Replacing the Subs

[Colin Parkinson]

We just use JT's magic money fairy that he seems to have.

 

[daftandbarmy]

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.

This.

A great endorsement from a surface fleet guy if I've ever heard one. Whatever we do next, it's probably a good idea to repeat the successes we're currently experiencing with the Victoria class subs...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Not to chuck crap at our submariners...

I've flown on many SSN and SSKs including our own several times.  My experience (comparing diesel boats to diesel boats), the most time I've been on a crew that was "hot" was one of ours.  The last time, we caught her in the snort and never lost contact after she went down.  Hard to get away from a MPA in that siituation, though.

Having said that, there's so many variables that can impact what is and isn't exploitable above and below surface, however;  weather, water mass, etc.  We might have been lucky that night...

There are definitely some diesel boats out there that are very very hard to detect, let alone track, when they're on battery.  There was a fndly SSK once that we just couldn't get even a sniff on.  Good day for that skipper and crew!

 

[Underway]

Not to chuck crap at our submariners...

I've flown on many SSN and SSKs including our own several times.  My experience (comparing diesel boats to diesel boats), the most time I've been on a crew that was "hot" was one of ours.  The last time, we caught her in the snort and never lost contact after she went down.  Hard to get away from a MPA in that siituation, though.

Having said that, there's so many variables that can impact what is and isn't exploitable above and below surface, however;  weather, water mass, etc.  We might have been lucky that night...

There are definitely some diesel boats out there that are very very hard to detect, let alone track, when they're on battery.  There was a fndly SSK once that we just couldn't get even a sniff on.  Good day for that skipper and crew!

MPA's are the rock to the scissors that are subs.  So many exercises I've been on that when the MPA is in the air the sub is screwed.  Especially if anyone in the TG gets a sniff of the sub and give them a tighter search area.  That being said water conditions, water conditions, water conditions...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Interesting analogy, Underway.

I guess that would make us skimmers the "paper". Fiting, as, in a one-on-one, the sub has the advantage - but we can take the MPA's out cold.  ;D

All joking aside, and as I have indicated before, during the cold war there wasn't a single CO who didn't thank the heaven whenever we had MPA's in support. For any convoy (Ah! The days of Ocean Safaris"), they truly were angels on our shoulders.

 

[Sub_Guy]

With advances in sonobuoy technology it is increasingly difficult for the submarine to remain undetected.

I’ve played with loud SSKs.  I’ve stumbled upon extremely quiet SSKs. 

The loudest SSK I played with was our own.  I have searched for and tracked the Victoria class in the Med, Atlantic and Pacific.  They are loud boats.

 

[Underway]

With advances in sonobuoy technology it is increasingly difficult for the submarine to remain undetected.

I’ve played with loud SSKs.  I’ve stumbled upon extremely quiet SSKs. 

The loudest SSK I played with was our own.  I have searched for and tracked the Victoria class in the Med, Atlantic and Pacific.  They are loud boats.

Post or pre most recent refit?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Lets be very careful with the direction that this thread is heading.

In my career, I have worked against a Type 209, several LA Class SSNs, a Virginia Class SSN and 2 out of our 4 Victoria Class SSKs.

In order of difficulty They gave me (easiest to hardest), they were:

Type 209
Virginia Class
LA Class
Victoria Class

Some of had it had to do with the structure of the exercises (the poor Type 209 was forced to be a staked goat). A lot of it has to do with the skill of the particular Captain and the water conditions of the day.

I think I just plain got lucky on the Virginia (BTW, in ASW, I will take luck any day of the week). But, consistently, I have had my butt handed to me by the Victoria Class boats. I think they are both pretty quiet (or quiet enough) and generally very well driven.

 

[dimsum]

Lets be very careful with the direction that this thread is heading.


But, consistently, I have had my butt handed to me by the Victoria Class boats. I think they are both pretty quiet (or quiet enough) and generally very well driven.

Yes, and I agree. 

 

[Underway]

Interesting analogy, Underway.

I guess that would make us skimmers the "paper". Fiting, as, in a one-on-one, the sub has the advantage - but we can take the MPA's out cold.  ;D

All joking aside, and as I have indicated before, during the cold war there wasn't a single CO who didn't thank the heaven whenever we had MPA's in support. For any convoy (Ah! The days of Ocean Safaris"), they truly were angels on our shoulders.

