Government Looking at Mothballing Victoria Class

[Guest Derek L]

Some further news on the V-Boats:

http://www.timescolonist.com/200-esquimalt-jobs-protected-with-new-531-million-submarine-contract-1.342058

OTTAWA — B.C.’s shipbuilding and repair industry will get a shot of good news today when the Harper government announces a five-year, $531-million contract extension to repair and upgrade Canada’s fleet of four diesel-electric submarines, The Vancouver Sun has learned.

The contract, following a similar agreement struck in 2008, will protect roughly 200 jobs at the Department of National Defence’s Fleet Maintenance Facility in Esquimalt, according to a federal official.

If life gives you lemons……….hey……..free lemons..

[AlienB]

Some further news on the V-Boats:

http://www.timescolonist.com/200-esquimalt-jobs-protected-with-new-531-million-submarine-contract-1.342058

If life gives you lemons……….hey……..free lemons..

yeah half a billion to refit the subs.. how much do new ones cost...?

none the less it is done hopefully they are good refit...

"The Russians have sold diesel submarines for as little as $200 million and the French have exported their Scorpene submarines for $300 million."

odd this from 2011

"HMCS Chicoutimi, has been in active service of the Royal Canadian Navy exactly two days in the 13 years since it was purchased from the Brits.

The Chicoutimi caught fire on its maiden voyage from the U.K. to Canada, killing one sailor and injuring a number of others.

It has been in the repair shop ever since, and isn’t expected back in service for at least another two years and $400 million more in repairs and retrofits."

is this 400 million for the chicoutimi and 131 million for the other 3 subs maintenance?

Edited July 5, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

yeah half a billion to refit the subs.. how much do new ones cost...?

none the less it is done hopefully they are good refit...

"The Russians have sold diesel submarines for as little as $200 million and the French have exported their Scorpene submarines for $300 million."

odd this from 2011

"HMCS Chicoutimi, has been in active service of the Royal Canadian Navy exactly two days in the 13 years since it was purchased from the Brits.

The Chicoutimi caught fire on its maiden voyage from the U.K. to Canada, killing one sailor and injuring a number of others.

It has been in the repair shop ever since, and isn’t expected back in service for at least another two years and $400 million more in repairs and retrofits."

is this 400 million for the chicoutimi and 131 million for the other 3 subs maintenance?

No, The one off repairs to both Chicoutimi and Corner Brook were/are separate contracts outside of the previous and the now renewed maintenance contracts.

Also, the figures you cite of the Russian and French boats are incorrect and don’t include development and support costs…..A more apt example would be the Brazilian deal from several years back:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/brazil-france-in-deal-for-ssks-ssn-05217/

A modern SSK costs near the same as a modern SSN, where they differ is in support costs.

[GostHacked]

Total waste of money, time, resources and common sense. The subs should not have been bought in the first place.

[Guest Derek L]

Total waste of money, time, resources and common sense. The subs should not have been bought in the first place.

I beg to differ, the four subs, warts and all, were a better alternative to not having submarines…….The issues can be attributed to lack of proper funding and finite (Naval) resources being required for the War on Terror……..

[AlienB]

I beg to differ, the four subs, warts and all, were a better alternative to not having submarines…….The issues can be attributed to lack of proper funding and finite (Naval) resources being required for the War on Terror……..

except this ins't the US

sounds like buying new subs every 10 years would cost less than upkeeping them.

none the less i'm curious what terrorist groups have a subsurface or surface fleet? Isn't Afghanistan landlocked?

Edited July 6, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

except this ins't the US

sounds like buying new subs every 10 years would cost less than upkeeping them.

none the less i'm curious what terrorist groups have a subsurface or surface fleet? Isn't Afghanistan landlocked?

Nobody said we were the United States……..

