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

[Torlyn]

And again, maybe you can enlighten us, how the Chinese can do it, but we have to settle for second best or less.

Hmm... 1 billion people, HUGE GDP (compared to CDN) veritible dictatorship who brooks no oposition to any ideas.. 
Simple.  They can afford it, and their populace won't complain.  (Much)

T

 

[FastEddy]

Ask the Australians about the costs and problems associated with "build-your-own" submarines and "latest and greatest." The final result of the Collins class was a very good sub, but the teething problems and media (and uninfomed self-proclaimed "expert") mewling was horrendous. I'd be willing to bet that even with all the problems we are suffering in getting the Upholders on line, they are trivial compared to what the folks from Oz went through. The Collins, by the way, is very similar to the Upholder in capability.

Acorn

Then a few very simple questions to our Experts.
1.  Take any Tried and Proven Class of Submarine,  (that is after all trials,tests and modifications) by any
builder. Therefore any Sub in post production that contains all of the above and after sea trials (that every thing works as it should). Which would be preferable ?, a brand new post production sub or one that has been used for 5-10-etc. years and has been moth balled for 5 or more years?

2.  Is it possible to have the original builders ( or any other qualified ship yard). build any number of Subs to the above Spec's and Conditions?
(this is a tried & proven vessel).

3. Is it possible that the cost of re-furbishing 2nd hand Submarines, balance or exceed the savings as opposed to the original cost of a new sub?

4.  Which would you feel safer going down in?

Let it be clearly noted, that I do not oppose or question the acquisition of Submarines or any class deemed suitable or their deployment.

 

[Acorn]

Then a few very simple questions to our Experts.
1.  Take any Tried and Proven Class of Submarine,  (that is after all trials,tests and modifications) by any
builder. Therefore any Sub in post production that contains all of the above and after sea trials (that every thing works as it should). Which would be preferable ?, a brand new post production sub or one that has been used for 5-10-etc. years and has been moth balled for 5 or more years?

Obviously the former would be preferable. Perhaps you can identify such a sub on the market? Remember: it is to be a sea-going submarine, not a coastal one. And before you mention the KILO class, consider the implications of buying Soviet (yes, Soviet) technology.

2.  Is it possible to have the original builders ( or any other qualified ship yard). build any number of Subs to the above Spec's and Conditions?
(this is a tried & proven vessel).

If you mean, perhaps, have new Upholders built from the keel up, I'm sure it's possible. Is it possible for a reasonable price? Probably not, as the shibuilders implicated haven't launched one for nearly 20 years.

3. Is it possible that the cost of re-furbishing 2nd hand Submarines, balance or exceed the savings as opposed to the original cost of a new sub?

I believe that whatever we end up paying to get the Upholders seaworthy and operational it will be much less than the cost of building a similar number of new subs, even if we have an experienced yard design and build them. It would be completely impractical to have Canadian yards even attempt it, as no Canadian yard has ever built sea-going, or even coastal, submarines. Again, I suggest you look at the history of the Australian Collins class.

4.  Which would you feel safer going down in?

I'm not a submariner, and have no desire to go down in any sort of sub.

Acorn

 

[DJL]

I believe that whatever we end up paying to get the Upholders seaworthy and operational it will be much less than the cost of building a similar number of new subs, even if we have an experienced yard design and build them. It would be completely impractical to have Canadian yards even attempt it, as no Canadian yard has ever built sea-going, or even coastal, submarines. Again, I suggest you look at the history of the Australian Collins class.

Though I agree with you on the savings involved with the Victoria's....... Vickers Canada built submarines for the Royal Navy during the first world war in Montreal.....

With that said, I'd doubt Canadian yards today could build a modern sub without headaches and a hefty pricetag.......

 

[Cloud Cover]

The Collins, by the way, is very similar to the Upholder in capability.

A quick glance at Jane's tells me that the Collins surpasses the Upholder in capability, but comparing the windshield stickers of both says the Canadianized U-boat potentially   outperforms the Collins in terms of stealth, torpedo fire control and sensor reliability, all vis capability. Small, but potentially deadly differences which make both subs equally lethal in optimum circumstances.

I gather this was the intended thrust of your comments.

Cheers.

 

[Bograt]

I hope this doesn't tip toe into OPSEC, but I heard that the old Canadian subs used to intentionally scuttle themselves and lay quiet. Is this a typical sub tactic and will the newer boats do this?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

If a sub or ship is scuttled it does nor come back up.

