Author Topic: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?  (Read 308460 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 314
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #575 on: December 19, 2019, 10:53:10 »
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

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 231,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,125
  • "crew, set condition Fun, rig for MAD..."
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #576 on: December 19, 2019, 10:53:21 »
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...
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 132,019
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,466
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #577 on: December 19, 2019, 10:55:50 »
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. 

« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 11:16:58 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 231,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,125
  • "crew, set condition Fun, rig for MAD..."
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #578 on: December 19, 2019, 11:19:43 »

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...

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 11:26:44 by Eye In The Sky »
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 268,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,712
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #579 on: December 19, 2019, 12:15:12 »
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'....
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 231,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,125
  • "crew, set condition Fun, rig for MAD..."
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #580 on: December 19, 2019, 12:35:47 »
As a mere tactical level/line sqn operator, that stuff is all well above my pay grade and focus level.   8)
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 132,019
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,466
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #581 on: December 19, 2019, 13:36:06 »
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'....

I think it has more to do with our political masters and Canadian Society being fundamentally at odds with our military doctrine and the way we fight.

Specifically, Offensive Action.

It's why not only do we have trouble justifying Submarines, we also don't seem to want Armed UAVs, Attack Helicopters, Tanks, Offensive Cyber Capabilities, Fighter-Bombers, Naval Land Strike, Mine Warfare, putting missiles and bombs on CP140s, etc. 

I think submarines can be a profoundly useful tool against non-state actors.  They can find and locate insurgent activity without being detected and are a powerful and robust ISR platform. They can also, if properly equipped, provide a strike function.  The British, Americans and Russians have all demonstrated this capability in contemporary conflict.  The Russians having most recently used SLCMs on targets in Syria, launched from the Mediterranean.   

The Israelis also use submarines against Non-state actors and rumour has it some of the supposed Israeli "air strikes" in Syria and elsewhere were actually carried out by the Israeli Submarine Service.

You could in theory in the future have a small Canadian Naval Task Group in the Mediterranean with 2xType 26, A Resupply Ship and a Submarine.  Equipped with UUVs, UAVs, SLCMs, etc.  This could provide a very robust and powerful strike force.  Paired with a SOTF and an ATF based around a Six Pack of F35, Armed UAVs, CP140s (armed of course).  You've now got a potent force for conducting kinetic operations. 
« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 13:38:41 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 167
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #582 on: December 19, 2019, 14:57:17 »
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?

Sure, but don't you need them? Also, it's a way for "Canada to be back" by sending them off to allied exercises, NATO patrols etc without tying up a frigate. In other words, buys goodwill?

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

Offline JMCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 82
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #583 on: December 19, 2019, 18:23:56 »
... 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 ...

I partially agree. However i would rather prefer the 8-to-10 window.
Ideally with 10 units there may be 3 subs per ocean plus one under long, planned,  overhaul. Yet I would suggest to have  those 10 split as 6+4, with the last four as an Arctic oriented sub-class in terms of longer submerged endurance/range at the cost, for instance, of relinquished land-attack or SOF deployment capabilities.

That being said, as RAN is in the way of doubling the number of subs, from 6 to 12, shouldn't we expect the RCN to at least double from 4 to 8? That is my minimum minimorum (minimum out of the minimals).
« Last Edit: December 19, 2019, 18:29:20 by JMCanada »

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,391
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #584 on: December 19, 2019, 19:51:33 »
That being said, as RAN is in the way of doubling the number of subs, from 6 to 12, shouldn't we expect the RCN to at least double from 4 to 8? That is my minimum minimorum (minimum out of the minimals).

Come on now, that’s not how we work.  With each big purchase we cut back. 

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 314
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #585 on: December 19, 2019, 19:59:34 »
Come on now, that’s not how we work.  With each big purchase we cut back.

So that means that we scrap the entire Kingston class and replace the 12 with the 6 AOPS, correct?

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 132,019
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,466
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #586 on: December 19, 2019, 20:22:26 »
Come on now, that’s not how we work.  With each big purchase we cut back.

Didn't we pay extra money to have the weapons pylons taken off our CP140s?  That's Canadian Logic right there, pay more for less capability!

I can picture discussions in Ottawa concerning the Saudi LAV deal being similar:

"OMG, we didn't realize the Saudis were going to use those Armoured Vehicle thingys for their intended purpose!?"

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 18,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,391
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #587 on: December 19, 2019, 21:49:40 »
I did hear we paid to have the laser designator removed from the camera on the Aurora.

I don’t know if it is true or not, but life would have been much easier with it.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 231,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,125
  • "crew, set condition Fun, rig for MAD..."
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #588 on: December 20, 2019, 08:49:20 »
The new buzzterm seems to be 'fitted for, but not with'.