Also, replacing vessels every ten years wouldn’t be economical……..Any economies to found in production/support/maintenance would be garnered through a larger production, or economies of scale. As mentioned, we’re not the United States, so a large type production of given equipment is not feasible, unless we partner with allies that share the same requirements as us and/or attach ourselves to an all ready produced type…

In the case of diesel electric submarines, the only nations with similar requirements as ours would be Australia, the Netherlands and Japan. Of those three, the Japanese are severely limited by their Constitution to what sort of military programs they can enter into with other nations……That leaves the Dutch and Australians, both nations with like technical requirements, well also sharing the same timeline as us, in that they too will need to replace their current submarines sometime in the next decade….We all also share the potential for shared access to US technology……..A miniature, conventionally powered Virginia boat perhaps?

As to your quip on the “Afghan navy” and the “War on Terror”, you clearly don’t fully understand the benefits that submarines have brought and continue to bring to the “War on Terror”……….Namely as a covert ISR platform………Nearly 80% of the World’s population live within 100km of a coastline…a great many of them use cellphones………..A UGM-109 has a range of over 1000km….Do the math.

[AlienB]

Nobody said we were the United States……..

Also, replacing vessels every ten years wouldn’t be economical……..Any economies to found in production/support/maintenance would be garnered through a larger production, or economies of scale. As mentioned, we’re not the United States, so a large type production of given equipment is not feasible, unless we partner with allies that share the same requirements as us and/or attach ourselves to an all ready produced type…

In the case of diesel electric submarines, the only nations with similar requirements as ours would be Australia, the Netherlands and Japan. Of those three, the Japanese are severely limited by their Constitution to what sort of military programs they can enter into with other nations……That leaves the Dutch and Australians, both nations with like technical requirements, well also sharing the same timeline as us, in that they too will need to replace their current submarines sometime in the next decade….We all also share the potential for shared access to US technology……..A miniature, conventionally powered Virginia boat perhaps?

As to your quip on the “Afghan navy” and the “War on Terror”, you clearly don’t fully understand the benefits that submarines have brought and continue to bring to the “War on Terror”……….Namely as a covert ISR platform………Nearly 80% of the World’s population live within 100km of a coastline…a great many of them use cellphones………..A UGM-109 has a range of over 1000km….Do the math.

Well just when I see 2 billion dollars spent in 10 years on upkeeping and repairing 20 year old boats, and boats costing less than 500 million each.. it seems to be pretty basic math. Perhaps we can compare. What can be bought new and what can't? What will the costs be over the next 10 years for the old boats as opposed to new boats.. also remember the old boats equipment can be reused in some cases, and the old boats can still serve in mothball some purposes or be repurposed. Canada is not confined in what nations programs it decides to partner with or what its own programs it determine for itself.

I sincerely was interested in what terrorist groups have subs or surface craft, there was no afghan navy joke, the Afghani's do have beaches, just none to which the Canadians can reach by sea, Afghanis arn't terrorists and there are more terror groups than the CIA organized Al Qaeda. Bear in mind Al Qaeda emerged from the CIA funded Mujahdeen.none the less... What countries is Canada covertly operating against? Last I checked Canada wasn't at war with any countries.

Canada has no lawful grounds to be assassinating or conducting extrajudicial operations in foreign countries. As nice as it seems Canada is not the US it is suppose to follow international law. ..

Lets do the math..

none the less these changes will go ahead but no they won't cost less and no they won't be better.

and no the boats have no use right now except in Canada and training.

Bear in mind Canada already has a many 10's of billions of dollars ship building program it makes sense to just make the subs too.

This is all

http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/sam-mps/snacn-nsps-eng.html

so it is idle banter. but none the less I would question 2 billion dollars on upkeep when new ships of similar characteristic could be bought, and the old ships mothballed or salvaged for equipment spares and backups. maybe use the subs as undersea bunkers or something, communications infrastructure or some other useful purpose.

