Replacing the Subs

[Kirkhill]

That would probably require about 16 to 18 SSKs . It would be amusing to watch the Treasury have a collective stroke. As well as the Surface Warfare community.

Why the extra subs?

I am just proposing the patrol routes, not the frequency or duration.

I am assuming that only half of the fleet will actually be at sea or at notice to move.

3 subs dockside refit and 3 subs in long term refit or whatever it is called when they are gutted.

 

[Kirkhill]

Why the extra subs?

I am just proposing the patrol routes, not the frequency or duration.

I am assuming that only half of the fleet will actually be at sea or at notice to move.

3 subs dockside refit and 3 subs in long term refit or whatever it is called when they are gutted.

When I was talking about 4 subs on each coast I was thinking of 1 northbound and 1 southbound with, as I said above, 2 dockside.

In addition the third flotilla of 4 may only have 1 or 2 subs at notice to move or at sea.

 

[lenaitch]

Got me to wondering about how effective a barrier force would be with 4 SSKs and 2 AOPS routinely patrolling The Bering and Baffin Bay with 4 SSKs and 2 AOPSs in repair/refit/surge.

In the context of a "barrier force" or even patrolling, the premise is that who or whatever is doing it has the capability to do it effectively and/or do something about it should they encounter something untoward. Can the AOPS do any of that?

 

[Kirkhill]

In the context of a "barrier force" or even patrolling, the premise is that who or whatever is doing it has the capability to do it effectively and/or do something about it should they encounter something untoward. Can the AOPS do any of that?

Doesn't it act as an OP? OPs don't necessarily actively engage with the enemy.

The AOPS can direct other forces.

 

[Furniture]

In the context of a "barrier force" or even patrolling, the premise is that who or whatever is doing it has the capability to do it effectively and/or do something about it should they encounter something untoward. Can the AOPS do any of that?

Depends on how "hot" things are. If things remain as they are now, just being there to report the presence of unwanted/unauthorized ships is enough.

 

[KevinB]

Why the extra subs?

I am just proposing the patrol routes, not the frequency or duration.

I am assuming that only half of the fleet will actually be at sea or at notice to move.

3 subs dockside refit and 3 subs in long term refit or whatever it is called when they are gutted.

Do some research on SubSafe.

Basically you will have 25% on patrol if you’re doing it right.

The Blue and Gold Crews from the Ohio’s had given me a skewed perception of Sub readiness. But in reality that was because the boat had a longer endurance than the crew for patrol periods but didn’t change that other boats where in refit, rebuilt and work ups.

Some suggest that the shorter endurance of the SSK’s could skew the 1:1:1:1 ratio to more of a 1 in 5 readiness rate as the refit and rebuild periods shouldn’t be shortened, so to make a 6 month ‘rotation’ you’d like need to need more boats to keep a boats available. But I think that could also be theory based on trying to emulate SSN/SSBN patrol patterns.

 

[lenaitch]

Doesn't it act as an OP? OPs don't necessarily actively engage with the enemy.

The AOPS can direct other forces.

Does it have the sensors was the first part of the question. I suppose it might once it is certified for flight operations. If we're just looking for a security guard, wouldn't satellite be easier?

Edit: I just realized that the discussion was 'in conjunction with a submarine' so, ya, I assume the AOPS has radar to look for surface ships.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In peacetime with new subs, you can fly crews out to meet the sub at a port while the sub resupplies. That would make for shorter deployments (Improving retention) but require about 2.2 trained crews for each sub on operations. Plus a training team on each coast with new submariners.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Survey says ....

3 in 4 Canadians show support for defence spending on new submarines, Nanos survey shows

Three in four Canadians support defence spending on new submarines, according to a new survey from Nanos Research and CTV News.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[Underway]

Survey says ....

3 in 4 Canadians show support for defence spending on new submarines, Nanos survey shows

Three in four Canadians support defence spending on new submarines, according to a new survey from Nanos Research and CTV News.

www.ctvnews.ca

View attachment 88451

I was just about to post this. The public opinion of defence spending is changing even amoung women and younger folks. Better education on defence needs, a greater understanding of the increasingly stormy world around us.

Question is does this translate into votes (lost or won) on defence issues? At the very least it allows defence spending to be more palatable for government.

 

[Fabius]

Do those 3 in 4 Canadians support higher taxes or less spending on other social programs to finance the submarine program?
That is the real question, previous polls have shown relatively high levels of support for defence spending but those high levels largely collapsed when the question of trade offs came up.
This time might be different; the international context is likely helping that shift, but it also might not be.

