John Fedup
The Bunker Group
AIP subs operating under ice is like cave diving with a single regulator, only two scuba tanks and no buddy….a very dicey proposition IMHO.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Just gonna throw this out there since I'm little more than a casual follower of Canadian defense shipbuilding.
Where is the capacity to replace 12 (or fewer) Kingston Class ships going to come from? As far as I can tell Irving is tied up for the next decade (or two) building the AOPS' and then the CSCs. Seaspan building the JSS' ships, a myriad of vessels for the CCG including various fisheries vessels and a good size fleet of "Multi purpose vessels" while splitting the CCG heavy ice breakers Davies. And then there's the CCG's six medium ice breakers which I guess might go the Davies as the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy's "third future shipyard"
Again, where is the capacity for Kingston replacements in at least the next decade?
Where is the capacity to replace 12 (or fewer) Kingston Class ships going to come from? As far as I can tell Irving is tied up for the next decade (or two) building the AOPS' and then the CSCs. Seaspan building the JSS' ships, a myriad of vessels for the CCG including various fisheries vessels and a good size fleet of "Multi purpose vessels" while splitting the CCG heavy ice breakers Davies. And then there's the CCG's six medium ice breakers which I guess might go the Davies as the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy's "third future shipyard"
Again, where is the capacity for Kingston replacements in at least the next decade?
HaroldBloggins
Member
Its going to be in my opinion 10 to 15 years before these ships will be built and if there is not capacity then build in the Great Lakes and give to Heddle.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
As per @Git_Kraken post #2936, the RCN’s share of the DND budget will make it difficult to grab for more money, 10-12 years at least by which time some capacity may be available .
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
The reason why we built the MCDVs was for the Reserve Naval personnel. I believe the majority of crew are Reserve force and not Reg force RCN. Can you substantiate your claims HaroldBloggins?
HaroldBloggins
Member
Of course it was, originally all reserves with the exception of the WEng and ET. After many years that crewing model was changed with a small number of reservists and the majority regular force. Most of the permanent reserves were offered to roll over to the regular force through the "Big Idea" initiative. Frankly speaking the reserves did not want to man these ships anymore in that capacity and has focused their efforts in the naval security team. Can't substantiate however sailed on the Kingston Class for ten years.
Git_Kraken
Active Member
I can as I was one of those PRes back in the day. The Kingston Class were originally crewed by PRes with only 2-3 Reg force crew. Electricians and an Electronics Technicians. However, in about 2012 they implemented what was called the "Big Idea" and all those crews who were full-time were told to switch to Reg F or likely lose their Class C positions (Class C is full-time reserve employment). There were a number of reasons for this change, including crew fatigue and the career path for full-time vs part-time reservists.
This meant that the Kingston Class became crewed by Reg F. Its used as a command development platform for officers before they go on their XO tour on a frigate as well as a leadership experience for more junior sailors who get more responsibility at a lower rank due to the small crew size.
In compensation, the PRes now have about 10% of all ships crew positions available to them for contracts and training. This has the effect of ensuring that the PRes are trained with the same qualifications as the Reg F and it's easier for them to move back and forth between Reg and Reserve.
*edit: ninja'd by about 30 seconds....
HaroldBloggins
Member
They also become a feeder of personnel going to AOPS as they both have a diesel electric plant.
Git_Kraken
Active Member
Davie, or Vancouver Shipyards. The order books are full though, that is for sure. Davie is now getting a piece of the frigate docking work periods as well as the medium icebreaker refits/builds. I think given a competition both of them would bid on an OPV build. It's a pretty simple ship and likely to not have anything more complicated than AOPS for a combat system. Both yards could easily make it fit into their schedule.
Git_Kraken
Active Member
As we are on the shipbuilding topic and excellent article from Timothy Choi on its importance to Canada.
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
The politics of the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A has no doubt been a "train wreck" as you say.
Did not know that Git Kraken. Thanks for that info. It still must be difficult for Reg force personnel to crew these boats.
Last edited by a moderator:
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
The politics of the Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A has no doubt been a "train wreck" as you say. But IMO the DNCS Barracuda Block 1A is still a viable replacement for their Collins class and could be for the RCN as well along with Japans 29ss AIP sub. It will be up to the RCN to recommend to the government what replacement will give the RCN what they need gong forth. IMO the KSS-III will not be first on their shopping list.
HaroldBloggins
Member
I suspect once the government sees the sticker price of the shortfin they won't be choosing it. Regardless it will be many years before a design will be chosen, as I have said previously the consensus up here is that AIP won't be a looked for requirement due to its limitations. We won't be the first testing an AIP sub out under the ice.
