Canadian Submarine Capabilites (What can they do? Do we need them?)

[vauban]

Generally speaking, SSK refers to a deisel-electric submarine.   SSN refers to a nuclear powered submarin.   SSBN is a ballistic missile nuclear powered submarine.


Mk48 is simply Mark 48.

 

[McG]

So SSN & SSK would both be anti-sub/anti-shipping?

Would there be a designator for a sub designed as a cruise missile platform?

 

[vauban]

During the cold war, the primary duty of attack submarines was to track and follow Soviet boomers, and destroy them before they could launch their missiles, if required.

Edit: thinking now, a lot of SSN submarines have the capability to fire cruise missiles.   Second and third generation Los Angeles-class submarines (along with Virginia-class and Seawolf-class) have vertical launch tubes to fire cruise missiles (Tomahawks).   Somewhat modified missiles can also be fired horizontally through conventional topedo tubes.   Also, the US Navy annouced plans to modify several Ohio-class SSBNs to carry conventional weapons (non-nuclear, that is).

The Upholders aren't capable of deploying cruise missiles, as such, but could probably fire harpoons (anti-ship missles) out of their torpedo tubes (this isn't possible at the moment).

 

[Sheerin]

The NATO designation for Cruise missile sub is SSGN I believe (The Kursk was an SSGN, if I remember correctly).

As for the Victoria's/Upholders, originally they were designed to fire the Sub-harpoon, however our firecontrol system wasn't, therefore no subharpoons. 

Mk.48s they're listed as greater than 28 kts, although various websites out there speculate that they can reach up to 55kts... I'm sure thats a closely guarded secret though... this site has some interesting info http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-48.htm .

I always thought thatThe Shkval torpedo was designed to carry a nuclear warhead to take out an American CVBG. 

Of course all I know is what I've read on the internet, so really, I know next to nothing.

 

[vauban]

Mk.48s they're listed as greater than 28 kts, although various websites out there speculate that they can reach up to 55kts... I'm sure thats a closely guarded secret though... this site has some interesting info http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk-48.htm .

My research suggests we're using the Mk48 Mod4, which has a speed of about 40 knots and a range of up to 50km.

 

[Sheerin]

What we need is a submariner to yet us, but I somehow they will

 

[Kilted Mayhem]

Since we are talking torpedoes and this is what our subs might come against.
Just a little more info on the Shkval http://www.deepangel.com/html/the_squall.html

 

[digital]

I'm just a civiilian but I've got some questions about Canada's submarine capability. I understand Canada has 4 Victoria Class subs recently acquired from the British. From what I read in the news, these subs apparently weren't that great of a purchase, and I think I heard that there is still 1 or 2 in Britain and none of them are currently operating in the Navy. Is this true? Even if these subs were in good working condition and were all operable, would they meet Canada's submarine needs? And would these subs be deployable as frequently as the other ships in our fleet?

In an ideal military, how big would our sub force be and what capabilites would these subs have? Sorry if these questions seem ignorant but like I said i'm just a civilian and I'm curious. Thanks 

i found this on CBC.ca..
http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/01/31/jtf2_030131
its an article on JTF-2's maritime capability featuring our subs. hope this helps a bit.

Hooya

 

[Sheerin]

From reading that site, I noticed one thing, the Shkval II must not use a solid rocket booster if its able to slow down and reacquire the target at will... unless of course it was designed to have several different solid rocket boosters which would only run for a few seconds.   However if this were the case the torpedo would probably have troubles with close sub to sub combat.  
And if it were a liquid fueled rocket, well that poses many safety and logistical problems.  

So I wonder if it can actually do that and if so how?

Edit:  I should have looked through that site a little more... Its a website for a computer game, so I'd take anything they say as fact with a grain of salt at best.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

My research suggests we're using the Mk48 Mod4, which has a speed of about 40 knots and a range of up to 50km.

That is correct...the ADCAP is MOD5 and there is now a MOD6 just entering service as well.

The NATO designation for Cruise missile sub is SSGN I believe (The Kursk was an SSGN, if I remember correctly).

The 4 Ohio class SSBNs being modified to fire Tomahawks will also be SSGNs.

 

[Kilted Mayhem]

Sorry I copied the wrong link for the shkval.
this site is a bit better.
http://www.periscope.ucg.com/mdb-smpl/weapons/minetorp/torpedo/w0004768.shtml

 

[nULL]

Could the technology behind the Squall torpedo be used in submarines or warships?

 

[clasper]

So I wonder if it can actually do that and if so how?

I really don't know anything about the Shkval torpedo, but looking at the physics of the situation, the obvious solution lies in the envelope of supercavitating bubbles it produces to reduce drag.   The solid rocket motor (which cannot be throttled or turned off once ignited) will produce a constant thrust for the torpedo, but the speed can be varied by altering the flow of drag-reducing bubbles along the skin if desired.

 

[Sheerin]

yeah, that would problably work too, but wouldn't the solid fuel engine produce a $hit load of sound?

 

[clasper]

Yes.  I imagine an envelope of supercavitating bubbles isn't all that quiet either.  But if Hollywood is to be believed, conventional torpedoes aren't exactly silent themselves.  With a torpedo that does over 200 knots, I don't think stealthiness was a design requirement.

 

[Sheerin]

Yeah, I wonder if torpedoes are as loud as they are in the movies...
I suspect that the rocket torpedo will not be wire guided and as such is completely on its own for acquiring the target, so in that case silence will be somewhat important.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Oh torpedoes are very very loud in the water and since sound travels well underwater its a sound no surfave ship likes to hear.

 

[Sheerin]

Yeah, thats understandable... 

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Just as the loss of Submarines is a loss of skill sets to the Navy, although not as drastic as the complete distruction of the Combat Team.

Whoa whoa whoa! I disagree and anyone thats in the navy would disagree as well. Sorry George, but if you believe that you seriously lack understanding in naval warfare.  With the retirement of the O-Boats and the slow process with the Upholders our navy has lost its ASW skills We lost an edge we once had in being able to hunt and kill submarines. Not just us but the Maritime Air types as well. The USN and RN don't send us a sub for us to practice our ASW skills and on the rare occassions we do exercise with subs you can see just how much we lost. As for our submariners, they are just slowly getting back into the groove.

 

[George Wallace]

Whoa whoa whoa! I disagree and anyone thats in the navy would disagree as well. Sorry George, but if you believe that you seriously lack understanding in naval warfare. With the retirement of the O-Boats and the slow process with the Upholders our navy has lost its ASW skills We lost an edge we once had in being able to hunt and kill submarines. Not just us but the Maritime Air types as well. The USN and RN don't send us a sub for us to practice our ASW skills and on the rare occassions we do exercise with subs you can see just how much we lost. As for our submariners, they are just slowly getting back into the groove.

So you are telling me that the loss of the Victoria class subs would be the death knell of the Canadian Navy?

GW