• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Replacing the Subs

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
868
Points
910
Ask for 6, hope to get 5. Hook into an existing contract. A diesel electric sub with AIP backup is likely the best we will get. I am sure the Aussies would welcome us getting involved and that solves the weapons issue and ITAR as well.
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Colin P said:
Ask for 6, hope to get 5. Hook into an existing contract. A diesel electric sub with AIP backup is likely the best we will get. I am sure the Aussies would welcome us getting involved and that solves the weapons issue and ITAR as well.

or you could join the Dutch program,same demands/capabillities as Canada's got/want(ok,Australia's subs will be quit a bit bigger) :whistle:
 

deepblue202

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If it is going to take over ten years or more why not see if we can join with the Japanese and their 29SS project. 
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
868
Points
910
There are a few programs that speak to our needs and we should attach observers to each of them to study what's going on, what we like, don't like and devolop from them and our current fleet a list of Must have, really want and what would be nice. Then we can negotiate to take part in one of those contracts, that means more training opportunities, faster learning curve, spare parts and better relations.
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
deepblue202 said:
If it is going to take over ten years or more why not see if we can join with the Japanese and their 29SS project.

Normally,the "B"letter(in Dutch "B" brief)will be passed this summer,then we will know which builder is going to build our new subs.

There are 3 shipbuilders in the race;
-Naval Group,with a barracuda derivative(think that one's to big for us,but my thoughts),but for the rest a nice sub  :D
-TKMS ,with a 212 derivative,think that one is not for us
-Saab/Damen with the A-26(ER version may be spot on for us)

but have to wait what the politicians think is the best one(omg) :whistle:
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
555
Points
1,010
Karel Doorman said:
or you could join the Dutch program,same demands/capabillities as Canada's got/want(ok,Australia's subs will be quit a bit bigger) :whistle:

Not sure if that's correct.  I expect our requirements are probably closer to Australia.  We are also on an island continent...  Not that a new Dutch sub wouldn't be amazing compared to an old UK one.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
381
Points
860
I’ve been watching the show Submarine School & it’s been fantastic.  Had absolutely no appreciation for how technical commanding a submarine could be.  In episode 3, her first engagement with a small diesel submarine didn’t go well... I’m wondering if ours are comparable?  **sorry for the short posts with poor sentence structure.  Posting on my iPhone sucks**
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
868
Points
910
Our subs were used for a Norwegian version of the Perisher meant for allied nations without nuke subs
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
691
Points
940
CBH99 said:
I’ve been watching the show Submarine School & it’s been fantastic.  Had absolutely no appreciation for how technical commanding a submarine could be.  In episode 3, her first engagement with a small diesel submarine didn’t go well... I’m wondering if ours are comparable? 

In essence, yes.
 

Half Full

Jr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
CBH99 said:
  In episode 3, her first engagement with a small diesel submarine didn’t go well... I’m wondering if ours are comparable? 
Speaking from experience, on board HMCs OTTAWA the only sub we had difficulty when in finding was the Victoria class.  We went up against the Australians (easiest), South Koreans, Type 212s, LA, & Virginia(2nd hardest). Although older than some of the other classes, the crew training and even the sub itself is still ahead of many others.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
2,234
Points
1,060
CBH99 said:
I’ve been watching the show Submarine School & it’s been fantastic.  Had absolutely no appreciation for how technical commanding a submarine could be.  In episode 3, her first engagement with a small diesel submarine didn’t go well... I’m wondering if ours are comparable?  **sorry for the short posts with poor sentence structure.  Posting on my iPhone sucks**

The BBC did a program called 'Perisher' in the 80s, following up on interest after the Falklands War.

Very good, and on YouTube now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw2Q-_qswjQ
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
daftandbarmy said:
The BBC did a program called 'Perisher' in the 80s, following up on interest after the Falklands War.

Very good, and on YouTube now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw2Q-_qswjQ

The Submarine Command Course (SMCC), previously known as the Commanding Officers Qualifying Course (COQC), and informally known as The Perisher because of its supposed low success rate, is a training course for naval officers preparing to take command of a submarine.

Created by the Royal Navy during World War I, the course was originally intended to address the high attrition rate of submarine commanders, as the previous method of handing down knowledge from officer to officer was prevented by wartime deaths. Following World War II, the Royal Netherlands Navy became involved in the course; the Dutch later partnered with the British to run the course, and following the British conversion to a fully nuclear submarine fleet, took over responsibility for running the course for diesel-electric submarines. Officers from other nations regularly participate.

The four-month course is run in four stages, the first and third involve learning ashore in simulators, while the second involves learning at sea. The fourth phase is the assessment, during which the candidates (of which the maximum is six) show their ability to command a submarine unaided during war-like conditions. The success rate for the SMCC is 70% and, on failing, candidates are prevented from serving on submarines in any capacity.
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
1
Points
180
Underway said:
Not sure if that's correct.  I expect our requirements are probably closer to Australia.  We are also on an island continent...  Not that a new Dutch sub wouldn't be amazing compared to an old UK one.

Well,i think there are only a handfull of navies that have coventionals that can go for long distances.

Correct me if i'm wrong but think it's Australia,Japan,Canada and The Netherlands,so that's what i meant,all of these those subs(classes) are very close(requirements),but offcourse there are differences in weight/length etc,but still are very close capability wise.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
68
Points
280
Karel Doorman said:
Well,i think there are only a handfull of navies that have coventionals that can go for long distances.

Correct me if i'm wrong but think it's Australia,Japan,Canada and The Netherlands,so that's what i meant,all of these those subs(classes) are very close(requirements),but offcourse there are differences in weight/length etc,but still are very close capability wise.
And maybe also India?
The Type 216 is designed specifically to meet the "larger conventional submarine" needs of countries like Australia, India and Canada.
http://www.navyrecognition.com/mobile/index.php/oceania/australia/submarines/264-type-216-u-216-conventional-submarine-ssk-aip-tkms-hdw-submarine-class-216-howaldtswerke-deutsche-werft-thyssenkrupp-marine-systems-royal-australian-navy-datasheet-pictures-i
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
868
Points
910
Whichever sub we get I hope it has the ability to launch cruise missiles. That gives us a strike capability, even if we don't choose to use it.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
2,234
Points
1,060
Karel Doorman said:
The success rate for the SMCC is 70% and, on failing, candidates are prevented from serving on submarines in any capacity.

That's pretty good. I'd have thought it would be much tougher to pass than that.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
813
Points
910
Colin P said:
Whichever sub we get I hope it has the ability to launch cruise missiles. That gives us a strike capability, even if we don't choose to use it.

Rest assured Canada will retain its squeamishness about cruise missiles. 😉
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
691
Points
940
Karel Doorman said:
The success rate for the SMCC is 70% and, on failing, candidates are prevented from serving on submarines in any capacity.

I've never understood why you had to give up your dolphins if you don't become Command-qualified.  It's not like all of a sudden your expertise just evaporated. 

I wonder if any surface ship CO-candidate has ever failed their command course, and if so, got kicked out of the trade (which is essentially what it is).
 
Top