Replacing the Subs

[quadrapiper]

Overall assessment: if you want subs cheap and fast this is the option. Also they provide unique AIP/battery options along with the SLBM capability which may or may not be something Canada wants, given these are supposed to be patrol submarines.

Is there anything else that might be launched from or housed in the SLBM cells?

 

[Underway]

Second, I don't want to change the torpedoes. The Tiger Shark is actually superior to the Mk 48, and the fact that it is foreign is the only reason the US doesn't use it. Ultimately, however, the type of torpedo you have in a submarine is usually dictated by the fire control system you use - so unless we want to change that too, we should stick with the TS.

I was watching this video about Babcock and Hanwha with the KSS III. At the linked time apparently Babcock has the same launch system that will match the Mk 48's. I agree though, Tiger Shark is a better torp from what I can tell.

Is there anything else that might be launched from or housed in the SLBM cells?

No clue.

 

[Rainbow1910]

More importantly (might as well start now!): what do we have twelve of that would be good names for a Sub?

Looking at history, the RCN has neglected its submarine force to the point where there is minimal established precedent to use for a naming scheme.

CC-1 & CC-2.

CH-14 & CH-15.

U-190 & U-889.

Grilse & Rainbow.

Ojibwa, Okanagan & Onondaga.

Victoria, Chicoutimi, Corner Brook & Windsor.

Considering the fact the RCN/Canadian govt did not use the 'Tribal' class names for the Canadian Surface Combatant, I do not think they would use them for the CPSP will use them as well. Obviously the alphabetical and numerical designations aren't going to fly and personally, I think naming everything after towns/cities is bland and uninspired. I would put forward two class name ideas, one named after fish found in/around Canada and one named after prominent Canadian submariners/figures.

"Fish" class - Rainbow, Grilse, Pickerel, Pike, Chinook, Steelhead, Wolffish, Redfish, Skate, Cod, Halibut & Sturgeon.

"Figures" class - William Maitland Dougall, Bernard Johnson, Adrian Keyes, Bertram Jones, etc to name a few.

I have some reservations about using the names of people, per the usual concerns alongside the fact that RCN submariners have never been a very diverse bunch, so that likely wouldn't hold up like you see with the choices for the AOPS. Realistically you could do whatever you like as there is no properly established naming conventions.

If it requires a redesign then we aren't buying a MOTS, we're buying something and changing it (again) and that adds time and cost.

I personally have a hard time believing that Canada will buy wholesale into another nations weaponry ecosystem when we have been established in the US ecosystem for so long, for both logistical reasons and interoperability with current/US systems. Obviously there needs to be a limit to what is allowed to be changed, otherwise we get into an Attack class scenario.

 

[stoker dave]

our Navy will have to really up their recruiting skills.

Pardon me while I share an anecdote. Although quite dated I think it may be illustrative.

I was a very junior MARE/MS going through the training process. At some point, an effort was made to convince a few of us trainees that the submarine fleet (Oberons at the time) was the way to go. The submarine recruitment effort was in two parts: a presentation on the cool things that submarines do and a tour of one of the boats.

The presentation was hyped as being super-secret and a classified presentation. We were shown a 20 s video of.... a propeller. Apparently one of the boats snuck up on some ship and took a video of its propeller. Interesting but not the super-secret stuff that would really grab our interest.

For the tour we walked down to the boat. The petty officer on duty was assigned to give the tour. He stunk. His clothes were filthy. The boat stunk and there were plates of half-eaten food everywhere.

"So.." we ask the PO "how do you like serving in submarines" we junior MAREs asked. "I hate it." he replied. "I hate submarines".

We looked around the boat for a while and left. None of us volunteered to join the submarine fleet.

I hope the recruiting efforts have improved since my experience.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I watched this last night and not promoting this particular sub, but thought the video covered some of the systems quite well and will give food for thought to interested people on the subject. I found it interesting the array of weapons they can use from the same tube that fires the Mk 48.

 

[KevinB]

Is there anything else that might be launched from or housed in the SLBM cells?