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
IMO I believe the RCN will recommend to our "fearful leaders" the right sub to do the jobs required in the future. Do you have any substantiation for your last statement?
HaroldBloggins
Member
Without giving to much away was a red hat for a bit and work in Ottawa. Much talk about the new replacements and so I have some educated opinions.IMO I believe the RCN will recommend to our "fearful leaders" the right sub to do the jobs required in the future. Do you have any substantiation for your last statement?
We'll see how everything develops over the next 5 years.
Dolphin 38
Git_Kraken
Active Member
Ahahaha! So few will get that ref. Love it!
I presume you are referring to the submariners Dolphin Code?Without giving to much away was a red hat for a bit and work in Ottawa. Much talk about the new replacements and so I have some educated opinions.
We'll see how everything develops over the next 5 years.
Dolphin 38
AIP can certainly cover the NWP that is within Canada's EEZ. You do not need to travel the entire distance from port to port under water. It would seem some 1000miles would be the most difficult part of the NWP. Also, is it essential to sub patrol along the NWP or just at key choke points. Australia doesn't have coverage of the entire Indian and Pacific oceans, its about choke points that traffic goes through.
Victoria class has AIP? The Victoria class is 70's/80s technology. We may be confusing terminology here.
Japans sub could certainly be an option depending on what Canada is looking for. They are fantastic at deep diving and silent patrols, long high speed transits less so, but still as capable as any European conventional submarine. The LIB endurance, like any new technology is continually improving. Certainly an option.
Not sure I agree that none will get built. Australia has previously built 6 submarines. This has all occurred before. Not just with subs, with essentially every military equipment procurement even ones that went on to have very successful and effective careers. Would you rate the Attack class project below that of Spains S80+? Brazils Álvaro Alberto? Argentina's TR1700? How does it rate to Collins class? Frances Rubis class? UK Astute class? Or Canada's own Victoria Class?
I don't think Australia nor Canada are keen to increase the complexity of submarine building with a joint program. But like the Type 26, you can have unique branches off a common design. However, the Barracuda design would be awfully large, awfully big program to get into.
KSS-III may be ideal for Canada and meet most of their requirements, and give very tangible capabilities. It doesn't have to be a mega project.
t68
Well-Known Member
No doubt we are having problems in conducting the negotiations for the future submarine, as far as I am aware the French haven't even got a working design in place only a template to use which is the French nuclear version.
The politics do not help when people in authority give mixed messages out originally it was to be built here in oz, then the Abbott Government put a cat amongst the pigeons, well what would you expect of the French Government to do if they make life a little difficult hoping to put a bit more urgency in the build then build in a french yard, its only natural
Strategic Direction of the Future Submarine Programme | Kevin Andrews (archive.org)
There is always the misconception on Australian ability to actually build the Submarines, people cite poor welds in the 1st boat, but what they fail to mention the remedial work was done on the only section built overseas in Sweden not Australia
The Collins class was not a disaster | Lowy Archive (lowyinstitute.org)
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
But why, though? AIP, at least as it's CONOPS in European subs, would seem for the most part to be irrelevant to likely Canadian sub CONOPS, much like AIP was determined by the RAN for usage aboard the Collins-class SSG. IIRC a Stirling AIP engine was setup on a test rig and fired up. After determining that it would work and could be fitted, it was then packed back up onto a pallet and never installed. Again, IIRC it was because while the AIP Stirling engine would work, the space and displacement required for the AIP engine and associated fuels would consume volume and displacement required or desired for other things, and the output of the AIP engine & fuel was insufficient to enable RAN subs to make the sort of long distance transits at speed, that the RAN requires for patrolling.
Given the location of Canadian ports and RCN bases, I could easily foresee the RCN having or adopting a sub CONOPS that requires a long-distance transit just to get to a patrol area. If that is accurate, then AIP would likely be either a hindrance, or a waste of volume and displacement in a RCN sub. Where AIP really can provide a beneficial capability (at least at present) is if either the patrol area is relatively close by, or once a sub has reached a patrol area and needs to loiter/lurk quietly for a period of time.
Incidentally, I have been trying to find more information on the recording setting AIP transit of a German U-212 sub back in 2013, which transited submerged using the AIP system for 18 days. What I have been attempting to confirm was the distance covered in that transit. IIRC it was something like 1,000 n miles, going from a German port to a French port on the Med, but the distance I recall seems off.