Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1621a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_1726a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0074a1.JPG

Miramar_14_FA-18C_0409a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Rebuilding a smaller mid sized Navy

This is a discussion on Rebuilding a smaller mid sized Navy within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Todjaeger Good grief. If one does not bother reading the comments and rebuttals offered by others, do ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old April 28th, 2012   #76
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Reading
Posts: 1,602
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
Good grief. If one does not bother reading the comments and rebuttals offered by others, do not expect to last long here. Now, time to inject a little reality. As I have previously mentioned, if the RCN were to adopt a fleet of 10 Type 214 submarines, which would most likely be unappropriate for where and how Canada wished to operate subs... Then the RCN would need to expand its pool of personnel in order to ensure adequate crews for the Type 214 subs. Again, assuming it was the Type 214 which was selected, and the RCN operated these subs with crews of 27 personnel, then the RCN would require 270+ submariners. Given the standards which most navies require their submariners to meet, then only about 2% - 3% of naval personnel would likely qualify to be crews of the Type 214's. This in turn means that the RCN would need a regular establishment strength of somewhere between ~9,000 - 13,000 personnel. At that low end, the regular RCN would need to 5.9% beyond what it is currently at. At the high end, the RCN would require ~52% more personnel than are currently serving. And this would all be so that the RCN could crew boats which would likely not be able to meet Canadian conops requirements. Even just a 5.9% increase is the numbers of personnel, never mind the increase of specialty personnel like submariners, is that sort of increase which needs to be planned for and managed carefully to ensure standards are met and maintained.

Now, if the RCN were to build up a fleet of ~10 subs which likely could meet RCN conops requirements, then they would likely require a crew of ~50+ per sub, roughly analogous to RCN and RAN sub crew sizes currently. This would suggest that the RCN would then need to have a pool of ~480 - 500 submariners. Again, this would then suggest that the RCN would need an establishment strength of somewhere between 16,000 - 24,000 personnel. Put another way, the RCN would need to double or triple the number of personnel serving in uniform to make sure that there would be sufficient numbers of personnel able to serve aboard RCN subs. That sort of size increase in personnel cannot be achieved just by reorganizing. In fact, outside of the RCN gearing up for a major war, that kind of increase in personnel numbers would take years (try like a decade or two, or perhaps even three) to achieve.



I would be quite interested to see the source for the quoted comment, especially the portion which I bolded, as it has been my understanding that submarines typically have a higher operating cost than many surface warships. That and when I checked the RCN's page on the Victoria-class subs, there was no mention aboue the RCN subs having such a low operating cost.

I am too tired at this point to repeat what I have previously commented regarding having a JSS or other support vessel mount Aegis...

At this point, it seems pretty clear that one lacks even a basic understanding on what certain assets are capable of, what their various strengths and weaknesses are, or how assets are deployed or countered.

Unfortunately, if this just keeps on going with someone repeating their or someone else's theories on what the Royal Canadian Navy should do, without reacting to any of the flaws in their arguments which have been pointed out, then continuing to point out even basic flaws and holes is a waste of time and bandwidth.

-Cheers
I agree with you, I don't see a need for 10 subs, 4-6 would be useful, but your observations on % crews to total navy numbers don't look not sound. Apply the same logic to the WW2 German U-boat crews? I don't know the numbers, but I am not sure they would compare with say Sweden. The representative sample of navies you quote is to small to create a general rule, although I agree the challenges of resourcing should not be underestimated.
1805 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2012   #77
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,609
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
... As I have previously mentioned, if the RCN were to adopt a fleet of 10 Type 214 submarines, which would most likely be unappropriate for where and how Canada wished to operate subs... Then the RCN would need to expand its pool of personnel in order to ensure adequate crews for the Type 214 subs. Again, assuming it was the Type 214 which was selected, and the RCN operated these subs with crews of 27 personnel, then the RCN would require 270+ submariners. Given the standards which most navies require their submariners to meet, then only about 2% - 3% of naval personnel would likely qualify to be crews of the Type 214's. This in turn means that the RCN would need a regular establishment strength of somewhere between ~9,000 - 13,000 personnel. At that low end, the regular RCN would need to 5.9% beyond what it is currently at. At the high end, the RCN would require ~52% more personnel than are currently serving. And this would all be so that the RCN could crew boats which would likely not be able to meet Canadian conops requirements. Even just a 5.9% increase is the numbers of personnel, never mind the increase of specialty personnel like submariners, is that sort of increase which needs to be planned for and managed carefully to ensure standards are met and maintained.

