Replacing the Subs

[Dana381]

Are we basing ships based on what NATO cares about (Europe) or what we care about? Our NATO commitment really only covers our one East-Ocean and is only starting to train near the arctic circle, yet we focus alot on the East-Coast. If Russia aggression is a concern then why isn't there a NATO Air Policing mission or a SNMG3 to support 2 of its members (US/CAN) with a direct border to Russia?

I agree with LoboCanada that we need to think more of our own interests. Except I think we need to go a little further and we need to consider our defense needs if our allies get tired of defending us or they side with our opponents. Trump has been vocal about his frustration with NATO countries not contributing their promised share while the U.S. contributes double 4%vs 2% GDP. I have been to the States and heard the people complain about their tax dollars being used to defend other countries. As the U.S. gets more and more financially strapped these sentiments will grow.

The world is changing quickly these days and I don't believe the U.S. would let us be invaded by China or Russia but China can and will push their might as far as they can get away with. The Covid pandemic has shown the U.S.A's true colours when they wanted to cut off our supply of medical equipment. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed this time but it drove home the reality that the U.S. will always look out for itself first. U.S. companies own or control every large defense/aerospace company in Canada to the extent it looks intentional. If we ever get into a big enough row with the U.S. they could quickly cripple our defense companies.

China has been investing heavily in projects in Africa that the countries cannot afford so China has loaned them the money. This has given China great influence over these countries. China has also invested heavily in European companies and if they continue to grow those investments they could put a lot of pressure on those countries to vote against us at the UN or NATO. Money talks loudest of all!

No one likes a leach. And by not honouring our NATO/UN commitments we are that leach. We need to honour our NATO/UN commitments and go beyond them so as to maintain our reputation while keeping mind of the fact those organizations can be corrupted.

This is why earlier I suggested we need to develop these technologies ourselves. Babcock has tore these subs almost completely apart and rebuilt them in recent years. If they acquire a license to build a European design the licensee will have to teach them how to build their sub from the keel up. They may hold onto certain technologies like the AIP/nuclear systems and insist on installing them. However we would still advance our abilities in sub building/maintaining greatly.

I advocate for a under ice capable submarine with enough to run 1-2 in each ocean at all times. If Australia can afford to operate 6 subs than why can't we afford 8-10. I believe the RCN should also have a fleet of the heaviest class ice breaker to respond to any sovereignty challenges that may occur in the arctic but that is for another discussion.

 

[Underway]

I bet if we approached the Americans we could get a redesigned Virginia class as a Diesel electric boat, really for such a ship to me, the US makes the best sense because if overhaul or repair is needed the specialized yards with all the experienced personal are right across the border.

It's a good idea but the US doesn't share their submarine tech except in very specific circumstances.  They also have no experience building SSK's which are very very different from SSN's.

 

[Dale Denton]

I advocate for a under ice capable submarine with enough to run 1-2 in each ocean at all times. If Australia can afford to operate 6 subs than why can't we afford 8-10. I believe the RCN should also have a fleet of the heaviest class ice breaker to respond to any sovereignty challenges that may occur in the arctic but that is for another discussion.

We choose not to, historically we've tried to get SSN's and it's never worked. The RAN and its gov't are concerned with their neighborhood. They have been having many issues building the Attack Class, and that deal has almost falled apart multiple times, and could still fall apart. Our neighborhood has never been under threat directly. It would take a Russian sub waving as they sailed South past Iqaluit for our citizenry to call out, then maybe someone would bring up SSNs of our own.

Ideally, the US gov't wouldn't care too much about selling a couple used Los Angeles SSNs, we did a Canadianize-refit and just leveraged their support and knowledge base, but we can't buy used anymore, that option has soured. US gov't would bypass the nuclear security for the sake of a sale to us. Would carry us favour for a while re:not meeting our 2% and it would make them happy.


