Status on Victoria-class Submarines?

[Underway]

Did they sell off jetty space in HFX? At one point all 4 280’s, 6-8 steamers, PRE, PRO, all 3 O boats, Cormorant and a whack of other smaller ships were based there, with room for whole visiting fleets such as NATO  standing forces.

They just created more jetty space with the new NJ jetty.  Ships we have now are larger,
[/quote]there is still space alongside one of the 3 sides of NF which isn't used much.  Also the jetty at the Dockyard annex isn't used anymore for ships as it's in need of significant upgrade/repair.  That used to be used quite a bit for the smaller vessels if I read the old photo's correct.

If you can't trust senior officers to comply with no-smoking rules, you can't trust them with a nuclear reactor. 

Like the hasty generalization and genetic fallacies I see.  One does not follow the other.  I know plenty of officers who follow the rules to their detriment and the detriment of their subordinates, come hell or high water.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Not a bad idea if you need to break through the ice, but can't find a suitable spot?  Or need to break it up a bit more to be safe?

From the crew rescue capsule perspective, it seems to make sense.  Especially if their focus is clearly arctic operations in this case.



I know nothing about submarines other than the basics - doesn't seem like a bad option to have if need be though?

I wonder... how big is the dems kit for blowing the blinds?

 

[Sub_Guy]

This only makes sense to get missiles up and on their way

Crew rescue?  I can’t see it.  How can the boat be in such bad shape that I need to leave, but at the same time it’s still in good enough condition to launch this projectile to blow the ice. 

What happens when I get to the roof?  I’ll look like Wile E Coyote, encased in a block of ice.   

As for Jetty space.  Does anyone have any photos from MARCOT ‘98?  Halifax was jammed packed.  We also had the Winnipeg as they were part of the NATO fleet at the time. 

 

[Navy_Pete]

Did they sell off jetty space in HFX? At one point all 4 280’s, 6-8 steamers, PRE, PRO, all 3 O boats, Cormorant and a whack of other smaller ships were based there, with room for whole visiting fleets such as NATO  standing forces.

Halifax will have 3-5 AOPS, 7 frigates , JSS, 6 MCDVs, plus the tugs and other auxiliary ships. Unless most of the fleet is out and about, that's a lot of ships that are doubled up, and the further you are from FMF, the less work you get done, so there is a lot of shuffling them around. At some point CSC will start rolling in too, so unless some of the frigates start 'self retiring' not going to get any better.

Ships used to be gone a lot longer at a time, which was more feasible with baseline refits. With the condition based maintenance you have a lot more repairs during the operational bit, and because we are trying to stretch our 3rd line budget, a lot gets downloaded into SWPs (or doing without while in service). Unless you are in HR, not uncommon to be bouncing around with the bare minimum in some areas, and thanks to the risk assessments, you can always talk until it's blue and carry on. That effectively makes the dockyard annex and the shearwater jetties unusable for anything more than short stops as ships need all the dockyard jetty time they can get for repairs/PM.

We also do clever things like sending the bulk of the active fleet out at once, then having multiple SWPs at the same time, so pretty good at not evenly loading maintenance demands at the FMF.  Hopefully things have gotten better in the last few years, but even with EHM data showing pumps/motors were starting to fail, wasn't able to get things replaced until they actually failed, and even then it was on a triage basis.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Halifax will have 3-5 AOPS, 7 frigates , JSS, 6 MCDVs, plus the tugs and other auxiliary ships. Unless most of the fleet is out and about, that's a lot of ships that are doubled up, and the further you are from FMF, the less work you get done, so there is a lot of shuffling them around. At some point CSC will start rolling in too, so unless some of the frigates start 'self retiring' not going to get any better.

Ships used to be gone a lot longer at a time, which was more feasible with baseline refits. With the condition based maintenance you have a lot more repairs during the operational bit, and because we are trying to stretch our 3rd line budget, a lot gets downloaded into SWPs (or doing without while in service). Unless you are in HR, not uncommon to be bouncing around with the bare minimum in some areas, and thanks to the risk assessments, you can always talk until it's blue and carry on. That effectively makes the dockyard annex and the shearwater jetties unusable for anything more than short stops as ships need all the dockyard jetty time they can get for repairs/PM.