-Cheers
How does that work out? What you're saying is that because on 2-3% of naval personnel have qualified as submariners in navies which have not sought more, then that ratio is fixed. Does not follow.

Firstly, assuming your ratio is correct, why do you need to keep all the surplus people? Why not just target the recruitment of people suited to subs, to increase the ratio, & also accept a higher wash-out rate? Expensive, but much less so than keeping thousands on the payroll with no job.

Also, where is the evidence that only 2-3% of those fit for general naval service are capable of being competent submariners? Who, & where, has tried & failed to push the ratio higher? If nobody has tried, it's not been tested.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2012   #78
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,098
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
How does that work out? What you're saying is that because on 2-3% of naval personnel have qualified as submariners in navies which have not sought more, then that ratio is fixed. Does not follow.

Firstly, assuming your ratio is correct, why do you need to keep all the surplus people? Why not just target the recruitment of people suited to subs, to increase the ratio, & also accept a higher wash-out rate? Expensive, but much less so than keeping thousands on the payroll with no job.

Also, where is the evidence that only 2-3% of those fit for general naval service are capable of being competent submariners? Who, & where, has tried & failed to push the ratio higher? If nobody has tried, it's not been tested.
Some of the information I have is anecdotal, some comes from a friend who served in the USN aboard a Los Angeles-class SSN, with more coming from looking at several different navies which operate submarines.

Specifically, I looked at the regular establishment strength of four sub operating navies, the RCN, the RAN, the JMSDF and the USN. I also tooks at the type and number of subs the different navies each had and their respective crew complements. With the exception of the RCN, where the numbers could be a bit skewed due to the limited operability of the Victoria-class subs due to their condition at time of purchase as well as the fire one suffered while in transit to Canada... the trend is that the total sub crew complement for each navy would comprise between 2% - 3.5% of their respective regular establishment strengths'.

It is also possibly worth noting that the RN's submarine crew complement stands at ~3.8% of total regular RN personnel, and that once the Astute-class SSN has completed replacing the Trafalgar-class, then the RN figure would be back down to ~3.3%. One reason why the RN figure is currently so high, is that that Trafalgar-class SSN has ~32 more crew members than the replacing Astute-class SSN. IMO there has to be some reason why the RN would desire a replacing SSN design with ~30% less crew than its predecessor.

Now, I agree that the ratio likely could be pushed higher, either by dropping the standards a bit, or more stringent recruitment, or a mix of the two. However, attempting a dramatic increase is the sort of thing which can cause distortions in the overall force composition.

Unfort have to run, more to follow later.

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2012   #79
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 38
Threads:
Had great post that I just lost. Oh, well here are the highlights:

Source from the Canadian Navy for 1/3 cost and more:

Can't post a link yet - Google the following: Royal Canadian Navy: In Depth - Fact File - Submarines: An Indispensable Asset

Minimum sub usage: 2 per coast + 2 international operations = 8 + 1 to 2 off at any one time = 9 to 10. I would say ideally more like 3 per coast at least.

Subs can patrol 125,000 square kilometres much cheaper than the Halifax class can so why not reduce the surface fleet and increase the sub fleet? Of course there still would be surface ships, just not as many.

Subs will also be more effective in a conventional war with a real power. As noted earlier, all surface vessels in striking distance of an enemy will be destroyed or running for port which leaves submarines to carry the day. Sure surface vessels are still important for peace time and third world issues but it is important to be truly flexible. Also, if Canada builds a sub with the Aussies and or Germans we gain the technological capability to build our own in the future.

I'm sure there is a way to find a few hundred people capable of crewing subs at any one time. Sorry Todjarger, I just can't buy your 2-3% rule unless you're talking about the immediate short term. Australia is planning for 12 subs and has a much smaller population than Canada, and a Navy of similar size.

New navy:

