t68
Well-Known Member
do you have a source/link for that?
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
do you have a source/link for that?
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
Hello HaroldBloggins. Great to hear from a new member! Can you substantiate your position WRT "no AIP?
HaroldBloggins
Member
Simply put the technology is not mature enough in endurance or designed for under the ice operations. Any under the ice operations the boat must be able to surface through the ice in an emergency. AIP boats are not powerful enough and that's the consensus of the boat community. The best we can hope for is near edge/ice edge patrolling, with possibly autonomous AUV's to send under the ice.
HaroldBloggins
Member
Your point about torpedo stowage is well taken. That would need to be addressed. The CH-148 can carry two Mk 46/54 torpedoes. AOPS (with TRAPS) detects, sends the helo, which confirms with its own sensors. If a decision is made to engage, the helo drops a torpedo. All this will need to be tested and SOPs developed, of course, but all the core capability is there now. I should add that TRAPS has already been tested on a Kingston class:
Acoustic Systems from Our Canadian Friends
Royal Canadian Navy tests TRAPS sonar aboard HMCS Glace Bay
The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) has successfully tested GeoSpectrum Technologies’ Towed Reelable Active Passive Sonar (TRAPS) on....www.naval-technology.com
End-to-End Acoustic System Provides New Capability for Littoral
Elbit Systems’ subsidiary GeoSpectrum Technologies (GTI), headquartered in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, Canada, announced the completion of successful trials of its Towed Reelable Active Passive Sonar (TRAPS) onboard the Kingston class coastal defence vessel HMCS Glace Bay (MM 701) in service with...www.monch.com
HMCS Harry DeWolf has already had TRAPS onboard.
There are some oceanic subs coming on line.
Short fin Barracuda
S-80+
KSS-III
Type 612 extended
The last three are approximately the size of a Collins class, or similar size to the original SSN USS Nautilus, the first sub to transit the artic. Barracuda is obviously significantly larger. Barracuda is approximately twice the size of the French SSN Rubis class. All would seem to provide more capability than the current submarines.
I am unclear on Canada's ice needs. Its current subs have no particularly special ice penetration capabilities in its hull size or strength. Its previous submarines have no particular ice penetration capabilities. Russian, Norwegian, Dutch, Sweden, all operate diesel submarines in cold climate waters. AIP submarines can remain under water for the entire length of their patrol, and would be able to cover the northwest passage distance under water, easily. I do not see the reasons why they would have to, the obvious thing would be to loiter around the passage entrances like any choke point.
Almost any submarine would have hull strength to break through ice, as they have hulls of greater strength than any ice breaker, and lift the ice up to break it rather than ramming over/through it. Sail strength would be the only concern, and easily addressed. As always, trying to surface through 5m thick of refrozen multi year ice is not recommended for any submarine, including the largest nuclear ones.
I would think Canada doesn't need 25+kt transit speed in the Northwest passage and therefore a nuclear submarine would seem to be a very big expense with no clear mission. As I point out in the RAN thread, nuclear submarines from the UK or US have significant crewing requirements, two to three or more times that of the submarine Canada currently operates. At its current size, Canada would struggle to man a single western SSN with its entire active submariner force. Building, operating and disposal costs a far, far, far higher than a conventional. Canada has already one failed SSN program.
China and Russia have limited SSN building capability, and even then, transits take time, and sap operational availability. It is the proliferation of other conventional subs is really the issue. The west currently operates around 80 nuclear submarines. Russian and China combined have about 25 nuclear submarines.
Short fin Barracuda
S-80+
KSS-III
Type 612 extended
The last three are approximately the size of a Collins class, or similar size to the original SSN USS Nautilus, the first sub to transit the artic. Barracuda is obviously significantly larger. Barracuda is approximately twice the size of the French SSN Rubis class. All would seem to provide more capability than the current submarines.
I am unclear on Canada's ice needs. Its current subs have no particularly special ice penetration capabilities in its hull size or strength. Its previous submarines have no particular ice penetration capabilities. Russian, Norwegian, Dutch, Sweden, all operate diesel submarines in cold climate waters. AIP submarines can remain under water for the entire length of their patrol, and would be able to cover the northwest passage distance under water, easily. I do not see the reasons why they would have to, the obvious thing would be to loiter around the passage entrances like any choke point.
Almost any submarine would have hull strength to break through ice, as they have hulls of greater strength than any ice breaker, and lift the ice up to break it rather than ramming over/through it. Sail strength would be the only concern, and easily addressed. As always, trying to surface through 5m thick of refrozen multi year ice is not recommended for any submarine, including the largest nuclear ones.
I would think Canada doesn't need 25+kt transit speed in the Northwest passage and therefore a nuclear submarine would seem to be a very big expense with no clear mission. As I point out in the RAN thread, nuclear submarines from the UK or US have significant crewing requirements, two to three or more times that of the submarine Canada currently operates. At its current size, Canada would struggle to man a single western SSN with its entire active submariner force. Building, operating and disposal costs a far, far, far higher than a conventional. Canada has already one failed SSN program.
China and Russia have limited SSN building capability, and even then, transits take time, and sap operational availability. It is the proliferation of other conventional subs is really the issue. The west currently operates around 80 nuclear submarines. Russian and China combined have about 25 nuclear submarines.
Hi Harry. Welcome to the forum. We have a set of rules that we require posters to adhere to and you should make yourself familiar with them. Two posts have asked you to provide sources / links and to substantiate your claims. You have done neither. Furthermore you have posted an image without providing its source. We are strong on the citing of sources because it protects both you and the forum from accusations of plagiarism.