I think we should be the leader in icebreaking design and building, or at least reach out to some Nordic yards for partnerships. Partnering with CDN and European universities to advance AIP tech to find out how to squeeze more out of a lithion-ion AIP cell. Partnering with USN/RN on XLUUVs to act as scouts, blowing holes in the ice for our subs to breathe, extending their range.

i'd prefer 6 A26s built abroad, research AIP in Canada to refit it them later. They build subs in modules (Swedes), so make a super-duper long A26-ER and pack it with cells.

 

[Uzlu]

I advocate for a under ice capable submarine with enough to run 1-2 in each ocean at all times.

I, too, would like lots of nuclear-powered attack submarines.  But enough to run one or two in each ocean at all times probably means at least fifteen to thirty nuclear-powered attack submarines since it takes a minimum of five submarines to keep at least one deployed at all times.  If every boat has a double crew, we might get by with twelve to twenty-four subs.  I shall be happy with something a lot more modest—six diesel-electric or non-nuclear air-independent-propulsion submarines with a submerged displacement of at least 3 000 tonnes.

 

[GR66]

E.R. Campbell had this interesting post on his blog some time back about an article in the Canadian Naval Review that discusses the possibility of a Canadian micro reactor for possible "hybrid" nuclear submarine use (https://coloneltedcampbell.blog/2020/03/17/nuclear-submarines/).

Totally agree that we as a nation have the need for a fleet of submarines (and ideally under ice capable) but I also fear that we're unlikely to get them.

 

[Dana381]

I guess I should clarify. I should have said one operational on each coast at all times, re-reading what I wrote it looks like I meant one underway at all times. Sorry for the confusion.

The four Victoria's were supposed to be able to have one on each coast (pacific and atlantic) operational at all times. If they were a more reliable sub would that not be possible? my understanding is if not for the fire and the grounding that would have been achievable. Would that not allow 3 continually operational with a fleet of 7 or 8 newer, more reliable subs?

I believe somewhere in this thread I read that AIP technology is suitable for under ice operations? Today is anyone still building conventional subs? AIP seems to be the new entry level sub. The Victoria's have around 2400 tonnes displacement and 30 days endurance according to Wiki. that dosen't seem long enough. Would a 3000t AIP have enough endurance? I don't know how much heavier/bulkier the technology is?

 

[Uzlu]

I believe somewhere in this thread I read that AIP technology is suitable for under ice operations?

But has any non-nuclear air-independent-propulsion submarine deployed in the Arctic?  As an aside, the United Kingdom had four Resolution-class submarines each with a double crew.  Four was the minimum required to keep at least one boat deployed at all times.  The United Kingdom has four Vanguard-class  submarines each with a double crew.  Four is the minimum required to keep at least one boat deployed at all times. 

The United Kingdom plans to operate four Dreadnought-class submarines each with a double crew.  Four is the minimum required to keep at least one boat deployed at all times.  This is, again, with a double crew.  With a single crew, a minimum of five submarines is required to allow a minimum of one boat to be deployed at all times.  Why?  Submarines will be unavailable for things like repairs, maintenance, and refits.  Crews must have time off from patrols.  Submarines need time to travel to their patrol areas.

 

[Dale Denton]

^Was discussed earlier in this thread about the limitations. What I took away from it was that new AIP cells are a technology no-longer in the developmental stage and is now operational in a number of submarine classes. It's not as safe to transit under ice (as an SSN) as you need to be able to penetrate the ice to breathe. Too high a risk of losing an entire sub if they can't find thin enough ice to push through. Although its just a matter of time before that's possible.