Edited July 7, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

Well just when I see 2 billion dollars spent in 10 years on upkeeping and repairing 20 year old boats, and boats costing less than 500 million each.. it seems to be pretty basic math. Perhaps we can compare. What can be bought new and what can't? What will the costs be over the next 10 years for the old boats as opposed to new boats.. also remember the old boats equipment can be reused in some cases, and the old boats can still serve in mothball some purposes or be repurposed. Canada is not confined in what nations programs it decides to partner with or what its own programs it determine for itself.

And what do think it costs to operate and maintain those boats “under 500 million” over a ten year span? To say nothing of the fact that you’re comparing brown water subs to blue water subs, which is akin to comparing a Smart Car to a midsize SUV. If you want to compare a near peer to the Victoria Class, look at the RAN’s Collins class subs……And what they’ve paid for them….From a financial persepctive, we’ve got a deal.

I sincerely was interested in what terrorist groups have subs or surface craft, there was no afghan navy joke, the Afghani's do have beaches, just none to which the Canadians can reach by sea, Afghanis arn't terrorists and there are more terror groups than the CIA organized Al Qaeda. Bear in mind Al Qaeda emerged from the CIA funded Mujahdeen.none the less... What countries is Canada covertly operating against? Last I checked Canada wasn't at war with any countries.

If you knew that, it wouldn't be covert no?

Canada has no lawful grounds to be assassinating or conducting extrajudicial operations in foreign countries. As nice as it seems Canada is not the US it is suppose to follow international law. ..

Lets do the math..

And what math is that?

none the less these changes will go ahead but no they won't cost less and no they won't be better.

and no the boats have no use right now except in Canada and training.

Bear in mind Canada already has a many 10's of billions of dollars ship building program it makes sense to just make the subs too.

This is all

http://www.tpsgc-pwg...n-nsps-eng.html

And who said anything about their current operational use......You brought up the practicality of using submarines in the GWOT, in a mocking fashion and were clearly rebuked…

so it is idle banter. but none the less I would question 2 billion dollars on upkeep when new ships of similar characteristic could be bought, and the old ships mothballed or salvaged for equipment spares and backups. maybe use the subs as undersea bunkers or something, communications infrastructure or some other useful purpose.

Well no, you’re not comparing similar characteristics, what you’re doing is attempting to make a case that it costs more to maintain a 25 year old house (that you own) then it does to purchase a new one bedroom condo that doesn‘t suite your needs.

[AlienB]

And what do think it costs to operate and maintain those boats “under 500 million” over a ten year span? To say nothing of the fact that you’re comparing brown water subs to blue water subs, which is akin to comparing a Smart Car to a midsize SUV. If you want to compare a near peer to the Victoria Class, look at the RAN’s Collins class subs……And what they’ve paid for them….From a financial persepctive, we’ve got a deal.

If you knew that, it wouldn't be covert no?

And what math is that?

And who said anything about their current operational use......You brought up the practicality of using submarines in the GWOT, in a mocking fashion and were clearly rebuked…

Well no, you’re not comparing similar characteristics, what you’re doing is attempting to make a case that it costs more to maintain a 25 year old house (that you own) then it does to purchase a new one bedroom condo that doesn‘t suite your needs.

Cost to maintain boats over the first 10 years of their life, a little bit of elbow grease and knowhow.just get a if it breaks in the first 10 years you fix it clause. None the less blue water brown water, I havn't made any such differentiation, nor suggested an exact model.

Perhaps you can start by suggesting a scenario for the math of brand new subs perhaps something like a type 096 or similiar sub.\\

If I knew that it would be relevant instead of fantasy.

Edited July 8, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

Cost to maintain boats over the first 10 years of their life, a little bit of elbow grease and knowhow.just get a if it breaks in the first 10 years you fix it clause. None the less blue water brown water, I havn't made any such differentiation, nor suggested an exact model.

Perhaps you can start by suggesting a scenario for the math of brand new subs perhaps something like a type 096 or similiar sub.\\

If I knew that it would be relevant instead of fantasy.