HaroldBloggins
Member
Source my own picture depicting the TRAPS payload as fitted on HMCS Harry DeWolf.
HaroldBloggins
Member
Harold,
There are quite a number of people on this board in a similiar position. If you use the expression “in my view” or “my understanding is” that usually gets around the issue.
You were banned for a year for continuously pushing pushing the fantasy fleet idea and the slowpoke reactor. You have just come off that ban. At the moment your continued presence on here is razor thin because the Moderators are split on whether to ban you permanently or not. FYI I voted for the permanent ban.
You had better make a vast improvement on your posting behaviour or the ban hammer may be swung without warning. So this your final warning.
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
I will comply with future posts.
Good. I think everyone will now understand that straying into posts or comments regarding nuclear subs in the Canadian context and likewise in Australia or Timbuctoo will not end well. There are significant legal and political roadblocks that have been in place since the 1950's by the US and the UK to basically make this topic an impossibility that one wishes OpEd writers, defence analysts and political advisors within Canada had first done their due diligence on or sort expert ACHL advice. Though to be fair it is a very complex area on the legal side.
HaroldBloggins
Member
I think we can all agree that while nuclear in my opinion would be optimal there simply is no political will to do so. From discussions I have personally had with people at the decision making level in conference rooms at daily meetings, AIP is not seen as a mature technology in regards to endurance and the fact it has never been used under the ice. That could all change in 10 years as the technology matures. That leaves us with a conventional submarine with a modest crew as that will play a factor and the submarine will have to be able to transit long distances n the Pacific and Atlantic and be effective in both cold and warm water in regards to cooling. Lithium ion was talked about as the preferred type of storage medium for power. From what I have seen it very well may go to a design not built yet in my opinion.
HaroldBloggins
Member
So talk to from of our chaps in the office is saying there is serious discussion about standing up a Kingston Class replacement project. The ships are at their design life of 25 years and HMCS Kingston has her statement of structural integrity extended by 5 years and I have personally seen that certificate. According to ConUse for the class which was just updated the intent is for the foreseeable future have the ships continue to operate as usual with AOPV supporting them as a support unit during MCM operations. Nothing official about the project but makes perfect sense that they will need to replaced at some point in my opinion.
Git_Kraken
Active Member
Ice thickness is really the deciding factor in breaking through. Not any sub can do it. It has to be designed for the force. There are plenty of stories out there of the earlier nuclear boats damaging masts and destroying periscopes in trying to break through the ice. Coldwater submarines are not arctic submarines. For the Dutch, Sweden and Norway they don't have multiyear ice in their waters (Norway may near Svalbard). Multiyear ice is much harder. It's like driving a ship into concrete. Russia doesn't use its diesels for arctic operations outside of the warmer months. That's why it has nuclear boats for that sort of thing.
AIP cannot cover the entire NWP. It's thousands of miles from one side to the other (2,400 km (1,500 mi) longitudinally ) as the crow flies. The distances involved are almost as wide as the Atlantic Ocean and the transit distances are almost the same. The speed of an undersea diesel with no snorting available is way too slow to make the journey before your underwater endurance is gone.
I'm trying very hard to explain just how hostile, large and dangerous the arctic is. Near ice and edge ice for diesel subs only. Anything else would be taking very significant risks with your boat. There is a reason AOPS was built. There is your arctic patrol right there.
Maybe in the future when AIP is more mature.
Last edited:
Git_Kraken
Active Member
I can back that up. The replacement program is for an OPV. Not sure what the requirements are going to look like but I suspect something with better seakeeping and less crew. A few more knots of speed as well. Something like the Protector Class, which was designed by a Canadian company for NZ.
The 5 years is expected to go to 10 unless the project office is stood up quickly I have heard. However, given how shipbuilding is devouring the government's budget recently I'm not optimistic about OPVs and subs when the JSS and CSC are such big expenditures.
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
Hello Git Kraken. You seem to have explained Canadas hostile Arctic environment very well as it pertains to future Canadian submarines. The Kingston class MCDVs are crewed by both Reserve and some Reg Force Naval personnel. IMO I don't know when or even if the Kingston class will be replaced. IMO Perhaps another 4-6 AOPS crewed by both Reserves and some Reg force Naval personnel seems to be reasonable but, who knows.
HaroldBloggins
Member
The majority of Kingston Class personnel are regular force with just a small number of reserves and have for a number of years now. In my opinion they won't be building another 4 to 6 AOPS but any OPV will have a MCM capability.Hello Git Kraken. You seem to have explained Canadas hostile Arctic environment very well as it pertains to future Canadian submarines. The Kingston class MCDVs are crewed by both Reserve and some Reg Force Naval personnel. IMO I don't know when or even if the Kingston class will be replaced. IMO Perhaps another 4-6 AOPS crewed by both Reserves and some Reg force Naval personnel seems to be reasonable but, who knows.
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
Agree with most of what you have said. In My Opinion (IMO) the DNCS Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A AIP sub that Australia has chosen would also be a great option for Canadas sub replacement program. AIP subs work well in cold climates but are really not designed for any serious under-ice operations. Our Victoria class is a good example of that. There is another AIP sub that you have not mentioned. That is Japans Type 29SS with Lithium Ion Battery (LIB) technology. The one problem they have with that I believe is the LIB endurance for under-ice operations may not be there quite yet but my understanding is that they are working on that.
HaroldBloggins
Member
The issue for me is that there has never been an instance of AIP equipped submarines operating under any ice whatsoever and so do we need it at all. The AUS procurement of the shortfin has been nothing short of a train wreck and is still unclear that any will be ever built. The KSS-III looks promising.