Quoting HI Sutton:
"The fuel cell AIP provides an alternative power source while the boat is submerged, increasing underwater endurance by a couple of weeks. It is used to directly power the electric motor and, in exceptional circumstances, to top up the batteries. The fuel cells are relatively weak so the submarine can only cruise slowly on them. So the batteries are retained to provide high power for fast dashes, and as a fall-back. And the diesel generators are also retained to recharge the batteries and for surface running. but because it has to run the diesels less frequently, it has to snorkel less frequently. This will increase stealth."
http://www.hisutton.com/U212-AIP-Submarine.html

I wonder if a lightweight torp could be shot out to blow a hole in the ice so an SSK could breathe. Noisy yes but the range it would give you may be worth it.
Or even have a HDW Class clear the way and have a sub follow behind?
Or use an XLUUV in a two-ship group to extend the sensor range under thicker ice to reduce the risk of the mother/command SSK?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I guess I should clarify. I should have said one operational on each coast at all times, re-reading what I wrote it looks like I meant one underway at all times. Sorry for the confusion.

The four Victoria's were supposed to be able to have one on each coast (pacific and atlantic) operational at all times. If they were a more reliable sub would that not be possible? my understanding is if not for the fire and the grounding that would have been achievable. Would that not allow 3 continually operational with a fleet of 7 or 8 newer, more reliable subs?

I believe somewhere in this thread I read that AIP technology is suitable for under ice operations? Today is anyone still building conventional subs? AIP seems to be the new entry level sub. The Victoria's have around 2400 tonnes displacement and 30 days endurance according to Wiki. that dosen't seem long enough. Would a 3000t AIP have enough endurance? I don't know how much heavier/bulkier the technology is?

Wiki claims 84 days for the U-214 which is a 1,000 tons smaller, I will take that with a grain of salt. If the Vic's were newer, we could add a AIP section to them, but it's not worth it at this point I suspect. A possible future upgrade could in the batteries, giving them extended submerged operating times.

 

[Dana381]

According to Saab the "Compact, modular and manageable, Stirling AIP systems can be dimensioned for fully submerged missions up to 45 days. Thanks to the durability and low cost of operation, the technology is used continuously at patrol speed."

Quote from https://saab.com/naval/submarines-and-surface-ships/submarines/submarines/?gclid=CjwKCAjw5vz2BRAtEiwAbcVIL9rNdfydyy60kZ5IoprfbTjdDAd9lh64bBFEA5x2ITNmiSyAnh7S7hoCsYUQAvD_BwE

That really puts them near par operationally to an SSN. How often would you need to stay down longer than that. In just about any scenario surely sometime in a 45 day stretch you could snorkel undetected. How often do the Vic's need to snorkel?

 

[Swampbuggy]

There's more to it than just endurance and ability to break through ice, I believe. I've been told in the past that one of the most important reasons that you want a nuclear powered sub under ice, is if you have a fire. I believe it has to do with the power requirements to change over the "atmosphere" inside the sub. Conventional or AIP is currently not up to that, as I understand it. I'm certain someone here could likely speak to that better than I can.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Or even have a HDW Class clear the way and have a sub follow behind?

I think the major drawback here would be having everyone know where your subsurface asset is.

 

[Cronicbny]

I think the major drawback here would be having everyone know where your subsurface asset is.

And that the escort surface asset would have no idea where the submarine was

 

[Underway]

^Was discussed earlier in this thread about the limitations. What I took away from it was that new AIP cells are a technology no-longer in the developmental stage and is now operational in a number of submarine classes. It's not as safe to transit under ice (as an SSN) as you need to be able to penetrate the ice to breathe. Too high a risk of losing an entire sub if they can't find thin enough ice to push through. Although its just a matter of time before that's possible.

Quoting HI Sutton:
"The fuel cell AIP provides an alternative power source while the boat is submerged, increasing underwater endurance by a couple of weeks. It is used to directly power the electric motor and, in exceptional circumstances, to top up the batteries. The fuel cells are relatively weak so the submarine can only cruise slowly on them. So the batteries are retained to provide high power for fast dashes, and as a fall-back. And the diesel generators are also retained to recharge the batteries and for surface running. but because it has to run the diesels less frequently, it has to snorkel less frequently. This will increase stealth."
http://www.hisutton.com/U212-AIP-Submarine.html

I wonder if a lightweight torp could be shot out to blow a hole in the ice so an SSK could breathe. Noisy yes but the range it would give you may be worth it.
Or even have a HDW Class clear the way and have a sub follow behind?
Or use an XLUUV in a two-ship group to extend the sensor range under thicker ice to reduce the risk of the mother/command SSK?