Last exercise I was on it was very obvious, with the MPA/helo/ship team it was very hard for the submarine.  Soon as we lost that MPA quarterback it was like fighting with a hand tied behind your back. 

The MPA has so many options against a submarine, which have very limited options in return.  Lots of sonobuoys, ability to track and attack, inability to be attacked back by the submarine, MAD.  On the new or developing front for underwater warfare tech:  sonobuoy sized (thus launched from the same system) disposable drones now that can do persistent MAD over a grid pattern in the air for short periods of time.  New low and ultra low freq sonars with much improved processing are increasing ranges and effectiveness of systems.  EO/IR technology promises some amazing new things as well.  Tough time to be a submariner (SSK in particular) against an MPA.

To bring it back to new subs, any new submarine needs to take into account these technologies.  Reduced magnetic signatures, low friction coatings, deeper diving capabilities. Maybe a shoot back capability (though I understands sub CO's aren't too jazzed about giving away so obvious a datum to their pursuers).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Maybe a shoot back capability (though I understands sub CO's aren't too jazzed about giving away so obvious a datum to their pursuers).

This sort of stuff would certainly be a game-changer...imagine every RADAR riser being a potential SAM coming at you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIGl42ELB_A

IDAS - Interactive Defence and Attack System for Submarines

 

[Lumber]

This sort of stuff would certainly be a game-changer...image every RADAR riser being a potential SAM coming at you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIGl42ELB_A

IDAS - Interactive Defence and Attack System for Submarines

Forget a rise, a sub can hear a helo or even an MPA it it's low enough.

As long as a sub is not worried about collateral damage, the technology exists. Imagine a disposable  missile head containing a cheap air search radar. Missile leaves the surface of the water, does 2 or 3 quick sweeps, finds the closest air target, ejects the radar head pitches over and flies at the target and homes in using a target acquisition radar head.  It would probably have the capability to hit high flying MPAs, but the problem would be detecting the MPA without going to PD.

 

[NavyShooter]

Lets be very careful with the direction that this thread is heading.

In my career, I have worked against a Type 209, several LA Class SSNs, a Virginia Class SSN and 2 out of our 4 Victoria Class SSKs.

In order of difficulty They gave me (easiest to hardest), they were:

Type 209
Virginia Class
LA Class
Victoria Class

Some of had it had to do with the structure of the exercises (the poor Type 209 was forced to be a staked goat). A lot of it has to do with the skill of the particular Captain and the water conditions of the day.

I think I just plain got lucky on the Virginia (BTW, in ASW, I will take luck any day of the week). But, consistently, I have had my butt handed to me by the Victoria Class boats. I think they are both pretty quiet (or quiet enough) and generally very well driven.

For 26 years I was a SONAR Tech - I fixed the gear that our ships operated.  Active, Passive, Towed array, etc.  I've only acted as an operator briefly - I know how the gear works, but I have observed it in operation, and when holding contact with subs.


I will observe from my perspective that USN SSN's are tough to hear, but one made tactical mistakes that let us get contact with them on 23 beams of our towed array.  That boat came off a sprint VERY close to us.  We...won that exercise engagement.


I was on a ship that did noise trials with one of our VIC class boats - we did a series of steps in terms of detectability - we were watching on passive with the sub at about the same distance that I observed the contact on that USN SSN many years before - the VIC class effectively became a hole in the water.  We *KNEW* where it was, but couldn't hear it.


Having been in exercises and operations against 209's that were free to operate, LA's, VICs, and other non-NATO submarines, the LA was easiest, and the VIC was the hardest. 


I don't think any of that should be a surprise to anyone, nor any exposure of CAPS/LIMS.  Go read some Tom Clancy for more details...


I firmly believe that we should be looking to the replacement of our Victoria class submarines.  They are Canada's only true Strategic Military Asset.  What should we get to replace them?  Honestly, we should buy from someone else's production line, 4-6 subs, whatever we can legitimately afford so that we can operate at least one on each coast, with the others in a supportable training/maintenance cycle.


Modern submarines tend to have smaller crews - that should relieve some pressure on our training system to generate the necessary personnel. 