 

[dimsum]

I was just about to post this. The public opinion of defence spending is changing even amoung women and younger folks. Better education on defence needs, a greater understanding of the increasingly stormy world around us.

Question is does this translate into votes (lost or won) on defence issues? At the very least it allows defence spending to be more palatable for government.

I think they’re missing half of the question though - it assumes that no spending would be cut to buy said subs.

Edit: @Fabius just beat me to it.

 

[childs56]

I think the buying new subs is a good force multiplier. The Cdn Oberon class did some amazing work during their time (even though they were old diesels) by doing a few things our friends with Nuke boats could not do (run silent and float around listening and reporting). I feel with modern tech and some thinking outside of the box we could make good use of new subs and be a positive contributor to NATO and our allies.
I think with the new CSC,
I would build 6 for the East, 6 for the west then 4 extras over the life span.
Then build a dozen or more smaller frigates/ corvettes for the Reserves. Give them ships they can train on and force multiply. They can operate the basics with a smaller crew. If required surge crew for war times.
The key is keeping enough people trained on the ships systems and keep the systems up and functional so they can be used effectively when required.

 

[Underway]

I think they’re missing half of the question though - it assumes that no spending would be cut to buy said subs.

Edit: @Fabius just beat me to it.

No disagreement here. But this is a long way from "What do we even need a military for" conversations I've had.

It's much easier to have that prioritization discussion when both sides actually acknowledge that both expenditures are legitimate concerns. As opposed to hand waiving defence away as not important.

 

[dimsum]

No disagreement here. But this is a long way from "What do we even need a military for" conversations I've had.

Yup - had those too.

It's much easier to have that prioritization discussion when both sides actually acknowledge that both expenditures are legitimate concerns. As opposed to hand waiving defence away as not important.

Agreed.

 

[Kirkhill]

'Nudder thing

Have you seen how much money Trudeau has spent on government recently? 10 billion here and there isn't what it used to be.

And besides, everybody knows that budgets balance themselves.

I don't think sticker shock is what it was.

And the world is full of nasties.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I suspect we are seeing the cumulative effects of sustained barracking by allied leaders and some of the Canadian media and increased support, amongst many Canadians for another Trump presidency.

 

[YZT580]

I think the buying new subs is a good force multiplier. The Cdn Oberon class did some amazing work during their time (even though they were old diesels) by doing a few things our friends with Nuke boats could not do (run silent and float around listening and reporting). I feel with modern tech and some thinking outside of the box we could make good use of new subs and be a positive contributor to NATO and our allies.
I think with the new CSC,
I would build 6 for the East, 6 for the west then 4 extras over the life span.
Then build a dozen or more smaller frigates/ corvettes for the Reserves. Give them ships they can train on and force multiply. They can operate the basics with a smaller crew. If required surge crew for war times.
The key is keeping enough people trained on the ships systems and keep the systems up and functional so they can be used effectively when required.

Decide on the lifespan for the new CSC. Assume the delivery of one every 15 months. If the lifespan is 20 years then you need 17 hulls. The 18th is delivered in the 20th year and becomes the first of the next family. Adjust your numbers to suit your life estimate. Case closed

 

[KevinB]

Decide on the lifespan for the new CSC. Assume the delivery of one every 15 months. If the lifespan is 20 years then you need 17 hulls. The 18th is delivered in the 20th year and becomes the first of the next family. Adjust your numbers to suit your life estimate. Case closed

Problem is because the late start, you will have a major gap during the earlier years. You are already down 4x 280’s and the CPF’s are going to be self divesting before the CSC have replaced them.

Same goes for most CAF programs.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If we buy SK subs, we can have 1-2 in the water and operation in about 5 years if we signed the contract right now. Another 2-3 in 10 years. Offer the Victoria Class to the Aussies as a stop gap while they wait for their nukes. I think our timelines for the sub buy are foolish, because we know both the Vics and CFP's are going to be in a bad way. Having a fleet of new KS-III's keeps our place at the table and presents some new capabilities.

I wonder if there is any advantages to outfitting some of the CFP's with the weapon systems destined for the CSC, so one gets the main gun even at the expense of something else, another gets updated VLS's and missile system and perhaps components of the sensor system? All them get the same RWS's and those are also mounted on the AOP's, JSS as they go through refits, the AOP's guns can either be sold, stored or fitted on the MCDV's . But better to give them the same RWS so their commonalty in the fleet and buy simulators and training guns as well.