Status on Victoria-class Submarines?

[Colin Parkinson]

http://www.news1130.com/2017/02/22/west-coast-sub-returns-to-sea-for-trials-prior-to-operations-with-allies/




ESQUIMALT, B.C. – The Royal Canadian Navy’s only operational submarine on the West Coast is doing training exercises as it readies for operations after undergoing repairs to dozens of problem welds, a spokesman said Wednesday.

Katelyn Moores, with Maritime Forces Pacific, said HMCS Chicoutimi has been doing trials since mid-December to gear up for exercises with Pacific allies later this year.

“They did repairs and inspections and then … she was returned to sea,” she said from Esquimalt, B.C.

She said she couldn’t provide any details about the Pacific exercises due to operational security.

The return to sea follows a lengthy repair and inspection process after problems were discovered in late 2015 with 30 welds on the Victoria-class submarine. Vice-Admiral Mark Norman had said the welding work was done by a subcontractor hired by a contractor working on both Chicoutimi and HMCS Victoria as well as some surface ships in Victoria.

He said the welds were passing inspections, but the navy did not realize at the time that the inspection process itself was flawed.

Moores said she didn’t believe any problems have been detected on Chicoutimi since her return to sea. HMCS Victoria is undergoing the inspection and repair process, but Moores says it’s not clear when that will be done.

Last spring, Norman said Chicoutimi would be fixed first, followed by Victoria, which was being used for training. HMCS Windsor is operating from its home base in Halifax. The navy’s fourth sub — HMCS Corner Brook — was undergoing deep maintenance.

Canada’s four long-range, diesel-electric submarines were bought from Britain’s Royal Navy in 1998 for $750 million, but the transition to full Royal Canadian Navy operations has not been smooth.

The sub program has endured years of setbacks, including a fire aboard Chicoutimi in 2004 that killed Lt. Chris Saunders and sent two others to hospital during its first Canadian voyage.

HMCS Corner Brook hit the ocean floor during training exercises off Victoria in June 2011 and will be out of service until at least next year.

Norman said Canada spends roughly $200 million a year on maintaining the submarines.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I really hope we jump onto this bandwagon as far as the subs are concerned http://gcaptain.com/australia-wants-exports-68-billion-naval-investment/

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

We need to be more strategic with government-to-government deals.

Canada agrees to buy $3 billion in new submarines from Australia and in exchange Australia agrees to buy $1 billion in new LAV 6's with 30mm guns and $2 billion in SCC's from Canada.

 

[Karel Doorman]

We need to be more strategic with government-to-government deals.

Canada agrees to buy $3 billion in new submarines from Australia and in exchange Australia agrees to buy $1 billion in new LAV 6's with 30mm guns and $2 billion in SCC's from Canada.

Here's another one,

Canada agrees to join or buy 4 of the new dutch subs(are being designed by Saab/Damen and other interested parties,but i think the Saab/Damen combo has it ) and the Netherlands buys 8/10 MPA Swordfishes(which are essentially Bombardiers modified by Saab) I like this one. ;D ;D

PS don't forget the Short-Fin's will be around 5300 tons submerged,about twice the size of the Victoria's,me thinks too big for Canada.The new Class of Dutch Subs,wich are to replace the Walrusses will be around the 3000-3500 tons submerged much more in line of what Canada would need,i think.

 

[jmt18325]

It's not happening.  The government has committed to the Victoria modernization with operations until at least 2037.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

It's not happening.  The government has committed to the Victoria modernization with operations until at least 2037.

At least the LRP fleet won't have to worry about having no one *local* to train with, as I am sure most Aurora flying will be done in the Sim's by then.  ;D

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's not happening.  The government has committed to the Victoria modernization with operations until at least 2037.

20 years sound like a lot, but it will be likely 10 years before steel is cut for the first Aussie sub, another 2 years to launch the first one, then likely a new hull every year to 1.5 years, so by the time they have built 4 that will be 2035, by that time governments, needs and world events will have changed. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collins-class_submarine_replacement_project

 

[Underway]

It's not happening.  The government has committed to the Victoria modernization with operations until at least 2037.

So what you are saying is that this government in 2017 will be the same government in 2037?  No.  Rust out, accidents, events, and many other things can change the course of a submarine fleet.  Right now subs are a poliltical hot potato moreso than any other purchase.  The Liberals already have to deal with the AOPS, CSC, JSS, and the CF-18 replacement.  I think 4 major projects that all have the potential to blow up for them are enough right now.  The subs can be safetly put on the backburner for a while in hopes the next gov't or the one after that has to deal with them.