15 Submarines (if Australia can build 12 I"m sure we can manage 15)
3 Arctic Patrol Ships rated PC-1 for Coast Guard
12 Offshore patrol boat to replace Kingston Class
6-8 SCSC ships
3 Supply Ships
Future Fleet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2012   #80
Defense Enthusiast
Master Sergeant
No Avatar
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 325
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
Now, if the RCN were to build up a fleet of ~10 subs which likely could meet RCN conops requirements, then they would likely require a crew of ~50+ per sub, roughly analogous to RCN and RAN sub crew sizes currently. This would suggest that the RCN would then need to have a pool of ~480 - 500 submariners. Again, this would then suggest that the RCN would need an establishment strength of somewhere between 16,000 - 24,000 personnel.
Sorry for the OT but does the above imply that you believe Australias plans for 12 subs are unrealistic?
Vivendi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2012   #81
Senior Member
Colonel
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 1,338
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivendi View Post
Sorry for the OT but does the above imply that you believe Australias plans for 12 subs are unrealistic?
The enlarged 12 Collins class submarine replacement program was part of the ex PM Rudd leadership, not sure what the current leaderships position on the 12 subs but with current Defpros on here hinting at bigger budgetary concessions having to made for the AusGov to reach a surplus by 2013, 12 subs seem pretty slim. I do believe that we should build all 12 submarines but in batches of 4 with incremental upgrades between the submarine, if building the Collins is any standard to go by once building has started each boat will take 3plus years each to build with the hull each being laid down in approx 12 month intervals. It has also been noted in the RAN thread that if Australia was to reduce its buy of submarines that it may free up $ to balance the RAN with a light carrier and fast jet capability for the FAA.

I remember a comment by Abraham Gubler along the of that if Australia was to go down the smaller European submarine route that Australia would only require 4 submarines as they will only be required for ASW exercises with the fleet they won’t have the endurance, dive depth and electrical power to run combat system which the RAN desire, but would still be useful in defence of Australia operations close to the Australia coastline in the event of a invasion of Australia type scenario.

http://www.raytheon.com/businesses/r...anbyg1_pdf.pdf
The Collins Class Submarine Story: Steel, Spies, and Spin - Peter Yule, Derek Woolner - Google Books
Our submarine situation
Australia’s Next-Generation Submarines
http://www.navalofficer.com.au/index...nes1&Itemid=80
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2012   #82
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,098
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Fleet View Post
I'm sure there is a way to find a few hundred people capable of crewing subs at any one time. Sorry Todjarger, I just can't buy your 2-3% rule unless you're talking about the immediate short term. Australia is planning for 12 subs and has a much smaller population than Canada, and a Navy of similar size.

New navy:

15 Submarines (if Australia can build 12 I"m sure we can manage 15)
Kindly double check ones facts before stating them. One might find that their 'facts' are wrong. In the case of the RAN, there are currently a little over 14,000 regulars while the RCN has about 8,500 regular personnel. In other words, the regular establishment personnel strength of the RAN is ~67% greater than that of the RCN. Not exactly what I would call close in size.

Now, how about looking at things with a bit more realism? How viable and sustainable would it be for a nation to raise/sustain a Special Forces-only land force, or a land force where a significant percentage of personnel were Special Forces? That is effectively what is being suggested what advocating for a dramatic expansion of the submarine service.

Also, the suggestion still manages to ignore the strengths and limitations of submarines and surface warships. Canada will still need to be able protect surface shipping, whether they are Canadian-flagged merchant vessels operating abroad, merchant vessels moving rawmats and/or goods to/from Canada, or sealift ships moving, people, supplies and equipment to or from Canada. Subs are not the sort of naval asset which can on their own, escort a surface vessel of convoy. There is the rather small matter of the convoy needing to make a slow transit so the sub can keep up... Also, a sub can effectively combat a detected surface or subsurface threat, but can do SFA about inbound air threats, be they from MPA, maritime strike aircraft, or AShM launched from hostile subs, surface vessels, land bases or aircraft.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivendi View Post
Sorry for the OT but does the above imply that you believe Australias plans for 12 subs are unrealistic?
It depends on just how the plan gets implimented. If the idea is that 12 'Son of Collins' subs are built and all in RAN service at the same time... Then yes, I think that a bit unrealistic unless a major war has broken out. OTOH if as t68 suggested, that a dozen are built over a thirty year span, and that they are built in lots of 4 and that at any given point in time there are perhaps 6 - 8 subs in RAN service... That I think is workable.

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2012   #83
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,609
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
It is also possibly worth noting that the RN's submarine crew complement stands at ~3.8% of total regular RN personnel, and that once the Astute-class SSN has completed replacing the Trafalgar-class, then the RN figure would be back down to ~3.3%. One reason why the RN figure is currently so high, is that that Trafalgar-class SSN has ~32 more crew members than the replacing Astute-class SSN. IMO there has to be some reason why the RN would desire a replacing SSN design with ~30% less crew than its predecessor.