We also do clever things like sending the bulk of the active fleet out at once, then having multiple SWPs at the same time, so pretty good at not evenly loading maintenance demands at the FMF.  Hopefully things have gotten better in the last few years, but even with EHM data showing pumps/motors were starting to fail, wasn't able to get things replaced until they actually failed, and even then it was on a triage basis.

I've asked this previously, but what about the option of basing the East Coast AOPS (3 of them, as I assume that the other 3 will be on the West Coast), out of St. John's?  That would save 2 days sailing time up to the Arctic and then base the 2 CCG AOPS's out of St. John's as well.  That would free up a fair amount of space, leaving room for the 8 CSC's, the 6 Kington's, 2 Vic's, OAR and the various tugs in Halifax.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I've asked this previously, but what about the option of basing the East Coast AOPS (3 of them, as I assume that the other 3 will be on the West Coast), out of St. John's?  That would save 2 days sailing time up to the Arctic and then base the 2 CCG AOPS's out of St. John's as well.  That would free up a fair amount of space, leaving room for the 8 CSC's, the 6 Kington's, 2 Vic's, OAR and the various tugs in Halifax.

Or Nanisivik?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanisivik_Naval_Facility

 

[Spencer100]

Or Nanisivik?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanisivik_Naval_Facility

It was down graded to a refueling station.  But I bet stationing crews there would wonders for pers retention! 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I've asked this previously, but what about the option of basing the East Coast AOPS (3 of them, as I assume that the other 3 will be on the West Coast), out of St. John's?  That would save 2 days sailing time up to the Arctic and then base the 2 CCG AOPS's out of St. John's as well.  That would free up a fair amount of space, leaving room for the 8 CSC's, the 6 Kington's, 2 Vic's, OAR and the various tugs in Halifax.

My first thought is the cost of the 'support and maintenance' of having them not co-located with the rest of CANFLTLANT.  Shore offices, main facility (1st line?)...I've been to the Armouries a few times in St John's while flying out of Torbay;  is there any room in that bldg to support some of the admin/log side?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It was down graded to a refueling station.  But I bet stationing crews there would wonders for pers retention!

Way better to train locals (who need the jobs) and rotate staff through with an option for volunteer posting.

 

[Spencer100]

I don't think anyone lives there at all

 

[Colin Parkinson]

On the other side of the Island at Arctic Bay

 

[Navy_Pete]

My first thought is the cost of the 'support and maintenance' of having them not co-located with the rest of CANFLTLANT.  Shore offices, main facility (1st line?)...I've been to the Armouries a few times in St John's while flying out of Torbay;  is there any room in that bldg to support some of the admin/log side?

The ISSC contract for AOPS/JSS is set up on them being based in Halifax/Esquimalt, so there would be a not insignificant cost to changing that, as their local supply chains, trainers and maintainers will be based there.  A lot of it will just be typical stuff through existing subcontractors, but that wouldn't be a small change, as they've been ramping up for the last few years, and have a number of local companies as established subs.  That takes time to get the contract terms nailed down, and also requires the right skillsets available in the local market, so it's not an easy shift.

AOPS/MCDVs might be easier to park over at the dockyard annex or shearwater (if the jetties and local facilities were fixed up) from a maintenance perspective, as it would be civvies driving somewhere either way for the most part.  The FMF portion for maintenance of those ships is relatively minimal, so will be curious to see what they do over the next decade. Not sure if they even have fully working jetty hookups etc over there (or at all the existing jetties in the dockyard).

Subs are pretty maintenance intensive, so can't see them not being parked within a close walk of FMF. Also don't see us ever getting nuclear subs for the previously stated reasons from other posters, so probably just going to have to live with crowded dockyards.  Every cold move has big impacts on work though, so it's a bit of a fine line to walk.