This gov't has really only committed to not committing to anything and pushing any potential problems down the road.  The Aussie sub program could still be on the table for us.

 

[jmt18325]

So what you are saying is that this government in 2017 will be the same government in 2037?  No.

And if someone else comes up with a different plan, fine.  Right now, it's not happening.

 

[suffolkowner]

It's not happening.  The government has committed to the Victoria modernization with operations until at least 2037.

http://gentleseas.blogspot.ca/2017/07/ex-pm-abbott-doubts-wisdom-of.html

I posted this in the Australian sub thread as well. I doubt that we can or should keep the Victoria's going for another 20yrs. No that long ago our sub service was running 90cents to the dollar of the surface fleet and that was when we had the AOR's and Tribals

 

[suffolkowner]

frontline exploring nuclear option again

http://defence.frontline.online/blogs/3896-Dr.%20Danny-Lam/7909-Hybrid%20submarines%2C%20an%20efficient%20alternative

 

[MarkOttawa]

No atom-splitting way in Canada.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MilEME09]

not with our political climate any way, look what happened last time we attempted to consider, considering it

 

[suffolkowner]

Do you guys think because the public will confuse nuclear powered with nuclear armed?

Would a slowpoke pool reactor even count as nuclear power?
The numbers are interesting as I think the French subs/reactors are running 48MW and a slowpoke can maybe run 2MW.
Would 2MW be enough to run a Victoria/Collins class?
I'm guessing that nuclear subs just have a huge amount of excess power?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

No. It's not a matter of confusion between the two. Say the word "nukelar" in Canada and all the flower children, assorted enviro-freaks, left wing everything come out of the wood work. Doesn't matter what the nuclear proposal is or even how "peaceful" its use.

We tried it before for submarines - it got shot down - twice (or one could almost say trice - see below). Believe it or not, nuclear propulsion was looked at many times in the RCN: Twice for submarines. The first time was at the time of unification. Believe it or not, the father of unification wanted six nuclear American subs for the defence of  Canada's coasts. In the end, in view of the price, we got three Oberons. When replacement of the Oberons came up, you may then recall that the Mulroney government White paper on defence called for eight to ten nuclear submarines as the principal striking power for the Navy. Again, it evaporated as a result of public pressure, and cost after the wall came down.

There had been a flirtation with the idea of making HMCS LABRADOR a nuclear powered ice breaker at the time. Environmentalists fought very hard for the idea to be abandoned. They were afraid of a nuclear accident in the Arctic. Go figure.

And I said almost trice because, in the early 80's, when the SOUP (Submarine Operational Upgrade Project) came up for the Oberon, there was a plan somewhere in the West for a town to have a generation facility of about 10MW based on a Slowpoke-3 reactor. When the specs were studied at RMC (which has a Slowpoke already), it looked to them, and extensive studies followed, that it could be retro-fitted to the Oberons in lieu of the diesel engines so as to continuously charge the submarine's batteries. It would not have turned them into nuclear boats on par with US or British types, but it would have meant near unlimited range, much faster underwater transits overall than in the classic boat configuration, and a greater capacity to maneuver at high speed for longer and more frequent periods of time, not to mention cutting down on noise greatly. Can't remember why it did not come to pass.
 

 

[suffolkowner]

No. It's not a matter of confusion between the two. Say the word "nukelar" in Canada and all the flower children, assorted enviro-freaks, left wing everything come out of the wood work. Doesn't matter what the nuclear proposal is or even how "peaceful" its use.

We tried it before for submarines - it got shot down - twice (or one could almost say trice - see below). Believe it or not, nuclear propulsion was looked at many times in the RCN: Twice for submarines. The first time was at the time of unification. Believe it or not, the father of unification wanted six nuclear American subs for the defence of  Canada's coasts. In the end, in view of the price, we got three Oberons. When replacement of the Oberons came up, you may then recall that the Mulroney government White paper on defence called for eight to ten nuclear submarines as the principal striking power for the Navy. Again, it evaporated as a result of public pressure, and cost after the wall came down.

There had been a flirtation with the idea of making HMCS LABRADOR a nuclear powered ice breaker at the time. Environmentalists fought very hard for the idea to be abandoned. They were afraid of a nuclear accident in the Arctic. Go figure.

