Replacing the Subs

[Colin Parkinson]

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.

The Japanese have different sense of "lifespan" Even in their merchant fleet they don't keep a vessel as long as other nations would, generally people are happy to buy a highly maintained Japanese merchant ship that is at the end of it's "life" and then run them for another 20 years. From what I have seen is the Japanese want to keep their yards in work and calculate the annual maintenance cost and when it reaches a certain point, they get rid of it.

 

[dimsum]

The Japanese have different sense of "lifespan" Even in their merchant fleet they don't keep a vessel as long as other nations would, generally people are happy to buy a highly maintained Japanese merchant ship that is at the end of it's "life" and then run them for another 20 years. From what I have seen is the Japanese want to keep their yards in work and calculate the annual maintenance cost and when it reaches a certain point, they get rid of it.

Same with their aircraft. They were chopping up Kawasaki-manufactured P-3C Orions as live egress trainers (ie. having crews physically chop out the breakout panels to GTFO) that had lifetime hours that would be "gently used" by other nations.

 

[Stoker]

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.

Surfacing through the ice even with the sail reinforced is always a dicey operation that have caused damage to submarines in the past. Its not just a matter of buoyancy, its also a matter of brute power, AIP does not provide that. To operate under the ice in my opinion, we have to have the ability to surface in ice in case of emergency. Why haven't other Nordic nations used their conventional submarines under ice before?

 

[JMCanada]

Thanks for the input. Certainly if brute power is needed, AIP does not provide it. Might batteries be used instead? they could provide peak currents for some time, especially since, once emerged, diesel gens would recharge them.

I agree with the ability to surface in case of emergency as a requisite.

 

[Stoker]

Thanks for the input. Certainly if brute power is needed, AIP does not provide it. Might batteries be used instead? they could provide peak currents for some time, especially since, once emerged, diesel gens would recharge them.

Batteries is the same thing, slow speed and not a lot of power. If we did have a design, and it would have to be a fairly large design to facilitate the extra plating and reinforcement to the sail. Would you want the job of doing the testing of submerging through the ice for the first time?

We would be better off with a large design with efficient motors and lots of lit-ion battery capability and operating at the ice edge of the NW passage.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

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

My point was more geared towards operating in a L16 environment, but not having L16 ourselves, and relying on someone (cough RAAF cough) re-broadcasting "the pic" in L11 for "some poor SOBs" in the BMA...

LRP...MH "fitted for, but not with, L16".

 

[Maxman1]

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.

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.

Sounds more like the Type 216 would fit the bill. It has up to three vertical multipurpose locks, which, configured as VLS modules, can carry 24 missile each, plus six 21 inch torpedo tubes and a deck gun.

Double hull design with two decks. 4,000 tons displacement.

Has a crew of 34 but can accommodate an additional 29.

 

[lenaitch]

"Surfacing through the ice even with the sail reinforced is always a dicey operation that have caused damage to submarines in the past. Its not just a matter of buoyancy, its also a matter of brute power, AIP does not provide that. To operate under the ice in my opinion, we have to have the ability to surface in ice in case of emergency. Why haven't other Nordic nations used their conventional submarines under ice before?"

(I seem to have lost my Quote function this morning)

Just an interested non-mariner here, but curious what power has to do with it. Any images I have seen shows a completely vertical motion. Is the requirement for more power simply to lug around a more reinforced hull?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Talking about sub's punching thru ice; the issue isn't so much the "punching thru ice", it's being able to safely navigate under the ice and handle SHTF situations. Imagine throwing a prop in a non-nuc boat under the icepac...at least a nuc can stay alive while help comes.

Aggressively punching thru ice....I'm thinking RFN Typhoons. Huge, double hulled and sorta designed for that in their CONOPs. I'm not sure what thickness they were/are capable of.

U.S. Navy kicks off ICEX 2020 in Arctic Ocean

Commander, Submarine Forces (COMSUBFOR) officially commenced Ice Exercise (ICEX) 2020 in the Arctic Ocean with the construction of a temporary ice camp, Camp Seadragon, and the arrival of two U.S.

www.norad.mil

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Is the requirement for more power simply to lug around a more reinforced hull?

SSN (blue water boats)....generally speaking have stronger hulls (not necessarily heavier....it's not a hard/fast rule when comparing nuc/non-nuc) as they are usually capable of deeper dives. Depth can help things like eliminate/minimize cavitation (pressure) if a boat is running hard...

If you're interested in some decent open source reading on hulls...try Tom Clancy's Submarine: A Guided Tour Inside a Nuclear Warship (Tom Clancy's Military Referenc Book 1) eBook : Clancy, Tom, Gresham, John: Amazon.ca: Kindle Store. There's some discussion on hulls for the 688/i688 and maybe a little on the Virgina's? Been a while since I read it...

 

[calculus]

Sounds more like the Type 216 would fit the bill. It has up to three vertical multipurpose locks, which, configured as VLS modules, can carry 24 missile each, plus six 21 inch torpedo tubes and a deck gun.

Double hull design with two decks. 4,000 tons displacement.

Has a crew of 34 but can accommodate an additional 29.

As far as I know, the Type 216 is a paper design, originally proposed for SEA1000. I can't find any indication that it is even being planned to be built for any navy. The specifications do look good though, and given the size it should be capable of being stocked up to produce better endurance than the Victorias, but as a new unproven design, I would think there would be substantial risk to Canada.