 

[NavyShooter]

I will observe that the new jetty that was built in HMC Dockyard over the past couple of years is very close to the ISI shipyard facility...but there's a big building in the way called the BoatShed...the same boatshed that was just condemned a little while ago...the same boatshed that, if it was torn down would let a road and gate be built leading directly from ISI to the new jetty...which would make it really convenient for ISSC staff to enter/exit to fix the AOPS....but I'm sure that ST(A) moving out the other year was just a coincidence...right?

 

[Czech_pivo]

The ISSC contract for AOPS/JSS is set up on them being based in Halifax/Esquimalt, so there would be a not insignificant cost to changing that, as their local supply chains, trainers and maintainers will be based there.  A lot of it will just be typical stuff through existing subcontractors, but that wouldn't be a small change, as they've been ramping up for the last few years, and have a number of local companies as established subs.  That takes time to get the contract terms nailed down, and also requires the right skillsets available in the local market, so it's not an easy shift.

Thoughts if the ISSC contract will be expanded to include the 2 CCG AOPS's? If that's the case, then does the argument to base them out of Halifax hold true as well? 

 

[a_majoor]

A bit sideways to the topic, but a new generaton of AIP fuel cells has been developed in France. Assuming the Victoria'c continue in service, this looks like a possible upgrade at some future refit:

https://strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20200213.aspx

Submarines: Second Gen AIP

February 13, 2020: A French firm (Naval Group, formerly DCNS) has successfully tested what it calls FC2G (Fuel Cell 2nd Generation) AIP (Air Independent Propulsion) system for 18 days in a mock-up of the complete system in an 8 meter long circular structure identical to the space it would occupy in a submarine. The FC2G performed efficiently for three weeks. This test will be repeated several times as preparations are made to install FC2G in a submarine. The FC2G is safer, more efficient and easier to operate than earlier fuel cell AIP systems, including the widely used DCNS first-generation AIP.

Fuel cell tech has been around for decades, long enough to become a proven technology. But fuel cells require dangerous fuels like hydrogen. Hydrogen is currently stored in cylinders outside the pressure hull of the sub. FC2G eliminates that with a two-stage system that extracts hydrogen from diesel fuel, which is also used for the sub’s diesel engines and purifies the hydrogen to a very high degree. The high-quality hydrogen gets more electricity out of the standard fuel cell technology. At the same time, the need for hydrogen storage is eliminated because only as much hydrogen is obtained from diesel fuel as would be in the sub if the hydrogen were brought in from external storage tanks. The oxygen is obtained from the same supplies used for the crew to breathe while submerged.

FC2G also operates more quietly and expels fewer byproducts from the sub. While hydrogen is a widely used industrial product, diesel fuel is even more widely available and much safer to handle. FC2G also generates more electrical power than older AIP systems of similar size and weight. FC2G also uses more efficient control software and hardware. That means the entire FC2G system requires only one sailor to monitor it.

The developer has a lot of credibility because many subs already use the older DCNS AIP designs. China and Russia are still struggling to get first-generation fuel cell tech working in their subs. Boats that use fuel cells also have diesel engines that power the subs while on the surface or just below the surface using a snorkel to obtain fresh air and expel diesel fumes. There are also storage batteries to provide some submerged operations if the fuel cells are not working.

Japan is working on making lithium batteries safe enough to use in subs. Lithium is more efficient than current batteries used in subs but  also bursts into flames under some conditions. There are also new, more efficient and safer, battery tech working in the lab. All this stuff will eventually be available for subs while right now a new generation of AIP is ready to go.

More efficient AIP means there will be more non-nuclear subs, which cost about a quarter what a nuclear sub goes for, which means even quieter and hard to find subs at sea.

 

[JMCanada]

In Spain two companies are competing to provide the reformation system for spanish S80 AIP submarine. Tecnicas Reunidas and Abengoa. It is expected that the winner will be announced this month, bets are in favour of the first one.

Both reformators produce hydrogen from bio-ethanol to feed the fuel cells. Both have been developed in full scale.

A third spanish company, Sener, has also worked on bio-ethanol reformers for land-based military applications, as well as they are working with German TKMS on a methanol reformer to feed the fuel cells for their submarines.

