Arctic Sovereignty Submarine

[drunknsubmrnr]

A properly running diesel doesn't produce that much CO. You need to have an extreme event such as an engine run-on to produce large quantities of CO.

The small amount of CO that's produced as part of a normal diesel engine combustion doesn't affect SSK ops because the air is exchanged as the boat is snorting. If the boat isn't snorting, there's no major source of CO. The most you might see would be from crew smoking, and that tends to be damped out as CO2 rises anyway.

The US SSN's need a CO burner because they have a diesel, they have crews that smoke, and the burner also gets rid of battery H2.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

A properly running diesel doesn't produce that much CO. You need to have an extreme event such as an engine run-on to produce large quantities of CO.

The small amount of CO that's produced as part of a normal diesel engine combustion doesn't affect SSK ops because the air is exchanged as the boat is snorting. If the boat isn't snorting, there's no major source of CO. The most you might see would be from crew smoking, and that tends to be damped out as CO2 rises anyway.

The US SSN's need a CO burner because they have a diesel, they have crews that smoke, and the burner also gets rid of battery H2.

:

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I know where the CO in my submarine came from: Red Deer, Alberta.

 

[GK .Dundas]

I know where the CO in my submarine came from: Red Deer, Alberta.

give him a hand  ladies and gentlemen ,he'll be here all week!

 

[schering]

I thought the operational speed of a diesel submarine is about 5kn when running on batteries and 2 kn when running on AIP. I also thought that because of this inherent speed limitation diesel submarines (with or without AIP) are most useful to perform ambushes near naval choke points and enemy ports. If that is correct, then that's not what Canada would need "arctic submarines" for. We would need submarines with enough speed and endurance to patrol very large tracts of ocean and impose national power over multiple threaths. Ergo, SSNs are more appropriate.

Another consideration: where would these diesel submarines be resupplied? There are no reliable Canadian ports as of yet near the areas of operation.

 

[The_Unabooboo]

That might be the top speed of a WW2 sub but now a days even the electric boats are pretty quick.  It's just that a nuke boat can go fast ALL the time since there are no battaries to run out.  There has been some talk of putting a naval base around Hudson Bay, maybe around Churchel MB.  Theres a interesting idea.  A prairie provence with a naval base.  It's probably the farthest north you could put a major instilation like that and keep it supplied with food and fuel year round.

 

[a_majoor]

Like everything else, you can get what you want if you are willing to make the proper compromises in the design.

The Type XXI "Elektroboote" had long submerged endurance and relatively high submerged speed, but was also a very large submarine for the time in order to increase the battery compartment to 3X the size of the previous Type VII subs. (Type XXI's also had provisions for 4 X 20mm sail mounted anti aircraft cannons).

Using today's battery technologies *might* allow a large submarine the ability to patrol in the arctic the way we want (retrofitting a Victoria class with Lithium-ion batteries perhaps?), or perhaps that is more trouble than it is worth.

 

[aesop081]

That might be the top speed of a WW2 sub but now a days even the electric boats are pretty quick. 

"Top speed" and "patrol speed" are 2 very different things. Theres a very imprtant difference.

It's just that a nuke boat can go fast ALL the time since there are no battaries to run out.

Its not because they can, that they should....or do.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Notwithstanding my little joke above about CO, I am having a hard time with this thread.

First of all, "Submarine" and "Sovereignty" do not belong in the same sentence IMHO. Just like the mere existence of police cars does not deter highway speeders, but parking them in the middle of the divider area does, sovereignty at sea is carried out with visible assets. Submarines are the opposite: in fact the only time you would want to make them visible would be to send a message; like surfacing in full view of an opponent's coast or facility before hostilities to say" Hi there, see - I can get here anytime I want."

Thus, before I spend 800 to 1200 Million $ of Arctic sovereignty funds on a single submarine, I would much rather purchase 6 to 12 MLRPA like Orions or their replacement and let guys like CDN Aviator go out there with Harpoons under their wings. That would do a hundred times more for our Arctic sovereignty than any type of submarine.

While the surfacing of US nuclear submarines in the Arctic is a fascinating technical achievement, they were not meant to enforce sovereignty. They were meant to send a message to the USSR: "I can operate under the ice as long as I want and get to you anytime I want".

And only nuclear submarines can do that. Under ice submarine operations are a lot more hazardous than this thread leads on to believe (its a lot more than a CO issue). When under the ice, you forgo the option of quick, emergency surfacing. Yes: even large nuclear submarines like boomers can not surface anywhere or anytime they want. Ice in the Arctic is not like arena ice: thin and even. It is thick and made of completely uneven thickness going from a bit of slush in an opening (in the process of refreezing) to hundreds of feet deep where a multi decade iceberg born in a shoreborne ice sheet drifted and got caught by the reforming ice sheet in winter. Surfacing submarines have to look for and find proper location before they can attempt to surface. They may not find it in an emergency. Similarly a non-nuclear boat operating under the ice may not make it back from under the ice sheet or to a proper surfacing location by the time they must surface, and in their case it may not even be for an emergency.

