Status on Victoria-class Submarines?

[Thumper81]

FMF has nothing to do with Corner Brook.  That one is all Babcock.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5120237/esquimalt-submarine-fire/

This is all bad and all, but what I'm really interested in is this part:

A 5 year extended work period? How long would it take to build a similar size submarine from scratch? Honestly, I wish I understood what the hell goes on at FMF (and at the same time, for my sanity's sake I'm glad that I don't).

 

[Lumber]

FMF has nothing to do with Corner Brook.  That one is all Babcock.

Good to know! Thanks. <turns and stares judgingly at Babcock>

 

[Uzlu]

'Good life' still left in Canada's submarines, says Navy commander

OTTAWA — Canada’s top sailor says there is still “good life” left in the navy’s submarines and that he expects them to be able to operate until the 2030s.

Royal Canadian Navy commander Vice-Admiral Art McDonald says this can be done with some modest investments, an assertion that comes as the four subs have spent most of the year being docked for extended maintenance.

McDonald says there have already been some upgrades to the vessels as part of normal maintenance and that the navy is now looking at larger improvements to boost their lifespan and make them more accommodating to crew members.

Officials have previously pegged the cost of upgrading the submarines at around $2 billion.

The Conservatives and some experts have been calling on the federal government to buy new submarines to replace the Victoria-class vessels, which Canada purchased secondhand from Britain in 1998.

McDonald also says he is “comfortable” with having only one temporary supply ship to support naval operations overseas, despite another slip in the scheduled delivery of two permanent supply vessels that are being built in Vancouver.

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/good-life-still-left-in-canadas-submarines-says-navy-commander

 

[Czech_pivo]

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/good-life-still-left-in-canadas-submarines-says-navy-commander

The article clearly shows that having only 4 subs means not being able to have any at all ready to deploy or on station and having to wait 2yrs between missions. This strongly suggests that 7-8 are likely needed, optimally 8-10.
Y

 

[Uzlu]

The article clearly shows that having only 4 subs means not being able to have any at all ready to deploy or on station and having to wait 2yrs between missions. This strongly suggests that 7-8 are likely needed, optimally 8-10.

The Senate of Canada recommends twelve.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The article clearly shows that having only 4 subs means not being able to have any at all ready to deploy or on station and having to wait 2yrs between missions. This strongly suggests that 7-8 are likely needed, optimally 8-10.
Y

If we reduce both our surface fleet and out submarine fleet, then yes we can "comfortably operate with one AOR"

 

[Uzlu]

If we reduce both our surface fleet and out submarine fleet, then yes we can "comfortably operate with one AOR"

Vice-Admiral McDonald may fear a second Resolve-class ship.  What if, after a second Resolve-class ship is ordered, the government of Canada cancels Preserver?

 

[Czech_pivo]

The Senate of Canada recommends twelve.

Yes, I remember that report. Twelve would be optimal, spreading accordingly across both coasts. Would love to see us piggyback with someone (Australia?) else and their purchase order. Not sure if the Dutch or the Norwegian subs would be robust enough for our needs. 

I wish some party would just stand up and act like a responsible adult when it comes to our responsibilities within North America and within NATO.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Vice-Admiral McDonald may fear a second Resolve-class ship.  What if, after a second Resolve-class ship is ordered, the government of Canada cancels Preserver?

That I get, but there is an excellent argument for 3-4 AOR's anyways.

 

[Czech_pivo]

That I get, but there is an excellent argument for 3-4 AOR's anyways.

If we build 15 CSC and 6 AOPS (forget the Kingston's as I'm pretty sure they don't get re-fueled by the AOR's and the Vics), then there certainly is an excellent argument for 3-4 AOR's.

As recent as 1984 the RCN had a strength of "24 destroyers and frigates, four submarines, 12 mine clearance vessels, three support ships, 18 long range patrol aircraft, 18 medium range patrol aircraft and an unspecified number of maritime helicopters."

Fast forward 35yrs and what do we have - no destroyers, 12 frigates, 4 subs (all in maintenance now and none on patrol or available for patrol), 12 coastal 'defence' ships, 18 long range patrol aircraft (the exact same aircraft listed above), eventually 28 maritime helos and a leased AOR.