A Ballard's fuel cell plus a spanish reformer might be the solution for a Canadian submarine.

This sentence may be misleading: "The developer has a lot of credibility because many subs already use the older DCNS AIP designs". AFAIK DCNS has never delivered any single submarine based on fuel cell technology. Their previous AIP designs are based on MESMA (steam turbine).

 

[JMCanada]

In Spain two companies are competing to provide the reformation system for spanish S80 AIP submarine. Tecnicas Reunidas and Abengoa. (...)

A Ballard's fuel cell plus a spanish reformer might be the solution for a Canadian submarine.

And the winner is... Abengoa group.
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/03/navantia-development-of-s80-submarines-aip-system-completed/
...............
More:  There is an interesting article on the Canadian Naval Review website: "A Canadian Hybrid Submarine Design: A Case for the Slowpoke-2 Reactor".

https://www.navalreview.ca/2020/02/a-canadian-hybrid-submarine-design-a-case-for-the-slowpoke-2-reactor

 

[OceanBonfire]

Deployment of Canadian navy submarines on hold due to COVID-19

VICTORIA -- What was meant to be a “milestone” return to sea for Canada’s military submarines in 2020 is now on hold amid the novel coronavirus pandemic.

Two Royal Canadian Navy submarines were due to embark this spring and summer after a nearly two-year deployment gap for the sub fleet. But now, the submarines HMCS Victoria and HMCS Windsor will remain in port for the foreseeable future as work to return the vessels to sea is put on hold.

“Further maintenance is required before they can be deployed,” said National Defence spokesperson Jessica Lamirande on Monday. “However, in order to ensure the health and safety of our Defence team, work on board submarines was put on pause during this pandemic.”

HMCS Victoria completed dive trials in February at its home port of Esquimalt, B.C., after six years of maintenance and upgrades since her last outing. The navy was planning to deploy the Victoria this spring with a new sonar array and battery.

Its departure was to be followed this summer by the deployment of HMCS Windsor from Halifax after the completion of extensive work in drydock. Once at sea, the Windsor was to test-fire a new heavyweight torpedo system slated for rollout across the Canadian sub fleet.

With both subs deployed by summertime, the navy was planning to get a third – HMCS Corner Brook – ready for sea trials off Vancouver Island later this year.

Having three of Canada’s four military submarines operating simultaneously would mark “a historical milestone,” said Maritime Forces Pacific spokesperson Capt. Jenn Jackson in February.

All of Canada's second-hand military subs have been grounded since 2018, when HMCS Windsor and HMCS Chicoutimi were last deployed.

“The intent is to return the submarines to sea as soon as maintenance is completed,” Lamirande said.

The National Defence spokesperson declined to comment on whether the return would come fast enough for the navy to meet its prior commitment to send a submarine to the multinational Exercise Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) off Hawaii this summer.

National Defence said in a statement that the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) remains committed to participating in “a significant way” at RIMPAC, the largest international maritime exercise in the world.

On April 29, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Fleet announced that RIMPAC 2020 would be an abbreviated version of years past in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. The biennial exercise, which typically runs from June to August and features events at sea and onshore, will this year run from Aug. 17 to Aug. 31 and feature at-sea training only.

“The CAF are in close communication with our U.S. counterparts, and are currently evaluating options to adapt our participation accordingly,” said National Defence in a statement Monday.

“Participation in RIMPAC will balance the requirement to complete critical tasks and high readiness training in support of planned operations, with the requirement to protect the health and safety of our personnel.”


https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/deployment-of-canadian-navy-submarines-on-hold-due-to-covid-19-1.4936328

 

[MilEME09]

Having three of Canada’s four military submarines operating simultaneously would mark “a historical milestone,” said Maritime Forces Pacific spokesperson Capt. Jenn Jackson in February.

Given how long it has been since we purchased these subs, I feel like such a mile stone should of happened sooner.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m almost certain we had 3 subs at sea back when the Chicoutimi caught fire. 

The Victoria, Windsor and Chicoutimi were all out.