One of the posts above talks about "multiple threat" in the Arctic. But what are they really? If you look at the Arctic ocean from a globe, instead of a map, you can see it can be accessed from only three locations: Two very narrow passages, between Alaska and Russia on one end and Canada (East or South of Ellesmere Island) and Greenland on the other end; and a larger passage, at the top of the North sea between Norway-the Svalbard Island-Greenland. Thus, between Russia, the US, Canada, Norway and Danemark, we control all the access point and 99.9% of the Arctic coastline. It is a bit of a Mare Nostrum situation and, unless we fight amongst ourselves, nobody else is really a threat out there.

Maybe I should not , but I will dismiss Norway and Danemark as threats to our sovereignty that might require submarines. While the US can pose a submarine threat, for obvious reasons, I will not consider them a threat to Canada. This leaves Russia. It is a credible submarine threat, but one that can only be answered by nuclear submarines, if combat/cold war type underwater games have to be played. Nothing else has the speed and range to play open water games with nuclear submarines. Diesel or AIP submarines will always in the foreseeable future be choke point boats where countering nuclear boats is concerned.

As for the other threats, air or surface, the best counter at this time and in the foreseeable future will always be from the air, both in the surveillance and enforcement modes.

Thus, after this long diatribe, the question remains: What do we need "Arctic Sovereignty" submarines for in our naval arsenal?

 

[Edward Campbell]

Thank you for that, Oldgateboatdriver, you provide a lot of useful food for thought.

I am especially grateful for your cogent analysis of the Arctic approaches.

Based on what you've said, I'm inclined to support the more LRPAs plus some armed icebreakers option.

 

[aesop081]

While the US can pose a submarine threat, for obvious reasons, I will not consider them a threat to Canada.

While it is certainly not a military threat, any unauthorized sailing of a submarine, even an allied one, is a political threat. If we consider these waters to be ours, we cant continue to say "oh its just the USN, its ok..." The US has its own agenda in the north and it does not necessarily coincide with ours.

I understand the problems with using submarines in the north but i also understand the problems with using aircraft to hunt submarines in the north. I see it less as a "which one does the job" than a "what combination of aircraft/ship/sub/undersea sensor is best' question. Aircraft and ships are the visible component of enforcing sovereignty but it must be backed up with other capabilities in order to be truely effective. I hate to use buzzwords but applying sovereignty up there is going to be a "system of systems".

 

[schering]

That might be the top speed of a WW2 sub but now a days even the electric boats are pretty quick.  It's just that a nuke boat can go fast ALL the time since there are no battaries to run out. 

I wrote "operational speed" meaning for a submarine the cruising speed at which it operates silently.

Notwithstanding my little joke above about CO, I am having a hard time with this thread.

First of all, "Submarine" and "Sovereignty" do not belong in the same sentence IMHO. Just like the mere existence of police cars does not deter highway speeders, but parking them in the middle of the divider area does, sovereignty at sea is carried out with visible assets. Submarines are the opposite: in fact the only time you would want to make them visible would be to send a message; like surfacing in full view of an opponent's coast or facility before hostilities to say" Hi there, see - I can get here anytime I want."

If "Sovereignty" is a nations's ability to assert exclusive authority over a territory then I don't see how lightly armed ice-breakers can assume the sovereignty role all by themselves. Visibility (hence the Ice-breakers) but also efficient naval deterrence (hence, SSNs) must be present.

While the surfacing of US nuclear submarines in the Arctic is a fascinating technical achievement, they were not meant to enforce sovereignty. They were meant to send a message to the USSR: "I can operate under the ice as long as I want and get to you anytime I want".

It is precisely because of this superiority that we need SSNs ourselves, as the only military asset really capable of preventing other nations from asserting for instance unilateral sovereign claims over the arctic. If Russia decided to act on its claims of sovereignty over the North Pole and started drilling natural gas or whatever else from the sea floor we would not be able to deter them, even with Icebreakers and a few Orions.

One of the posts above talks about "multiple threat" in the Arctic. But what are they really? If you look at the Arctic ocean from a globe, instead of a map, you can see it can be accessed from only three locations: Two very narrow passages, between Alaska and Russia on one end and Canada (East or South of Ellesmere Island) and Greenland on the other end; and a larger passage, at the top of the North sea between Norway-the Svalbard Island-Greenland. Thus, between Russia, the US, Canada, Norway and Danemark, we control all the access point and 99.9% of the Arctic coastline. It is a bit of a Mare Nostrum situation and, unless we fight amongst ourselves, nobody else is really a threat out there.

Granted now few countries are involved most of whom we can trust to behave civilly in the future. But that is only so because the ice still blocks most passages. Once these passages become navigable we do not now know nor can foresee which power (maybe China?) will assert some type of national interest in the region. It could be an interest in free navigation but it could also be an interest in the development of natural resources or, worst, geopolitical (an interest in deterring the US maybe?) 

As for Russia, the perspective of being all of a sudden much closer neighbours than we were in the past justifies in my opinion all by itself increased investment in arctic defense. 

 

[dapaterson]

This concept needs a better name.  I'm having visions of the gym at Louis St Laurent, where two MARE officers meet:


MARE #1:  What are you working on?

