), or fuel (Stirling engine) and Oxygen too.

Batteries would allow for sudden sprints at higher speeds but just for few hours.

The main problem is that up to now no allied submarines have had such requirements, that leads to the RCN needing a customized design.

There was an article about this in the 2020-fall Canadian Naval Review.

(*) At least, 4 times: double the power and double the endurance, from three weeks claimed by Type 212 or swedish Gotland (just gross figures as I remember) to six weeks.

 

[CBH99]

Not being an expert, from the technical point of view I see two issues for that:

First, breaking through Arctic ice should be a problem of buoyancy and reinforced hull. Probably not a big tech. problem for oceanic submarines of about 4,000 tonnes and above.

Secondly, patrolling the Arctic for nuclear boats is easy as they have virtually unlimited fuel which translates into high speeds when needed and no worries about endurance (just supplies).
Designing an AIP submarine to patrol the Arctic requires a naval authority (RCN/DND) to set up the criteria on the endurance, range and speed of the patrol.

Grossly speaking, take for instance a 40 days submerged patrol to cover up to 6,000 nm (including 1,500 nm, 25%, as reserve) at about 7 knots. This would require an AIP about double the power of existing ones (600-700 kW vs 250-350kW) AND a fuel reserve about 4-6 times the reserves of typical AIP boats (*). Fuel reserves mean both Hydrogen in different forms (for fuel cells) and Oxygen (liquid, LOX), or fuel (Stirling engine) and Oxygen too.

Batteries would allow for sudden sprints at higher speeds but just for few hours.

The main problem is that up to now no allied submarines have had such requirements, that leads to the RCN needing a customized design.

There was an article about this in the 2020-fall Canadian Naval Review.

(*) At least, 4 times: double the power and double the endurance, from three weeks claimed by Type 212 or swedish Gotland (just gross figures as I remember) to six weeks.

I’m no expert when it comes to submarines either, but from one non-expert to another, that post makes a lot of sense.

When the question has been asked before about whether Canadian subs could break through the Arctic ice, I always had a few questions of my own:

1. Why does being a nuclear submarine matter? If the submarine can ‘push’ itself upwards and break through the ice, what does it matter if it’s propulsion is conventional or nuclear?

But after reading the above posts, I think I understand why. No non-nuclear submarines have ever really operated under the arctic ice, and wouldn’t have the size/mass to do so safely - even with a strengthened or reinforced hull. (I’m sure I’m missing something there…)


2. Why would a Canadian submarine want to do so?

I can see if a submarine is in real distress and needs to surface, having that option would be nice. Options are always nice. But otherwise… why would a Canadian submarine want to?

American and British subs need to get close to the surface, or actually surface, to fire their missiles from their silos. Since Canadian submarines aren’t going to be lobbing nukes at anybody anytime soon, the only reason to have this capability seems to be for safety.


3. A customized Canadian design.

If no conventional submarine has ever been designed or build with reaching arctic ice in mind when it was built, then requiring a customized design would be needed - even if just a modified version of an existing design.

But if modern conventional submarines only have about half the power & half the fuel for Arctic operations, and none are designed to breach ice, then we don’t have a choice but to continue doing the types of missions we do. Which is totally fine.

We need to remember that while the Victoria class gets a lot of negative press, I think we can all agree the press isn’t a reliable source of unbiased information.

But the submarines have been upgraded substantially with the same combat management system found on US Navy subs, the latest version of the mark 48 heavyweight torpedo (I was quite surprised at how large of a buy we did), and various other capabilities they won’t make public.

Are they the newest and deadliest boats around? No.

Are they capable of conducting surveillance operations against enemies, engaging targets if need be, and surfacing only a few hundred feet from a French warship that didn’t even know it was there? Very much so.



If we are only going to get 4 to 6 submarines at most, and they will be conventionally powered - I would rather them focus on contributing to ongoing/future operations.

The Canadian submarine conducting surveillance operations on North Korean sanction violations was a great example of the types of operations I envision our submarine fleet to continue doing.


