Status on Victoria-class Submarines?

[Sailorwest]

There is no doubt that a submarine is a valuable asset when when conducting certain types of operations but what is needed in the Arctic is presence and a sub is not the ideal vessel for that. We need to exert Canadian authority over the area but more importantly, we need to be seen to be exerting Canadian authority.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

When all four boats are fully operational how much more years of service can we expect from them.  Second, at this point won't it make more sense, fiscally and otherwise, to scrap the Victorias and buy new boats, such as the French Scorpene Class or perhaps better yet, the Swedish Gotland Class?

If the Victorias got a reasonable combat systems upgrade, they'd be at the top level of SSKs in the world. They're not exactly what we would have picked if given a completely free hand, but they're what we have now.

There aren't any other boats being built now that would meet a reasonable Canadian spec, so as long as the dive cert risk is accepted, there isn't much point in scrapping the Victorias and buying new boats.

With the Arctic Ocean becoming more accessible Canada desperately needs subs to protect its sovereignty in the Arctic

Why? Our sovereignty isn't in dispute. Even if it was, submarine operations don't have an effect on sovereignty because you can't talk about them and nobody else sees them.

I look forward to the day when I can hear of Canadian subs taking part in operations worldwide just as our frigates and destroyers do.

It's pretty difficult to deploy diesel-powered boats worldwide because their transit speed is very slow. The Germans and Americans had significant issues with it in WWII and their boats transit speed was much higher.

BTW-Submarines can be extremely valuable in the Arctic environment. (O boat guys here can attest to but, then, that is OPSEC) Ask this question again 18 months from now-Let's see where we are then.
Submarines (my opinion only!) will be our first AOPs in theory.

We only have 4 boats, and they're split on each coast. The operating area is farther away than Europe. Somehow I don't think that patrols in the Arctic are going to be any more effective than West Coast patrols were with the O-boats.

 

[dapaterson]

We only have 4 boats, and they're split on each coast. The operating area is farther away than Europe. Somehow I don't think that patrols in the Arctic are going to be any more effective than West Coast patrols were with the O-boats.

We only have four if one considers HMCS Chicoutimi as potentialy returning to the fold, an optimistic view of the world.


I suspect we'd have gotten better value for money if we'd gone for a fleet of these:

 

[GR66]

Subs and warships are a nice symbol of sovereignty but real sovereignty is Canadian customs officials, scientific teams, environmental officers, RCMP officers, medical services, postal and communications networks, etc. working in the arctic enforcing Canadian laws and regulations. 

Also, as drunknsubmrnr noted our sovereignty over the arctic isn't in dispute.  The status of the North West Passage is another issue, but while subs (and other more visible military assets) may make monitoring of traffic in arctic waters easier they do not help to "settle" the dispute one way or the other.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

We only have four if one considers HMCS Chicoutimi as potentialy returning to the fold, an optimistic view of the world.


I suspect we'd have gotten better value for money if we'd gone for a fleet of these:

I want one, I want one, I want one!

Submarines in the arctic would be like nuclear weapons and detente. You are likely not to use them (hopefully), no one knows where they are but the idea that they 'might' be targetting you may be enough to make you think twice about what it is you are doing.

 

[cameron]

You're right Ex-Dragoon.  Considering how we're taking to get our AORs and helos, not to mention replacements for the Iroquois' God only knows how long it'll take at this rate for us to get new subs.  But the subs are, in my view at least, an urgent need that has to be addressed.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I want one, I want one, I want one!

Submarines in the arctic would be like nuclear weapons and detente. You are likely not to use them (hopefully), no one knows where they are but the idea that they 'might' be targetting you may be enough to make you think twice about what it is you are doing.

I so wanted one and was determined to get it, until I was shown what fiberboard was......

Subs by their nature are a threat, by their mere existence the enemy or potential opponent must take steps to protect their assets, which means more assets required for any given operation. The Falklands war was a clear demonstration of the threat and cost of ignoring this risk. In the next conflict we will be bringing what we have, so lets hope these boats are properly equipped as there will be little time to do so.

