Replacing the Subs

[Maxman1]

I like the sub base idea.

Nanoose on the west coast and…?

Bermuda? Turks and Caicos?

 

[Good2Golf]

Bermuda? Turks and Caicos?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

View attachment 88024

Nope.

Shearwater….

And they will like it…

 

[Underway]

I am probably going to hate myself for saying this but:

Bill Blair is exceeding my (admittedly low) expectations for him as MND.

Me as well.

Question for all of you guys if they want a Requirement of 6 simultaneously operational submarines does that not mean they are looking to acquire 18 submarines instead of 12.

24 actually 1-1-1-1 and @Underway can give you the whole SubSafe thing in detail, as he had crushed my 1-1-1 earlier in discussions.

I would assume the sail 6 simultaneously is either wartime surge or 3 on ops/3 in various stages of WUPS.

I think given the expansion in the explaination of what "continuously at sea" means the 1-1-2 ratio is probably correct. One on deployment/operations, one lower readyness/training, two in dock/maintenance periods. Multipily that out and you get 12 total submarines. That being said the ones working up/training etc... likely would be short in an out sails maximum two weeks at a time followed by some significant time alongside.

If anti-ship missiles and land attack missiles are required on a ship of this size, I would say VLS is going to make an entry notable superior to a tube launched vessel. These munitions would have a relatively low salvo size and speed if tube launched, alongside eating into the torpedo storage capability quite a bit. VLS allows you to negate this although you'll be taking up space and weight elsewhere in the boat, some designs offer a hull section plug with VLS.

KSS-III (SK) has VLS as standard while A26 (Sweden) has VLS module options, the Japanese are considering it for future boats and I remember seeing German proposals as well.

Blacksword Barracuda is supposed to have cruise missiles as well. And any submarine that can launch the Naval Strike Missile also has a land attack capability, so the 212CD is also likely in, though those are torp tube launched.

The timeframe of IOC in 35 also is a fairly inclusive timeframe as all of the top six contenders can have submarines built between 28 and 34.

 

[Good2Golf]

Nope.

Shearwater….

And they will like it…

If your going to go there, let’s go all in…with a shout out to the Senior Senior Service…Yarmouth (NS of course).

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If your going to go there, let’s go all in…with a shout out to the Senior Senior Service…Yarmouth (NS of course).

I like how you think.

Saint John NB might be another contender…cheap housing…cheap land around the harbour…

 

[Underway]

Nope.

Shearwater….

And they will like it…

Dockyard Annex is also ripe for a refresh. Only thing over there now is the Hammerhead park, CSE training building and a whole lotta buildings that need to be flattened.

 

[MilEME09]

It's an RFI though. Wouldn't that mean RFP is yet to come?

My mistake

 

[Furniture]

I like how you think.

Saint John NB might be another contender…cheap housing…cheap land around the harbour…

Gagetown is just up the highway, so the actual base could be a relatively small footprint in Saint John proper.

 

[MilEME09]

I like how you think.

Saint John NB might be another contender…cheap housing…cheap land around the harbour…

Charlottetown?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Surprised no one mentioned Sydney or North Sidney, past wartime ports for the RCN (as was Louisbourg, BTW - that wouldn't be a bad place to build such a station at ). But, Yes, my first choice would be Shearwater.

P.s. Yarmouth should be out: Way too much and too frequent fog combined with very narrow channel at low tide. A sub going out would have too much chance of being hit by the ferry.

 

[Czech_pivo]

If we start work on the infra side today, as well as growing the support side in FMF and MEPM, plus a training plan, we might be able to sail 4 eventually. We currently only have jetty space for 1 or 2 per coast, and a single sub in EDWP will eat up more resources than multiple CPFs.

Maybe just easier to have dedicated sub bases for this plan outside of Halifax and Esquimalt actual, and just have dedicated submarine support side instead of matrixing a lot of people onto a core.

It would also need a huge injection of money on top of the growth that will be needed for CSC.

I think this is almost a political poison pill that they are throwing over the fence assuming this will become a CPC problem they can snipe on them for, but maybe that's too cynical.

I seem to remember asking about jetty space a few weeks back and was told by a few on here that there would be enough space for 12 subs, 15 CSC’s, the 6 AOPs, the JSS and whatever we chose to replace the Kingstons….

 

[Good2Golf]

Surprised no one mentioned Sydney or North Sidney, past wartime ports for the RCN (as was Louisbourg, BTW - that wouldn't be a bad place to build such a station at ). But, Yes, my first choice would be Shearwater.

OGBD, I was going to throw out Sydney as a proposal, but wasn’t sure about the administrative challenges getting Cape Breton passports for non-Capers.

P.s. Yarmouth should be out: Way too much and too frequent fog combined with very narrow channel at low tide. A sub going out would have too much chance of being hit by the ferry.

Would make good grist for the CO’s PER/PAR mill…