0.02

(not sure it’s even worth 2 cents, since we don’t use pennies anymore and I know jack all about subs)

 

[JMCanada]

I may be wrong but also believe that safety is the main reason to surface, followed by need for communications (send data collected, receive orders), by the amazing view of the plain frozen sea (in peace time) and by chance to capture some snaps of polar bears

A customized design.

Well, there may be alternatives: build six boats with one "AIP module" of some 200-300 kW and fuel reserves for four weeks (full power), take in also one SOF module and one VLS module. Afterwards, build three more subs for the Arctic replacing the SOF and VLS modules by two more AIP modules.

 

[CBH99]

I may be wrong but also believe that safety is the main reason to surface, followed by need for communications (send data collected, receive orders), by the amazing view of the plain frozen sea (in peace time) and by chance to capture some snaps of polar bears

A customized design.

Well, there may be alternatives: build six boats with one "AIP module" of some 200-300 kW and fuel reserves for four weeks (full power), take in also one SOF module and one VLS module. Afterwards, build three more subs for the Arctic replacing the SOF and VLS modules by two more AIP modules.

It may cost a LOT of money. Be an orphan fleet. Be extremely late entering service. And make the Cyclone buy look like it was a series of logical choices.

But heck, YOLO. Let’s do it


But seriously, I think we should partner up with whatever project we think best fits our requirements, and add our order to the end of whatever order has already been, or will be, coming about soon.

Let another country fix the bugs and recommend modifications, so by the time they start building ours they/we can capitalize on the lessons learned from the previous boats.

(I’m not trying to sound condescending at all. I actually enjoy this submarine thread, and like your enthusiasm!)

 

[JMCanada]

It may cost a LOT of money. Be an orphan fleet. Be extremely late entering service. And make the Cyclone buy look like it was a series of logical choices.

But heck, YOLO. Let’s do it

(...)

(I’m not trying to sound condescending at all. I actually enjoy this submarine thread, and like your enthusiasm!)

I feel great today, my enthusiasm is bulletproof, don't worry at all.

But, naiveness apart, there are few options left:

• Discard Japan: their boats are designed for a life-span of 15-20 years, ... not for the RCN
• discard South Korea and Italy (sure?) since their designs are tributary to the Germans.
• discard France: the Scorpenes would not be an option and the non-nuclear version of the Barracudas has proved to be a money sink, just think of the aussie Attack class. Foresee problems, overcosts and delays if US systems have to be integrated.
• discard the Swedish A26 type, not oceanic and an orphan fleet also (2 boats). Unless the Dutchs finally select the oceanic variant for their Walrus replacement (4 units).
• discard the Spanish S80+, despite featuring US systems, there will be only four boats and AIP performace is to be scrutinized.

... the only option would then be the German-Norwegian Type 212 CD. Six boats (disregarding previous Type 212A and export variants) plus ... six more for Canada?

Yeah, I know ... I've been some kind drastic.

 

[KevinB]

No one has ever tried as no one is foolish enough to go under the ice. The endurance/power is still not there.

Additionally due to that - I don't believer anyone has made a SSK that is strengthened to operate "thru Ice" if needing to surface.
The SSN, SSBN, SSGN are designed for that (at least to a certain ice thickness on multiyear polar ice).
To be honest I am not sure how they determine if the ice is penetrable for them.

 

[CBH99]

Additionally due to that - I don't believer anyone has made a SSK that is strengthened to operate "thru Ice" if needing to surface.
The SSN, SSBN, SSGN are designed for that (at least to a certain ice thickness on multiyear polar ice).
To be honest I am not sure how they determine if the ice is penetrable for them.

I have realized over the last year or two, the more I observe the submarine thread on here, as well as doing some quick research on other forums about submarine operations - That I truly didn't know anything about submarine warfare or submarine operations in general.

There is a YouTube channel run by an ex-USN submarine guy ( I will post the link to his YouTube channel later today) Where he answers all kinds of questions and explains how things work & a bit of the science behind it all.

I can honestly say that from the outsider looking in, those guys seem to be the astronauts of the ocean.

 

[dimsum]

That I truly didn't know anything about submarine warfare or submarine operations in general.

Aside from submariners and those who actively (heh) hunt them, very few people do.