 

[Maxman1]

As far as I know, the Type 216 is a paper design, originally proposed for SEA1000. I can't find any indication that it is even being planned to be built for any navy. The specifications do look good though, and given the size it should be capable of being stocked up to produce better endurance than the Victorias, but as a new unproven design, I would think there would be substantial risk to Canada.

The Type 216 was designed for the Australian sub replacement program, before they went with the French Shortfin Barracuda.

While there haven't been any 216s built yet, due to Australia choosing a different design, the Singaporean Type 218SG is a variant of the 216. The first of the class, RSS Invincible, was launched in 2019 and is undergoing sea trials.

 

[OldSolduer]

SSN (blue water boats)....generally speaking have stronger hulls (not necessarily heavier....it's not a hard/fast rule when comparing nuc/non-nuc) as they are usually capable of deeper dives. Depth can help things like eliminate/minimize cavitation (pressure) if a boat is running hard...

If you're interested in some decent open source reading on hulls...try Tom Clancy's Submarine: A Guided Tour Inside a Nuclear Warship (Tom Clancy's Military Referenc Book 1) eBook : Clancy, Tom, Gresham, John: Amazon.ca: Kindle Store. There's some discussion on hulls for the 688/i688 and maybe a little on the Virgina's? Been a while since I read it...

I have that book hence why I know stuff about subs. Its a great resource for the amateur submariner - the kind that you play on a video game.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

688(i) Hunter/Killer? Sub Command? Dangerous Waters?

 

[RedFive]

My point was more geared towards operating in a L16 environment, but not having L16 ourselves, and relying on someone (cough RAAF cough) re-broadcasting "the pic" in L11 for "some poor SOBs" in the BMA...

LRP...MH "fitted for, but not with, L16".

You mean to tell me our shiny new MH helicopters and our LRP aircraft newly upgraded at great expense in Canada by Canadian workers to keep tax dollars in Canada don't have literally the base specification situational awareness and battle space management communication ability?

Who is running this goat rodeo?

 

[CBH99]

688(i) Hunter/Killer? Sub Command? Dangerous Waters?

Hey now, all fun games back when I was single & allowed my inner nerd to rage! Combined with Star Citizen (which quickly took over) I remember stepping outside one winter afternoon and actually thinking to myself “Oh yeah! The sun! I completely forgot about it…”

(In all fairness we get about 6hrs of actual sunlight here during the winter, so it isn’t hard to miss it depending on work hours)

 

[SeaKingTacco]

You mean to tell me our shiny new MH helicopters and our LRP aircraft newly upgraded at great expense in Canada by Canadian workers to keep tax dollars in Canada don't have literally the base specification situational awareness and battle space management communication ability?

Who is running this goat rodeo?

I wonder about that myself, somedays.

 

[RedFive]

I wonder about that myself, somedays.

And here I thought my federally acronymed organization had a monopoly on bad leadership, lack of foresight and waste of tax money.

How silly of me.

 

[CBH99]

"Surfacing through the ice even with the sail reinforced is always a dicey operation that have caused damage to submarines in the past. Its not just a matter of buoyancy, its also a matter of brute power, AIP does not provide that. To operate under the ice in my opinion, we have to have the ability to surface in ice in case of emergency. Why haven't other Nordic nations used their conventional submarines under ice before?"

(I seem to have lost my Quote function this morning)

Just an interested non-mariner here, but curious what power has to do with it. Any images I have seen shows a completely vertical motion. Is the requirement for more power simply to lug around a more reinforced hull?

I’ve been asking myself that question also. Why does a submarine require a certain amount of power in order to surface through the ice? Wouldn’t a strengthened/reinforced hull be primary concern?

But my thought now is - and again perhaps I am wrong - is that to push through Arctic ice (even if you find a thinner or weaker layer) - a submarine just have substantial mass/power to ‘muscle it’s way through.’

A reinforced hull wouldn’t be enough, if the submarine can’t push/muscle it’s way upwards with enough power to eventually break through. It would just be the top of the sail/tower pushing against - but not hard enough to break the ice - unless there is enough muscle/power behind it to give it that extra push.

If that isn’t possible, then it would be a) guaranteed damage of some kind to the tower, and b) a drain on batteries & such, in an area where resurfacing somewhere nearby isn’t possible


The above is my assumption as someone who recently realized he doesn’t know anything about submarines other than what they are. Am I close?



Also, I’m guessing the reason why Nordic countries don’t surface their submarines in Arctic ice is because none of them are tasked with the delivery of nuclear weapons, if required. (That had been my assumption. I’ve never thought about it until I read the post above.)

Other than safety reasons, I’d assumed the reason a nuclear submarine from the US, UK, France, or Russia would surface in the Arctic in wartime conditions is to unleash a nuclear payload at a target - with over the Arctic being the shortest flight time, depending on the target.

Since Nordic nations don’t have that capability, they didn’t practice it.

 

[CBH99]

My point was more geared towards operating in a L16 environment, but not having L16 ourselves, and relying on someone (cough RAAF cough) re-broadcasting "the pic" in L11 for "some poor SOBs" in the BMA...

LRP...MH "fitted for, but not with, L16".

Please tell me I’m dreaming here man…

Our brand new shiny MH fleet, which took over a century to order and have delivered, were “fitted for, but not with, L16”?

That’s because L16 is being phased out for something faster & more secure, so we didn’t bother with L16 because it’s essentially ‘old tech.’ Right? Riiigghhttt?