So our fleet has been cut by 60%, (during which time our population grew by 50%) and we still have 3 oceans to defend/patrol and we have an emerging threat to our east and a diminished threat to our west.

Why do none of the adults in the political parties bring out the facts during these discussions?

 

[Eye In The Sky]

If we build 15 CSC and 6 AOPS (forget the Kingston's as I'm pretty sure they don't get re-fueled by the AOR's and the Vics), then there certainly is an excellent argument for 3-4 AOR's.

As recent as 1984 the RCN had a strength of "24 destroyers and frigates, four submarines, 12 mine clearance vessels, three support ships, 18 long range patrol aircraft, 18 medium range patrol aircraft and an unspecified number of maritime helicopters."

Fast forward 35yrs and what do we have - no destroyers, 12 frigates, 4 subs (all in maintenance now and none on patrol or available for patrol), 12 coastal 'defence' ships, 18 long range patrol aircraft (the exact same aircraft listed above), eventually 28 maritime helos and a leased AOR.

So our fleet has been cut by 60%, (during which time our population grew by 50%) and we still have 3 oceans to defend/patrol and we have an emerging threat to our east and a diminished threat to our west.

Why do none of the adults in the political parties bring out the facts during these discussions?

The RCN didn't have any long range patrol aircraft in 1984 and still doesn't to this day.  Neither does the RCN have any maritime helicopters; they are RCAF aircraft.

Of the fleet of 18 Aurora's, 14 are still in service and have been upgraded extensively thru ASLEP and AIMP, with Block 4 to begin rolling out to the fleet soon. 

 

[Czech_pivo]

The RCN didn't have any long range patrol aircraft in 1984 and still doesn't to this day.  Neither does the RCN have any maritime helicopters; they are RCAF aircraft.

Of the fleet of 18 Aurora's, 14 are still in service and have been upgraded extensively thru ASLEP and AIMP, with Block 4 to begin rolling out to the fleet soon.

I should have been clearer, my fault, as there wasn't a RCN or RCAF in 1984, but the CAF - Canadian Armed Forces.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

The RCN didn't have any long range patrol aircraft in 1984 and still doesn't to this day.  Neither does the RCN have any maritime helicopters; they are RCAF aircraft.

Of the fleet of 18 Aurora's, 14 are still in service and have been upgraded extensively thru ASLEP and AIMP, with Block 4 to begin rolling out to the fleet soon.

Semantics!  Everyone knows you're just a sailor in blue EITS!

 

[Swampbuggy]

I think there's going to be a meeting in the middle on subs, if anything at all. I doubt the RCN will ever see a 12 sub fleet and 4 is too small. I imagine 7-8 subs will be the max. That's not a bad number, when the Navy has made due with 3 or 4 for decades and it certainly opens up some more options. As for AOR's, my personal feeling is that you can't have too many support/logistics ships. They can be sent on their own to help out an Allied task force, or to a HADR situation, or to serve as part of a RCN operation. A relatively small navy like Germany has something like 11 replenishment vessels, for instance. I don't think that's where the RCN needs to be, but 4 is appropriate.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Semantics!  Everyone knows you're just a sailor in blue EITS!

But...but...the only sailors that get hotels are submariners when they're alongside.  :'( 

 

[Czech_pivo]

Along the same vein - Australia and their 12 new subs -

"Australia’s $90bn naval shipbuilding plan faces critical skills shortages that could set back the delivery of Australia’s next-­generation submarines, frigates and patrol boats in a threat to ­national security."

"the construction of 12 new Attack-class submarines and nine Hunter-class frigates at Adelaide’s Osborne shipyards would create huge demand for skilled welders, but Australia had “only a veneer of welders with significant ship welding experience”.

"The number of welding supervisors and inspectors trained to international standards had been in steady decline since 2012, he said, while the quality of Certificate III apprentices being produced in Australia “is totally unacceptable and not of the required standards for the defence industry”.