If we went to any of our 3 major shipyards to build subs, we'd be damn fools as a nation.  The billions that we've tossed into getting Seaspan and ISI up to some basic level of standard to build surface ships pales in comparison to the amount of money that we'd have to pour into making a submarine manufacturing facility.  Personally speaking, you'd be better off going to a completely different organization that ISI/SS/Davie anyhow if you did do that.  I think you'd be better off starting from scratch than getting any of the above to 'add' a submarine building capability.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Post or pre most recent refit?

I don’t know when the most recent refit was.  But my last experience with a Vic was 2017.  I played with them from 2009-2017.

The Block III ASW suite on the Aurora is probably the best in the world.  Tracking with the block II was very challenging. 

Looking ahead, I feel that we won’t have a sub fleet after the Victoria’s are done.  Too expensive and “Joe” public just doesn’t see the value in them.  Heck, most military folks don’t see a need for a submarine force. 

 

[MilEME09]

I don’t know when the most recent refit was.  But my last experience with a Vic was 2017.  I played with them from 2009-2017.

The Block III ASW suite on the Aurora is probably the best in the world.  Tracking with the block II was very challenging. 

Looking ahead, I feel that we won’t have a sub fleet after the Victoria’s are done.  Too expensive and “Joe” public just doesn’t see the value in them.  Heck, most military folks don’t see a need for a submarine force.

Out of curiosity what is the difference in cost to operate a surface ship vs a submarine? If the RCN ever expanded part of the fleet would it be more cost effective to have more subs added to the fleet then surface ships. Let's say compare the Halifax to a Victoria for sake of the argument.

 

[dimsum]

Out of curiosity what is the difference in cost to operate a surface ship vs a submarine? If the RCN ever expanded part of the fleet would it be more cost effective to have more subs added to the fleet then surface ships. Let's say compare the Halifax to a Victoria for sake of the argument.

It's not just that simple though.  Ships are seen, which seems obvious but that means that there is some sort of diplomatic or sovereignty aspect to it.  Subs' movements are definitely not talked about until they show up somewhere, while the Public Affairs Office has tons of pictures/video about what the ships are doing while underway. 

While it may be more cost-effective (I'm not sure but let's say yes), the offset is that Joe Public will see less of the fleet and the RCN will be forgotten even more than it is already.  In a more political sense, surface vessels can be used for humanitarian assistance, search and rescue, etc.; not so easily done with subs.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Subs have a higher specialised maintenance cycle that must be done or you end up like the Russians or Argentinians. Things going wrong on a sub often means the death of the whole crew, whereas surface ships can survive serious problems and even if the ship is about to be lost the crew stands a good chance of surviving and having liferafts to float in. So you can skimp more on surface ships till you get breakdowns or fires. But you must either maintain the sub to a high standard or cease operations.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Subs have a higher specialised maintenance cycle that must be done or you end up like the Russians or Argentinians. Things going wrong on a sub often means the death of the whole crew, whereas surface ships can survive serious problems and even if the ship is about to be lost the crew stands a good chance of surviving and having liferafts to float in. So you can skimp more on surface ships till you get breakdowns or fires. But you must either maintain the sub to a high standard or cease operations.

Case in point:  https://army.ca/forums/threads/126899/post-1577732.html#msg1577732

 

[suffolkowner]

Years ago I read that SSK's should cost 30% of a major surface combatant but that ours were running over 90% of our surface fleet this was when we had three Tribals and 2 AOR's running. I believe that was in Canadian Naval Review but have never found it again. What expertise does Babcock have? Years of maintenance and billions of dollars they should come pretty close to building a sub, not that I am advocating a build in Canada strategy. 2 billion for 4 subs should give a near new product and if it's the only way to push a program through in this day and age you won't hear me complaining

 

[OldSolduer]

Subs have a higher specialised maintenance cycle that must be done or you end up like the Russians or Argentinians. Things going wrong on a sub often means the death of the whole crew, whereas surface ships can survive serious problems and even if the ship is about to be lost the crew stands a good chance of surviving and having liferafts to float in. So you can skimp more on surface ships till you get breakdowns or fires. But you must either maintain the sub to a high standard or cease operations.

While it’s difficult to replace a whole sub, would I be correct in saying it’s far more difficult to replace the crew?