 

[Inch]

Ex, I think he means sitting on the bottom. I've heard of that too, they just sit on the bottom totally silent as a means of evasion. I'm not sure how factual that is, I think I saw it in a movie.

 

[Bograt]

Thats what I meant. I heard stories around the kitchen table when I was a kid. I also heard that Santa was escorted into Canadian airspace and was tracked by NORAD.<i> I know the latter is true. You can see it here</i> http://www.noradsanta.org/english/
(so <b>this</b> is how Disillusioned feels)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Scuttling involves the deliberate opening of certain valves(AND A FEW OTHER THINGS) to cause the deliberate and ideally the permanent sinking of ship/sub usually to prevent it from falling in enemy hands (German High Seas Fleet at Scapa Flow end of WW1) or as the CF case lately the sinking of surplus and  obsolete warships to facilitate reef building.

 

[buckahed]

Truly amazing how those movie subs always find a nice flat sandy firm seabed to sit down on. Never seem to get rocks or mud in the ballast tanks or hull valves. Never damage their planes or screws. Just amazing.

 

[Inch]

Thanks for the info buckahed, I know I feel the same way about almost all the flying done in movies, but you don't know if you don't ask right?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I Love a noisy nuke!  They make my job so much easier!

 

[Kirkhill]

This one deserves to be printed in full...............

Anyone remember a guy name of Collenette...............

Now he's dissing Uncle Jean on Subs and Armed Forces cuts.  Wonder what he thinks about the flaming Airborne????? :crybaby:

canada news 
Monday, Dec 13, 2004  Email this to a friend
print this page

Subs corroded while Chretien considered optics, Collenette tells MPs

OTTAWA (CP) - Used British submarines sat in limbo, corroding for three years after cabinet approved their purchase because former prime minister Jean Chretien didn't think Canadians would find the expenditure palatable, an ex-defence minister said Monday.
The Commons defence committee was considering whether to call Chretien as a witness after David Collenette told them his former boss balked at the $800-million lease-to-purchase plan cabinet approved in 1995.

Chretien didn't think Canadians would accept such an expenditure in the midst of health-care and other social service cuts, as well as defence, said Collenette, who is no longer in government.

"There was a consensus in cabinet on the purchase of the submarines," he said.

Find it on our Search:
airline tickets | canadian flag | back to school
gourmet food | travel deals | cruises
hawaii travel | personals


"I remember clearly that the prime minister said to me: 'You are asking me to make a final decision; I'm going to speak with the ministers and I'm going to make a decision.'

"There was a concern about committing to big chunks of money when we were cutting everywhere in society," Collenette added. "It could be argued that this (delay) created more challenges in making the submarines fully operational, not to mention the additional costs that this would incur."

The all-party committee is looking at the acquisition of the four diesel-electric submarines from Britain after the last of them, HMCS Chicoutimi, caught fire Oct. 5, killing one sailor.

Aeroplan Miles with every booking.


Witnesses have said the subs were a good buy when first considered in the early '90s.

But they were in bad shape when Canada finally decided to buy them in 1998. Witnesses have described leaks, electrical problems and equipment malfunctions - largely, they said, attributable to years of neglect.

A defence White Paper in December 1994 gave approval in principle to the sub purchase. Collenette brought an acquisition strategy on armoured vehicles, helicopters and submarines before cabinet the following spring.

The final timing of the announcement was left to Chretien, "based on the financial climate and the political climate," he said.


The Chretien government cut federal expenditures by 23 per cent - too much of it coming from National Defence, Collenette acknowledged.

"Looking back over the 10 years, we have cut too much from our military capability and I think that Canadians have to face up to the fact that they can't have their cake and eat it too," he said.

"You can't keep calling on the military unless you give them the resources. I think there's now a recognition that perhaps the military needs to reacquire more for its budget."

He said concerns over optics were why the government divided both the armoured vehicle and helicopter purchases into two parts apiece.

The submarines "were sitting there in a climate that was not particularly hospitable," he said after the meeting. "The salt water is corrosive; the air is damp.

"Submarines are probably one of the most technically difficult pieces of equipment to operate and maintain, and that would have added to the issue of them being there for an extra three years."