"It attributed the poor forecasts to the small pool of secondary school students with sufficient maths and science achievements, the lack of awareness of maritime engineering specialties, and difficulties in attracting mainland students to the Tasmanian-based institution. It called on the government to consider offering HECS concessions for students “linked to the critical skills shortages for naval shipbuilding”.  ------- And the Australians aren't even talking about 'gender-parity' in the jobs being created, they have basic issues with fundamental education being the stumbling block.


https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/defence/dearth-of-vital-skills-a-risk-to-90bn-ship-building-plans/news-story/bb0ee4933be689fa0ba7b6189d568fd2

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I think there's going to be a meeting in the middle on subs, if anything at all. I doubt the RCN will ever see a 12 sub fleet and 4 is too small. I imagine 7-8 subs will be the max. That's not a bad number, when the Navy has made due with 3 or 4 for decades and it certainly opens up some more options. As for AOR's, my personal feeling is that you can't have too many support/logistics ships. They can be sent on their own to help out an Allied task force, or to a HADR situation, or to serve as part of a RCN operation. A relatively small navy like Germany has something like 11 replenishment vessels, for instance. I don't think that's where the RCN needs to be, but 4 is appropriate.

Not an expert on naval warfare;  wouldn't an oiler be an 'easy target' and one adversaries would want to sink some ordinance into, especially if they knew you only had a handful'ish?

I get that we're part of an Alliance, etc but...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I think there's going to be a meeting in the middle on subs, if anything at all. I doubt the RCN will ever see a 12 sub fleet and 4 is too small. I imagine 7-8 subs will be the max. That's not a bad number, when the Navy has made due with 3 or 4 for decades and it certainly opens up some more options. As for AOR's, my personal feeling is that you can't have too many support/logistics ships. They can be sent on their own to help out an Allied task force, or to a HADR situation, or to serve as part of a RCN operation. A relatively small navy like Germany has something like 11 replenishment vessels, for instance. I don't think that's where the RCN needs to be, but 4 is appropriate.

We also need to remember that when the RCN had Oberon's, they were all positioned on one coast, the Atlantic.  Also only three were ever in operation, one was tide up for alongside training and a fifth was cannibalized for spares.

We were also morbidly slow to the Submarine game.  The Oberon's were only conceived as training vessels for the surface fleet at first and it was only in the 80s that they began upgrading them for frontline service.

It's clear the security situation has changed but the CAF has always been resistant to change with the times.  We will have the Victoria Class for at least a decade longer (probably more) and the Government will continue to be reactive rather than proactive.

Not an expert on naval warfare;  wouldn't an oiler be an 'easy target' and one adversaries would want to sink some ordinance into, especially if they knew you only had a handful'ish?

I get that we're part of an Alliance, etc but...

This is why you organize your ships in to task groups with screens and guards.  Ships like Frigates and Destroyers exist to protect your High Value Ships i.e. Carriers & Supply Ships which usually sit in the centre of your task group.

Of course in the Canadian context, we are supposed to be able to form a task group but we have no AAW Destroyers anymore so no real Air Defence capability. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Of course in the Canadian context, we are supposed to be able to form a task group but we have no AAW Destroyers anymore so no real Air Defence capability.

This was what I was homing on, with the trailing "I know we are part of an Alliance but...".

;D

But, IMO, more importantly...

We will have the Victoria Class for at least a decade longer (probably more) and the Government will continue to be reactive rather than proactive.

This is the currently accepted COA (and, again IMO, not to be tied only to the current Liberal government...) and not limited to our Submarine force. 

I have what I consider to be very legitimate concerns over a military that can't keep simple items like lightweight thermal headgear and rescue tools/survival knifes in sufficient quantities to meet operational requirements.  If we can't do 'toques and knives' very well, I suspect things like submarines will be...difficult.

 

[daftandbarmy]

One reason for our 'under appreciation' of submarine warfare might be our focus on developing capabilities that are at odds with the more usual forms of general war, where subs are essential, e.g.,:

"No longer will the Canadian Forces be fixed on preparing for conventional, nation-state versus nation-state conflict. Now and for the
foreseeable future, the fight against the bear will be the exception. Instead, we will shift focus to dealing with failed and failing states and their inherent complexities. The fight against the ‘ball of snakes’ will be the norm."

- Brigadier-General Wayne Eyre

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/301/286/hill.pdf

A heavily armed stabilization force doesn't need more submarines, it needs more nation state 'stabilizers'....