And I said almost trice because, in the early 80's, when the SOUP (Submarine Operational Upgrade Project) came up for the Oberon, there was a plan somewhere in the West for a town to have a generation facility of about 10MW based on a Slowpoke-3 reactor. When the specs were studied at RMC (which has a Slowpoke already), it looked to them, and extensive studies followed, that it could be retro-fitted to the Oberons in lieu of the diesel engines so as to continuously charge the submarine's batteries. It would not have turned them into nuclear boats on par with US or British types, but it would have meant near unlimited range, much faster underwater transits overall than in the classic boat configuration, and a greater capacity to maneuver at high speed for longer and more frequent periods of time, not to mention cutting down on noise greatly. Can't remember why it did not come to pass.

thanks kinda what i figured

 

[Stoker]

No. It's not a matter of confusion between the two. Say the word "nukelar" in Canada and all the flower children, assorted enviro-freaks, left wing everything come out of the wood work. Doesn't matter what the nuclear proposal is or even how "peaceful" its use.

We tried it before for submarines - it got shot down - twice (or one could almost say trice - see below). Believe it or not, nuclear propulsion was looked at many times in the RCN: Twice for submarines. The first time was at the time of unification. Believe it or not, the father of unification wanted six nuclear American subs for the defence of  Canada's coasts. In the end, in view of the price, we got three Oberons. When replacement of the Oberons came up, you may then recall that the Mulroney government White paper on defence called for eight to ten nuclear submarines as the principal striking power for the Navy. Again, it evaporated as a result of public pressure, and cost after the wall came down.

There had been a flirtation with the idea of making HMCS LABRADOR a nuclear powered ice breaker at the time. Environmentalists fought very hard for the idea to be abandoned. They were afraid of a nuclear accident in the Arctic. Go figure.

And I said almost trice because, in the early 80's, when the SOUP (Submarine Operational Upgrade Project) came up for the Oberon, there was a plan somewhere in the West for a town to have a generation facility of about 10MW based on a Slowpoke-3 reactor. When the specs were studied at RMC (which has a Slowpoke already), it looked to them, and extensive studies followed, that it could be retro-fitted to the Oberons in lieu of the diesel engines so as to continuously charge the submarine's batteries. It would not have turned them into nuclear boats on par with US or British types, but it would have meant near unlimited range, much faster underwater transits overall than in the classic boat configuration, and a greater capacity to maneuver at high speed for longer and more frequent periods of time, not to mention cutting down on noise greatly. Can't remember why it did not come to pass.

I thought I knew the history of HMCS Labrador well. It was laid down in 1949 and the worlds first nuclear powered warship and civilian ship was in the 60's. Canada could of beaten the US by 10 years to have a nuclear powered warship.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually, Chief, the first nuclear powered vessel, ever, was the USS Nautilus, laid down in 1951, but after a reasonably long design process (a few years) so the idea of nuclear powered ships started almost immediately after the war. And Canada had been a major contributor to the Manhattan projects, as result of which we were one of the countries at the forefront of nuclear development immediately after the war, expanding on the Chalk River laboratories.

So we would have beaten the Americans by only a couple of years.

Heck! When I was a kid, there were even talks of nuclear powered aircrafts doing the rounds. Everything was nuclear and space crazy in those days.

 

[dapaterson]

Of course, the RMC Slowpoke was acquired to train nuclear engineers for Canada's nuclear fleet; so why do we still have a reactor if we never got the rest of the kit to go with it?

 

[Stoker]

Actually, Chief, the first nuclear powered vessel, ever, was the USS Nautilus, laid down in 1951, but after a reasonably long design process (a few years) so the idea of nuclear powered ships started almost immediately after the war. And Canada had been a major contributor to the Manhattan projects, as result of which we were one of the countries at the forefront of nuclear development immediately after the war, expanding on the Chalk River laboratories.

So we would have beaten the Americans by only a couple of years.

Heck! When I was a kid, there were even talks of nuclear powered aircrafts doing the rounds. Everything was nuclear and space crazy in those days.

I'm not talking about subs and i'm quite aware of the Nautilus.  I'm talking about ships, the first nuclear powered US warship being the Nuclear powered cruiser Long Beach and the first civilian ship the NS Savannah built in the 60's. I find it hard to believe that the US would allow any technology transfer for a nuclear powered HMCS Labrador. Would you have any source on the consideration of HMCS Labrador possibly being nuclear, I find that quite interesting.