-Cheers
Type 42: 287 crew
Type 45: 185 crew = 65% of Type 42 - in a much bigger ship

Type 23: 185 crew
Type 26: ca 120-30 crew expected (67-72% of Type 23)

Pretty standard reduction. More automation, fewer crew. Same in other navies. Not submarine-specific.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2012   #84
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,098
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
Type 42: 287 crew
Type 45: 185 crew = 65% of Type 42 - in a much bigger ship

Type 23: 185 crew
Type 26: ca 120-30 crew expected (67-72% of Type 23)

Pretty standard reduction. More automation, fewer crew. Same in other navies. Not submarine-specific.
Quite true, but it does sort of suggest that attempting a significant increase in specific types of personnel might be somewhat difficult. After all, part of the reason for more automation is to reduce the crew requirements for naval vessels. This is something which various navies wish to accomplish due to a variety of reasons, some of which involve the costs to raise, train and sustain personnel...

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2012   #85
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,609
Threads:
My argument isn't that there would be no difficulties in increasing numbers either of personnel in general, or of a specific (& more difficult to recruit in general, I accept) type, but that increasing numbers of a specific type would require an increase in the rest. I find it hard to accept that the ratio of submariners to the total has to be within a very narrow range.

As far as I can see, the ratio depends on the perceived needs of navies. Of those which operate submarines, the ratio has varied from time to time & fleet to fleet, for example Norway's fleet of Kobben class subs used to need 360+ crew at a time when the RNoN had 7600 personnel, including 1000 coast artillery. Disregarding the coast artillery as not relevant to a discussion of Canadian manning levels, that's 5.5%. This suggests to me that the ratio is far more flexible than you think.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2012   #86
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,098
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
My argument isn't that there would be no difficulties in increasing numbers either of personnel in general, or of a specific (& more difficult to recruit in general, I accept) type, but that increasing numbers of a specific type would require an increase in the rest. I find it hard to accept that the ratio of submariners to the total has to be within a very narrow range.

As far as I can see, the ratio depends on the perceived needs of navies. Of those which operate submarines, the ratio has varied from time to time & fleet to fleet, for example Norway's fleet of Kobben class subs used to need 360+ crew at a time when the RNoN had 7600 personnel, including 1000 coast artillery. Disregarding the coast artillery as not relevant to a discussion of Canadian manning levels, that's 5.5%. This suggests to me that the ratio is far more flexible than you think.
Ah, I see that the point I was attempting to make about the ratio was not quite understood, so I will attempt to clarify it.

What I was driving at was in a navy of N number personnel, where there has not been a particular/special emphasis on sub ops, only a small percentage of those personnel are going to be suited to submarine ops. There are some things which can be done to attempt to raise that percentage, via targeted and more selective recruiting, etc. but there are limits. If the entire pool of naval personnel is enlarged, then naturally there would be an increase in the number of personnel who would likely be suited for sub service... Otherwise the RCN might be stretching itself to crew submarines which a larger naval service could accomodate.

One thing I had not gotten into though, is also what sort of personnel numbers would be required to support so many submarines? Looking at the USN for numbers, there are ~60,000 personnel dedicated to submarine ops, but only ~10,000 are actually sub crews, the rest AFAIK training and support personnel for the sub service, sea/sub tenders, dockyard maintenance and support, training schools, etc.

While I doubt that current RCN or RAN sub support numbers would provide a reliable benchmark, historical numbers for these services, and/or current JMSDF sub support numbers might be a bit better.

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2012   #87
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,787
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivendi View Post
Sorry for the OT but does the above imply that you believe Australias plans for 12 subs are unrealistic?
absolutely.

we won't get 12 subs by the time govt makes a decision. more like 8-9.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2012   #88
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 136
Threads:
Although it is a far smaller navy and has severe budgetary constraints to cope with; the South African Navy has admitted to considerable difficulty in maintaining even two full crews for it's three Type 209s (out of a total of roughly 5000 uniformed personnel)
Their operational requirement is to have one in the water, one supporting a pier and the third in the shed.
Dodger67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2012   #89
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,609
Threads:
South Africa has squeezed the defence budget to the point where it's struggling to keep its relative handful (compared to Australia or Canada) of combat aircraft flying, due to lack of money for fuel - and they burn a lot less than an F-18. No lessons to be learned there, except what not to do.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 1st, 2012   #90
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 136
Threads:
It would appear that the lesson is at last being learnt. The first draft of the current South African Defence Review admits to the folly of underfunding - a turnaround in the neglect should be forthcoming in the next few years.

If you're interested I've posted a link to the current South African Defence Review draft document at - http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ge...17/#post244425
Dodger67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:07 PM.