According to Wiki...
The K-VLS can deploy the Cheongung air defense missile (KM-SAM), Haegung air defense missile (K-SAAM), K745A1 Red Shark anti-submarine missile, Haeseong-II, Hyunmoo-3 land-attack cruise missiles<a href="Korean Vertical Launching System - Wikipedia">[1]</a>

 

[Czech_pivo]

Being called out by our British Allies -

Canada says it will get a powerful under-ice sub force. Its money isn’t where its mouth is​

Expect setbacks. Ottawa has struggled to maintain its existing undersea warfare capability, and does not spend much money on defence.
That Canada needs submarines is obvious. The country has the longest coastline in the world and touches three oceans: the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific.
Despite the clear need, the Canadian navy currently deploys totally inadequate submarines. On paper, the fleet operates four 230-foot Victoria-class diesel-electric submarines that Ottawa acquired secondhand from London in the early 2000s – by which point they had already been rusting unused for a decade, having been rejected by the Royal Navy in the 1990s.
The torpedo-armed Victorias – three with the Pacific fleet, one on the Atlantic – are unreliable and rarely go to sea. After spending billions of dollars, the Royal Canadian Navy can only keep one of the vessels at high readiness.
Canada’s new subs, the first of which will need to enter service in the 2030s in order to avoid a gap in force structure as the old Victorias finally reach the end of their (barely) useful lives, must operate under ice in order to be useful in the Arctic region.
Canada spends less than 1.5 per cent of GDP on defence – well below the Nato minimum target of 2pc. It will be difficult for the RCN to become world class with this level of spending.

Canada says it will get a powerful under-ice sub force. Its money isn’t where its mouth is

It’s a sensible plan, but basically unfunded

www.telegraph.co.uk

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The Upholders were not "rejected" by the RN, they just made a pivot and decided to focus only on their nuclear fleet as they felt they could not sustain 3 fleets of subs.

 

[OldSolduer]

The Upholders were not "rejected" by the RN, they just made a pivot and decided to focus only on their nuclear fleet as they felt they could not sustain 3 fleets of subs.

The issue with that particular purpose is that we - Canada - had to refit them IIRC and change some technology.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The issue with that particular purpose is that we - Canada - had to refit them IIRC and change some technology.

Some needed upgrading, I have to wonder if it was worth it to change out the weapon systems?

 

[Stoker]

The issue with that particular purpose is that we - Canada - had to refit them IIRC and change some technology.

Other issues as well. The submarines were poorly stored while they were shopped around and while we dithered over the purchase. As well there was a massive storage of parts for these submarines. We basically had a budget to buy parts and only bought something like 50% of them, the rest we are buying at massive markup years later.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Canada buying subs

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Just to spice up the debate, be interesting if they offered them to Canada.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1821878325406830716

 

[suffolkowner]

Just to spice up the debate, be interesting if they offered them to Canada.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1821878325406830716

Are we ever going to see other nuclear powered ships?

 

[medicineman]

Are we ever going to see other nuclear powered ships?

Have my doubts - a lot of folks on the West Coast lose their minds when any nuclear powered ships/subs are around, especially subs up around the ranges in Nanoose Bay...

 

[suffolkowner]

Have my doubts - a lot of folks on the West Coast lose their minds when any nuclear powered ships/subs are around, especially subs up around the ranges in Nanoose Bay...

I know they have been tried in the past and were expensive but seems like they should be a good idea

 

[Maxman1]

Are we ever going to see other nuclear powered ships?

We have. There's been nuclear cruisers, destroyers and even a cargo ship.

Turns out they're very expensive to operate and maintain, and require highly trained, highly specialized crews.

 

[KevinB]

Juice may be worth the squeeze again for energy weapons. So one may again see Nuclear powered Cruisers appear.

 

[OldSolduer]

Have my doubts - a lot of folks on the West Coast lose their minds when any nuclear powered ships/subs are around, especially subs up around the ranges in Nanoose Bay...

They lose their minds at just about anything.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Decent article - states all the reasons we've already discussed as to why we can't (shouldn't) build subs here in Canada.

Canada’s next submarine fleet likely to be foreign built as Navy faces timeline crunch, say defence experts​

Canada faces a tight deadline to replace its aging fleet of submarines before it risks losing the crucial naval capability.​

Canada’s next submarine fleet likely to be foreign built as Navy faces timeline crunch, say defence experts

Canada faces a tight deadline to replace its aging fleet of submarines before it risks losing the crucial naval capability.

www.hilltimes.com