 

[a_majoor]

The USN is being urged to get back in the conventional submarine game, so perhaps there is a long shot possibility of getting on board with this idea and having access to economies of scale and technical support from our most important allied navy:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/06/us-navy-needs-diesel-submarines.html

U.S. Navy Needs Diesel Submarines

The American Enterprise Institute makes the case for Diesel Submarines.

The US Navy should procure a fleet of diesel-powered subs. Not only are diesels cheaper than nuclear-powered subs, but they have the advantage of being better platforms for many of the tasks the Navy faces today. The list of actual and potential submarine missions, including close-in intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, special operations, and blockade and mining, continues to grow.

These growing operational demands are coupled with the exigencies of new undersea requirements. In addition to the deep-sea dives and prolonged blue-water missions that became the staple of submarine operations during the Cold War, there are a number of scenarios today that are focused on the littoral areas, the green water within 100 miles of land, be they in the strait of Hormuz or Malacca, off the shores of Taiwan or in the South China Sea.

It is these missions that often favor diesel submarines. Diesel subs are smaller, stealthier and more maneuverable in tight spaces than nuclear submarines. For example, unlike a nuclear submarine's power plant, a diesel's primary engine can be turned off when submerged, reducing noise emission. Indeed, unlike a nuclear-powered submarine, a modern diesel can hide on the ocean's floor, deadly silent, while monitoring whatever passes over and around it.

And with the advent of Air Independent Propulsion (AIP) technology, today's diesel subs can remain submerged for weeks at a time. When deployed to bases in the Far East or Middle East, the range and reach of today's AIP-equipped diesels would put them well within striking distance of critical choke points.

Germany's Type 212 subs were sold for approximately $500 million versus the $2 billion for a Virginia-class nuclear attack submarine - the Navy would be able to ramp up submarine production without breaking the bank. (Interpolation: Any conventional sub suited for US or Canadian needs would need a much greater range than almost any conventional sub currently in service. This would almost certainly be larger and more expensive than a 212 U boat. See Alternative Submarines-Minitruders and Green Nukes by Richard Compton Hall)

Wikipedia on Air Independent Propulsion

Air-independent propulsion (AIP) is a term that encompasses technologies which allow a submarine to operate without the need to surface or use a snorkel to access atmospheric oxygen.

AIP is usually implemented as an auxiliary source. Most such systems generate electricity which in turn drives an electric motor for propulsion or recharging the boat's batteries. The submarine's electrical system is also used for providing "hotel services"—ventilation, lighting, heating etc.—although this consumes a small amount of power compared to that required for propulsion.

A benefit of this approach is it can be retrofitted into existing submarine hulls by inserting an additional hull section. AIP does not normally provide the endurance or power to replace the atmospheric dependent propulsion, but allows it to remain submerged longer than a more conventionally propelled submarine. A typical conventional power plant will provide 3 megawatts maximum, and an AIP source around 10% of that. A nuclear submarine's propulsion plant is usually much greater than 20 megawatt

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A littoral sub built by Northrop or Lockheed will cost as much as a Trident, be armed with 1 torpedo tube and have the dive profile of a homemade Iranian sub.

 

[KJK]

More good news in the never ending Victoria class saga:

Michael Tutton, The Canadian Press
HALIFAX - One of the Canadian navy's four Victoria-class submarines will be restricted in its ability to dive deep beneath the seas because of rust, according to a document obtained by The Canadian Press.

Shared with the usual disclaimer.

http://home.mytelus.com/telusen/portal/NewsChannel.aspx?ArticleID=news/capfeed/national/HG7777.xml&CatID=National

KJK

 

[MSEng314]

For those who haven't seen this yet, a submariner friend of mine linked this to me, enjoy!