Ahh, so we can maintain these mythical subs with “elbow grease” and a mythical no breakage clause. Perfect….why don’t we do that with everything we buy

And why would be look towards a future Chinese boomer? As I said, the Australians are expecting the price tag to replace their current subs to be approaching $40 Billion (Australian) for design, development, production and support……..

[bush_cheney2004]

And why would be look towards a future Chinese boomer? As I said, the Australians are expecting the price tag to replace their current subs to be approaching $40 Billion (Australian) for design, development, production and support……..

For those of us keeping score at home, where do SSKs rank on Canada's totem pole of problematic military procurements and political support ? One can only hope that a miracle in clarity will happen as did for the CC-177's...when Canada finally got it right for a change:

[Guest Derek L]

For those of us keeping score at home, where do SSKs rank on Canada's totem pole of problematic military procurements and political support ? One can only hope that a miracle in clarity will happen as did for the CC-177's...when Canada finally got it right for a change:

Indeed, and couple the Globemasters with these two other purchases:

And

Three sole source contracts for the win…..

[bush_cheney2004]

Indeed, and couple the Globemasters with these two other purchases:

Three sole source contracts for the win…..

Right...so what has Canada learned with these three recent successes ? Spend your money once !!

[Guest Derek L]

Right...so what has Canada learned with these three recent successes ? Spend your money once !!

Yup, but more importantly, the elected Government conjures up an idea and military tells the Government what is needed to carry it out……….And we buy what is needed with as little political interference as possible.

My brother much more preferred his second roto to the dirt box in his air conditioned Panzer…..And I’ve heard that 450 squadron is turning away people seeking a transfer to come play on the new ’hooks….

[AlienB]

Ahh, so we can maintain these mythical subs with “elbow grease” and a mythical no breakage clause. Perfect….why don’t we do that with everything we buy

And why would be look towards a future Chinese boomer? As I said, the Australians are expecting the price tag to replace their current subs to be approaching $40 Billion (Australian) for design, development, production and support……..

That's a good question Derek L, I would guess it is the intelligence of the people signing the contracts.

Well the Chinese have the best of American tech and the Americans have some of the best in the world, so I figure future Chinese models will 1. be cheap and 2. be the best.

Edited July 8, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

That's a good question Derek L, I would guess it is the intelligence of the people signing the contracts.

My question, have you ever signed a binding contract and or got a manufactures warranty? I’ll assume no, but for example, my Chevy 3500 has several years remaining on it’s powertrain warranty, but if I put it into a ditch or scrape it along a steel pole in a parkade, neither elbow grease or GM will look after me…same goes with having oil change/service work done……or filling it with diesel……..or rotating/changing tires….repairing dings in the windshield…..washing it etc

Well the Chinese have the best of American tech and the Americans have some of the best in the world, so I figure future Chinese models will 1. be cheap and 2. be the best.

Again, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about……..If the Chinese have the most advanced technology, why do the attempt to both purchase and steal Western designs? They are still having troubles reverse engineering crappy turbofans they bought off the Russians, that were designed in the 70s….

That still doesn’t answer why Canada should pursue a copy of a portion of the Chinese nuclear deterrent............

[AlienB]

My question, have you ever signed a binding contract and or got a manufactures warranty? I’ll assume no, but for example, my Chevy 3500 has several years remaining on it’s powertrain warranty, but if I put it into a ditch or scrape it along a steel pole in a parkade, neither elbow grease or GM will look after me…same goes with having oil change/service work done……or filling it with diesel……..or rotating/changing tires….repairing dings in the windshield…..washing it etc

Again, you clearly don’t know what you’re talking about……..If the Chinese have the most advanced technology, why do the attempt to both purchase and steal Western designs? They are still having troubles reverse engineering crappy turbofans they bought off the Russians, that were designed in the 70s….

That still doesn’t answer why Canada should pursue a copy of a portion of the Chinese nuclear deterrent............