Canada has the 140 pylons and at least 1 aircraft had them installed in recent years (never carried stores on them though, AFAIK).  Re: the MX-20 and removing the LD...yup.  We are good at watering down our already small capabilities.   :not-again: 

Kind of embarrassing to be ONSTA/ONTGT and have a strike asset ask you for your code...

"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 132,019
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,466
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #589 on: December 20, 2019, 10:03:44 »
The new buzzterm seems to be 'fitted for, but not with'.

Canada has the 140 pylons and at least 1 aircraft had them installed in recent years (never carried stores on them though, AFAIK).  Re: the MX-20 and removing the LD...yup.  We are good at watering down our already small capabilities.   :not-again: 

Kind of embarrassing to be ONSTA/ONTGT and have a strike asset ask you for your code...

This is my point, what sort of logic is this?  There is none, it's illogical to own a strike platform and then take away its ability to strike.

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 189,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,604
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #590 on: December 20, 2019, 10:24:05 »
The new buzzterm seems to be 'fitted for, but not with'.

That's not a new buzzterm.  I vaguely remember the MCDVs "fitted for, but not with", a bow thruster.  They were already pretty manoeuvrable, if slow, but a bow thruster could have let them slide sideways (or so I was told) while departing or coming alongside.
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 743,207
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,070
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #591 on: December 20, 2019, 10:36:01 »
That's not a new buzzterm.  I vaguely remember the MCDVs "fitted for, but not with", a bow thruster.  They were already pretty manoeuvrable, if slow, but a bow thruster could have let them slide sideways (or so I was told) while departing or coming alongside.

Thats an accurate statement.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 268,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,712
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #592 on: December 20, 2019, 10:51:56 »
This is my point, what sort of logic is this?  There is none, it's illogical to own a strike platform and then take away its ability to strike.

Well, as you know, in the Infantry we have a bayonet but it's really weak and breaks all the time. This makes it useless for it's intended purpose i.e., stabbing people to death in an adrenaline fuelled frenzy.

Maybe they are just being more realistic and decided it was 'all or nothing'....  :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 39,025
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,699
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #593 on: February 11, 2020, 10:21:45 »
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632

Quote
All four of Canada's submarines were tied up last year for repairs and maintenance — news that has the opposition Conservatives questioning whether the Liberal government can keep the second-hand fleet afloat for another two decades.

Gee its almost as if we need more,and new subs
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 35,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 949
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #594 on: February 11, 2020, 11:50:45 »
That's not a new buzzterm.  I vaguely remember the MCDVs "fitted for, but not with", a bow thruster.  They were already pretty manoeuvrable, if slow, but a bow thruster could have let them slide sideways (or so I was told) while departing or coming alongside.

As a trainee, spent about a week hanging around MOG5, so went down to poke around an uncrewed MCDV (think it was parked before going to a docking). Was on my own, and when I got to the bow thruster compartment spent about 30 minutes looking for the bow thruster in a mostly empty compartment about 20' long.  Eventually gave up and asked someone because I felt like a failure for not being able to recognize it, but was a good way to sear 'fitted for not with' into my mind forever. Think there was space for it, but no mounts or hull penetrations. The azipods make it pretty maneuverable, but with a bow thruster they could just slide sideways, so pretty handy if you need to stay in a specific spot while maintaining your heading.  Also great for parking.

We have all kinds of systems that are 'mission fits' that there is just enough for one or two deploying ships, which is pretty dumb if we ever go to war, as they are generally pretty important in a warzone.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 231,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,125
  • "crew, set condition Fun, rig for MAD..."
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #595 on: February 11, 2020, 16:45:14 »
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632

Gee its almost as if we need more,and new subs

In response to a written question before Parliament, the Department of National Defence said the boats "spent zero days at sea" in 2019, but three of the four would return to service at some point this year.

 :Tin-Foil-Hat: Not much of a deterrent...

-
...a written statement recently put before the House of Commons indicates the navy wants to keep the boats "operationally effective until the mid-2030s."...

Maybe "operationally effective in 2020" is a more realistic goal to aim for at this point??
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 320,121
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,449
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #596 on: February 11, 2020, 16:51:12 »
At least if our submarines aren't sailing then they're not catching fire right?
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 268,905
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,712
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #597 on: February 11, 2020, 17:25:03 »
At least if our submarines aren't sailing then they're not catching fire right?

"A ship in harbor is safe, but that is not what ships are built for." John A. Shedd
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 153,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,864
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #598 on: February 11, 2020, 17:45:56 »
To be fair the year before they really pushed these boats.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 314
Re: Status on Victoria-class Submarines?
« Reply #599 on: February 11, 2020, 18:10:10 »
 :dontfeedmods:
To be fair the year before they really pushed these boats.

We pushed two of the four, as only two were in the water in 2018. The other two weren’t in the water at all in 2018 or 2019.