MARE #2:  I'm working on the ASS project.

MARE #1:  Yes, it needs work.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

One must be careful when discussing Arctic sovereignty issues, as it has multiple aspects:

1- There is the Arctic ocean itself, which is an ocean and thus recognised by all as international waters (if you can get there - or would want to for any reason).

2- Then, there is jurisdiction over the ressources of the Arctic seabed. Here the various countries contiguous to the Arctic coast are working within an international agreement at this time to map the continental shelves to effect a mutually agreed partition based on their findings. This may lead to some hard fought negotiations and long debates but it is not in itself a sovereignty issue any more than the Exclusive Economic Zones of 200 NM surrounding the waters of a country currently granted any sovereignty past the 12 NM national waters of such  countries.

3- Then also, the limited debates within some nations concerning sovereignty over some lands, such as the Danemark/Canada debate over title to Hans Island (lest it votes for Independence from both )

4- Finally, there is the issue of the status of the North-West Passage (and the North-East one in Russia): On the one side, the US claiming they are international straights and thus, even though acknowledging Canadian sovereignty as appropriate over the waters, subject to the right of free innocent passage (which also exists BTW in the territorial waters of a country not otherwise classified as internal waters). On the other side, Canada claiming the waters within the Arctic Archipelago as internal waters (such as bays, the great lakes and the St-Lawrence estuary) and therefore subjet to the absolute sovereign whim of Canada.

While the submarine use of the Arctic ocean by US submarines is of no political concern to Canada and they are free to use such international waters, the only truly issue that matters to Canada is use by the US without permission of what we claim as internal waters: The waters enclosed within the Arctic archipelago.

And there, the US has two problems. Firstly, on the technical side, it would be very daring for a captain to take a submarine through covertly under water as the passage is quite shallow as far as submarine ops are concernend. It would even be reckless if done in winter when ice covered. Secondly, any covert passage would ruin the US claim of the right of innocent passage, which can only be exercised by a submarine running surfaced, while other transits - covert - would neither assist their claim nor qualify as innocent in law.

This is why I am not too worried at this point about US submarine ops, as I very much doubt they use what we consider Canadian waters to carry out their political agenda. They very well may (for all I know) use Canadian waters covertly to take temporary refuge from storms, fix broken equipment quietly or any other such reasons, but such use would be related to military purposes on which, we are on the same side, not political ones relating to our mutual debate over sovereignty of the Arctic.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

If Russia decided to act on its claims of sovereignty over the North Pole and started drilling natural gas or whatever else from the sea floor we would not be able to deter them, even with Icebreakers and a few Orions.

Good Lord man, have you ever seen a drilling platform? Its the perfect siting duck: I would not waste an Orion, I would send a DASH 8 with someone dropping a small bomb out the door by hand! And BTW the Russians do not have armed icebreakers either.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Also, Shering: bear in mind the Navy is not a constabulary where assertion of authority and deterrence are concerned. We do not deter people from entering our waters in peace because we are not police officers.

A Canadian submarine "deterring" anyone from entering our waters would normally be performed by firing a torpedo at it. Unless we positively considered the intrusion into Canadian waters to be an act of war of the country whose flag our target flew, we would be the ones declaring war through our action. Just bear that in mind when judging the actions of "military" forces, as opposed to law enforcement ones.

 

[aesop081]

A Canadian submarine "deterring" anyone from entering our waters would normally be performed by firing a torpedo at it.

I think you are over-simplifying. What is needed is a clear political message that intrusion in Canadian teritorial waters is not acceptable and the means to act upon it. With such a message and the simple existence of submarines is, in fact, deterence. If it is effective or not, is another matter.

Shooting at intruders ? Why not ? Sweden took Soviet submarines to task on occasion so why should we be any less forceful ?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Sweden took Soviet submarines to task on occasion so why should we be any less forceful ?

Ah! CDN Aviator, you bring back such  memories from a war  that was ... cold.

While I will not admit nor deny anything, there are stories out here that will never be told from those  "unusual" times ...

 

[NavyShooter]

The problem with using a submarine for arctic sovereignty patrols is that they do not even meet the first level of the force continuum.

A visible armed presence.

They may be present.

They may be armed.

They are not (generally) visible.

Since a big part of the Arctic patrols is to "show the flag", there are other platforms that would be better suited for that role.

That said, a submarine DOES have a place in the Arctic, and IMO it's to watch other people's subs that come up there to play, but that's not much of a visible presence either.

YMMV, but some extra pidgeon-carriers plus some big ice-breakers would do a much better job for most of the roles.

NS

 

[a_majoor]

The strong suit of submarines is they are effectively invisible.

This puts a level of uncertainty in potential opponents minds, as they won't know for certain if a submarine is there or not, if they are being watched or not, if someone can apply armed force against them or not.

This is actually one of the arguments for BMD, you have no idea which missile(s) might get shot down and therefore which target is going to be missed (sucks if it is the enemy missile silo or airbase launching bombers), so you never know how effective your attack is going to be.

The answer in either case is to bring more resources to overmatch any potential defenses, which means (for all practical purposes) that you are taking resources away from some other task.