HMCS CORNER BROOK

 

[canuck101]

Just read this in the Vancouver Sun

Edit: Link to David ******** article removed. Similar article can be found here: http://bit.ly/nyt0Hk

 

[Edward Campbell]

Someone in the political/bureaucratic centre (Privy Council Office, Treasury Board and Finance) is going to ask - probably via an item 'planted' in the media - the obvious question: "Why is DND shoveling more and more money down a rat hole? If we need submarines then, surely, we need them now, not in 2016. Why not scrap these four lemons and buy new, working submarines?"

I know there are many good reasons why we are doing what we are doing, but it is going to be an uphill battle on the public relations front - Canadians have heard nothing but bad news about these boats since we bought them. Those, in government, who oppose submarines or just oppose defence spending - and there are a lot of them - will have a field day.

VAdm (ret'd) Lynn Mason, amongst others, has, publicly, made the case for submarines and, indeed, for these submarines. DND needs a loud clear voice again - IF there is one inside NDHQ or in the Navy, generally.

 

[The Bread Guy]

DND needs a loud clear voice again - IF there is one inside NDHQ or in the Navy, generally.

Here here, and NOT just on the subs.

 

[Edward Campbell]

More in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/barrie-mckenna/the-sad-saga-of-the-boats-that-wouldnt-float/article2153329/

The sad saga of the boats that wouldn’t float

BARRIE MCKENNA | Columnist profile | E-mail
OTTAWA— From Monday's Globe and Mail

Last updated Monday, Sep. 05, 2011

As Ottawa prepares to place its largest shipbuilding order in decades – $35-billion worth of patrol ships, icebreakers and research ships – it’s worth checking in on the government’s last big navy purchase.

Remember the four second-hand subs the government bought from Britain for $800-million back in 1998?

You would be forgiven for losing track. Amid endless refits and repairs, the subs have spent far more time in dry dock than patrolling Canada’s coasts in the 13 years the navy has owned them.

And shockingly, none of the four subs is operational. Only one is in water, HMCS Victoria, which is slated to make its first dive later this fall after a major overhaul.

Not one of the subs is weapons-ready. It will be at least another two years before the subs are equipped to fire torpedoes. And it will cost Ottawa an estimated $125-million to retrofit the ships to fire the same Mk 48 torpedoes used on its now-retired Oberon-class submarines.

The plan is to have two subs fully operational next year and all four in 2013, according to navy spokeswoman Lieutenant Heather McDonald.

“We're near the end of a long beginning,” Lt. McDonald said.

One of the subs, HMCS Windsor, is so badly rusted that it’s apparently limited in its ability to dive deeply beneath the seas. In July, Canadian navy officials offered a less-than-ringing endorsement of the ship’s sea-worthiness.

“The submarine is safe to perform all expected operations during her operations period until her next extended docking work period,” Blaine Duffley, director of maritime equipment project management for the subs, recently told the Canadian Press. The sub is now in dry dock on the East Coast.

The rest of the fleet is grounded. HMCS Chicoutimi caught fire in 2004 on its voyage from Britain and won’t be ready until 2013. HMCS Corner Brook is undergoing maintenance on the West Coast, and also won’t be operational until 2013.

Military experts don’t dispute the value of submarines to a nation such as Canada, with its vast coastline. The stealthy diesel-electric subs can covertly combat smuggling, illegal fishing, terrorism and polluters.

And the initial purchase price was much lower than buying new subs. Australia, for example, has paid nearly $1-billion apiece for its six new ones.

If Ottawa is to learn anything from the subs saga, it’s time to divulge the all-in cost of the four ships, which Britain mothballed as part of its conversion to a nuclear-powered fleet. The $800-million purchase price bought Canada four hulking steel shells. Ottawa has spent another $1.5-billion on maintenance and support.

But that’s only part of the cost of Canadianizing the subs.

Readying the ships for action is costing still more, according to publicly available information. Ottawa has sunk at least $370-million into upgrades and refits. It has also spent millions to transport the subs via the Panama Canal to the West Coast, where the refit work is being done. It will cost another $125-million to give them torpedoes. In Halifax, the navy has spent has spent $47-million to renovate its maintenance dockyard to accommodate the submarines.