Collenette told the MPs the British were becoming impatient with Ottawa's indecision on the purchase. He said British Prime Minister John Major raised the submarines with Chretien on several occasions, while Collenette's British counterpart brought it up with him whenever the two met.

"I think they were getting a little frustrated and they were looking at other potential buyers," he said, citing Chile and South Africa, specifically. "We had kept them waiting three years."

Collenette's testimony baffled some committee members, including New Democrat Bill Blaikie.

"Here we have pretty clearly a government that thinks it needs submarines, that has identified the submarines it thinks it needs, knows that to delay the purchase of these submarines entails problems," said Blaikie.

"And yet it can't buy them because of the political perception that creates."

Bloc MP Claude Bachand said he wants to hear from Chretien on the issue. Committee chairman Pat O'Brien said the MPs would discuss it

 

[Cloud Cover]

"Here we have pretty clearly a government that thinks it needs submarines, that has identified the submarines it thinks it needs, knows that to delay the purchase of these submarines entails problems," said Blaikie.

"And yet it can't buy them because of the political perception that creates."

I'm not going to say "well isn't that the pot calling the  kettle black", because I respect Bill Blakie too much. [Just not his party!!] He seems to have summarized the Liberal Party of Canada's defence policy making process in 2 sentences. As for Collenette .... I can't believe they let that puke get two words out without tearing him a new one. 

 

[STONEY]

A couple of points to ponder gents.

Taiwan desperately wants diesel subs. All the countrys in the world that design & build diesel subs will not build any for them because they are terrified of China who threatened to cut off trade with them. Now the U.S. wants to supply Taiwan with diesel subs but can't. Despite building the most modern nuke subs in the world they are unable to build diesel boats since they haven't designed them for 50 years. They have tried to buy designs from countrys that do to no avail. 

Great Britain who has recently built nuke boats has lost its expertise in this field because  it stopped building them for 5 years.
Britain now has American shipyard staff helping  designing their boats as they are hopelessly behind building their new boats.
So building submarines is not a simple task it requires a great deal of effort.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting point you make about strategic technology Stoney.

Just a quick scan of Naval Technology suggests that there are currently only four centres for diesel electric subs.

Russia - with their Kilo's (centre of excellence?)

France - Agostas and Chile's  Scorpenes

Germany - U212/214 and Brazil's Tupis

Sweden - Gotlands and Australia's Collins as well as the Dk/No/Sw Vikings

Interestingly in October 2004 the USN contracted with the Swedish firm Kockums to lease as Gotlands for Opfor duties.  When was the Chicoutimi incident?

Also interestingly Kockums was bought up by a German company.

So now if Taiwan wants to buy a Diesel sub she has to go to a Russian, French or German company to defend herself against China.  Any takers on that happening anytime soon?

If necessity is the mother of invention (or necessity is just a mother....) it could be interesting to see what alternate solutions Taiwan reverts to or develops to try and bridge the gap created by the lack of an up to date submarine force.

 

[STONEY]

You forgot a couple Kirkhill.  The Netherlands still designs their own boats although none built recently, in fact they supplied Taiwan with their last 2 boats . Dutch shipyards would like to supply more but the government put the kybosh on that after China's actions after the first 2.
Another country that design's and builds its own boats is Japan who has a constant steady stream of new boats.
Looking back at all their boats since ww11 it seems that they replace their subs every 12 to 14 years so they have a very modern fleet, but they have never sold any to any other country.

There are several other countries like India , Pakistan , Turkey ,South Korea , Brazil , Italy that build subs but from
someone else's design and with assistance & parts from them. 

 

[aesop081]

SSKs currently running around :

Kilo class - Russia
Agosta Class - Spain
Daphne Class - Spain
Harushio Class - Japan
Oyashio Class - Japan
Improved Sauro Class - Italy
Type 206A Class - Germany
Walrus Class - Netherlands
Dolphin Class - Israel
Type 209 1400 Class - Turkey
Type 209 1500 Class - India
A17 Class - Sweeden
A19 Class - Sweeden
Collins Class - Australia
Ula Class - Norway
Victoria ( former UK upholder) Class - Canada

Plus the others already mentioned and others as well. The countries that have expertise in building SSKs is fairly broad as you can see and If taiwan wants SSKs, Taiwan will get SSKs.....

 

[Kirkhill]

The hazards of jumping to conclusions with inadequate facts

Thanks guys.