The air issue is more about fire then it is about operations.  A nuke boat has oodles of power to create O2 though electrolysis.  A diesel sub usually doesn't create O2, it either stores it (LOx) or scrubs CO2 instead.  Also before everyone starts talking Li batteries like this conversation usually turns to, Li batteries are the equivalent of a firecracker.  The surface fleet doesn't even use Li UPS because of the  "energetic" fire risk and toxic gases they produce in a fire.

 

[Uzlu]

Also before everyone starts talking Li batteries like this conversation usually turns to, Li batteries are the equivalent of a firecracker.  The surface fleet doesn't even use Li UPS because fo the  "energetic" fire risk and toxic gases they produce in a fire.

Well, there is this and this.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Well, there is this and this.

Well, there's clearly a role for our buddy Elon Musk in this (engine) space

 

[Navy_Pete]

The air issue is more about fire then it is about operations.  A nuke boat has oodles of power to create O2 though electrolysis.  A diesel sub usually doesn't create O2, it either stores it (LOx) or scrubs CO2 instead.  Also before everyone starts talking Li batteries like this conversation usually turns to, Li batteries are the equivalent of a firecracker.  The surface fleet doesn't even use Li UPS because of the  "energetic" fire risk and toxic gases they produce in a fire.

The toxic gas argument is a bit of a red herring; any ship fire will quickly pump out all kinds of toxic gases. Just the paint on a bulkhead or the insulation on a cable will quickly make it uninhabitable.

It's because they tend to explode if they get hit by shrapnel with a pretty impressive arc then burn really hot. That can also happen if your trickle charger circuit malfunctions and keeps charging once it's at 100%. No one seems to think twice about slapping laptops everywhere though with no controls, so at least this way you could actually look at the issue and mitigate the risks (separate compartments, fitted systems etc). Lead acid batteries have their own safety issues, so it's just a question of risk/benefits, and seeing if you can engineer things until it's reasonably safe.

Usually involves a bunch of testing, and doing fun things like firing shrapnel at Li batteries to see what happens. Destructive testing is probably the most fun you can have while getting paid.

 

[Underway]

The toxic gas argument is a bit of a red herring; any ship fire will quickly pump out all kinds of toxic gases. Just the paint on a bulkhead or the insulation on a cable will quickly make it uninhabitable.

It's because they tend to explode if they get hit by shrapnel with a pretty impressive arc then burn really hot. That can also happen if your trickle charger circuit malfunctions and keeps charging once it's at 100%. No one seems to think twice about slapping laptops everywhere though with no controls, so at least this way you could actually look at the issue and mitigate the risks (separate compartments, fitted systems etc). Lead acid batteries have their own safety issues, so it's just a question of risk/benefits, and seeing if you can engineer things until it's reasonably safe.

Usually involves a bunch of testing, and doing fun things like firing shrapnel at Li batteries to see what happens. Destructive testing is probably the most fun you can have while getting paid.

Laptop batteries and phone batteries are minor risks compared to a Li UPS which are generally much bigger.  I'm not talking toxic gases that cause long term health effects here, I'm talking burnt halon coated wire level toxicity where you are going to die very quickly from low concentrations.  The RCN policy is no Li UPS, as currently constructed.  You can get waivers for specific equipment where Li is absolutely required.

As for the Japanese submarines, they may use a different form of Li-battery tech, have extremely good fire control measures, excellent compartmentalization or just assume the risk.

 

[Dale Denton]

Thanks for the insight Underway and others.

Stepping back, i'm sure these concerns were very much on the mind of engineers, sailors, politicians and many more in the advent of nuclear-powered submarines as well. Now its almost the norm.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My guess is the battery compartment and supporting systems would have to be re-engineered to accept them, it would certainly not be a case of pull a lead acid and stick a Li battery in.