Further repairs to deal with persistent rust problems could cost millions more.

A rough and unofficial tally of what’s been spent is now approaching $3-billion. Add in the mind-boggling delays, and the original fire-sale price seems considerably less attractive.

The Harper government and the navy have repeatedly defended the sub purchase, initiated by the previous Liberal government, as a good deal for taxpayers. Mr. Harper has also championed the cause of giving the Canadian Forces the tools they need to do their jobs.

But the government has never disclosed the full cost of readying the subs to patrol Canadian shores – a mission that remains unfulfilled. And all the while the aging subs’ useful lifespan is ebbing away.

It’s time for a full accounting of the depressing saga.

The next few years could prove difficult ones for Canada’s military. A recent report by Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie, chief of transformation, is recommending $1-billion in annual cuts in a reorganization that could see as many as 11,000 positions vanish, mostly at headquarters in Ottawa.

In an environment of restraint, the Harper government should do a better job of openly explaining, and justifying, its ongoing military purchases.

This is, almost certainly, going to be the broad, general public reaction. Worse, this is in Report on Business, fortunately it is not on the front page; sadly it is on page 2 at the top, occupying, with a large picture, half of the page. A lot of (important) people open their morning paper, put aside the news and sports and lifestyle sections and focus on ROB - so this is what they will see as they have their first cup of coffee and start their daily reading. That stuff tends to stick with us ...

 

[a_majoor]

The problem with subs is you can't just go down to Crazy Dave's used military equipment and pick one up. The complexity of subs makes laying them up a very risky thing to do, and getting new ones in a reasonable time frame is also problamatic (see the Australian experience with the Collins class).

Add the rather unique requirements of the RCN and submarines turn into a huge headache. I somehow doubt that getting Kilo class SSK's or refurbishing Los Angeles class SSN's is going to go over well in either the Government or the Media...

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The complexity of subs makes laying them up a very risky thing to do

Not in general. The Americans laid up a lot of boats at the end of WWII, and pulled them out of storage for foreign sales/Guppy conversions. Thats how we got RAINBOW and GRILSE.

The problems with the layup were that the RN never laid them up properly, and they never properly worked out the kinks in the design in the first place so that had to be done as part of bringing the boats back.

They're more or less fixed mechanically now, but I don't think there's enough money to fix the spares and weapons issues.

 

[Neill McKay]

Not one of the subs is weapons-ready. It will be at least another two years before the subs are equipped to fire torpedoes. And it will cost Ottawa an estimated $125-million to retrofit the ships to fire the same Mk 48 torpedoes used on its now-retired Oberon-class submarines.

The Commander of the RCN had a letter to the editor in today's Globe and Mail in which he refuted this claim.  Apparently they can fire the Mk 48 now.

 

[yoman]

Canada’s subs

Contrary to what was conveyed in your article on the Victoria-Class submarines (The Sad Saga Of The Boats That Wouldn’t Float – Sept. 5), our submarines are capable now of firing the Mk48 heavyweight torpedo.

Victoria and Windsor will be certified next year, followed by Chicoutimi. From 2013 forward, Canada will have a submarine available on each coast, with a third deployed wherever required.

Our submarines were purchased with 80 per cent of hull life remaining at one-quarter of the cost of a new build. They cost no more to run than other submarines of equivalent capability and will provide a solid return on investment well into the 2020s.

It has taken us longer to bring the boats into service than we would have wished, but the submarine business is unforgiving. No shortcuts can be taken for the dangerous work our submariners do, and I am proud that they have brought us to this point – near the end of a long beginning.

Vice-Admiral Paul Maddison, Commander Royal Canadian Navy

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/letters-to-the-editor/sept-10-letters-to-the-editor/article2159982/page2/

Good news.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I'm pretty sure that none of the boats have actually fired a Mk 48 yet, although that's supposed to change soon.