Oh really now. I actually have had quite a few manufacturers warranties. Cars computers, work performed all commonly come with warranties. You would expect MILSPEC parts to actually hold up to the MILSPEC. Derek come now you are advocating for accepting worse quality it is a nonsense position. We arn't retards.

Derek I've read quite a bit on the new Chinese equipment and I'm not unimpressed with their performance. You know the Chinese are a space power now.

Why buy from companies if their crap breaks and can't survive 10 years of use without needing to be replaced as a milspec peice of equipment. Canada uses it stuff for 40 years or more, you are basically buying stuff 4x over that period. It makes more sense to buy new stuff every 10 years.

But lets just assume..

what exactly i the scorpene not performing the same way as the victoria? Except it being new as opposed to 30 or so years old.

Why should Canada be using 50 year old subs 10 years from now? As opposed to having brand new ones? for the same cost?

For less than 1.8 billion Euro Spain got 4 Scorpene.

Are the French, example the Marlins obsolelte and useless technology? How is it these new DCN subs are far worse than the 40 year old upholders?

Your argument amounts to lets fill these things with more overpriced US technologies so my stocks can benefit...

meanwhile submariners are left in 40 year old hulls that have had a tendency to start on fire.

Canada if it plans to keep some subs will need to get new subs soon, using 50 year old hulls is just irresponsible.

s80 is about 2.2billion euro for four.

They are faster than the Vclass too.

12 and 19 knots respectively.

a crafty canada would find a way to repurpose the vclass equipment on the new subs such as towed arrays. meanwhile mothballing the VClass or using them for an alternate purpose such as shore defence as opposed to overseas operations.

Here is more info on the s80

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-80-class_submarine

You should like this they are partnered with Lockheed.

Edited July 9, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

Oh really now. I actually have had quite a few manufacturers warranties. Cars computers, work performed all commonly come with warranties. You would expect MILSPEC parts to actually hold up to the MILSPEC. Derek come now you are advocating for accepting worse quality it is a nonsense position. We arn't retards.

Explain the failure of these MILSPEC parts:

Derek I've read quite a bit on the new Chinese equipment and I'm not unimpressed with their performance. You know the Chinese are a space power now.

Well together we can welcome China to the 1960s.....

Why buy from companies if their crap breaks and can't survive 10 years of use without needing to be replaced as a milspec peice of equipment. Canada uses it stuff for 40 years or more, you are basically buying stuff 4x over that period. It makes more sense to buy new stuff every 10 years.

Well I agree that we shouldn’t use equipment until rust-out, replacing billion dollar pieces once a decade is not feasible.

what exactly i the scorpene not performing the same way as the victoria? Except it being new as opposed to 30 or so years old.

Why is a Chevy Cobalt not a 1987 Chevy Silverado?

Why should Canada be using 50 year old subs 10 years from now? As opposed to having brand new ones? for the same cost?

Because new ones cost more then the maintenance costs associated with our current fleet........

For less than 1.8 billion Euro Spain got 4 Scorpene.

Do they run on elbow grease? And no, the Spanish subsidized shipyard has not completed a single over budgeted sub to date.........And of course the cost are approaching 1 billion per sub, and of course, this does not include support.......As I said, look to Brazil or the RAN for modern SSK costings.

Are the French, example the Marlins obsolelte and useless technology? How is it these new DCN subs are far worse than the 40 year old upholders?

They're too small to suite our needs........and use a French fire control system, sonars etc....

Your argument amounts to lets fill these things with more overpriced US technologies so my stocks can benefit...

Careful William login shortlived alienB

meanwhile submariners are left in 40 year old hulls that have had a tendency to start on fire.

Have you read the final report and findings from the board of inquiry on the HMCS Chicoutimi fire……..clearly you have not.

Canada if it plans to keep some subs will need to get new subs soon, using 50 year old hulls is just irresponsible.

Yes, I know......I said as much........Canada doesn't need undersized (French, Chinese or Russian) submarines though today.......

s80 is about 2.2billion euro for four.

And what does it cost to operate those four boats over ten years, including purchase price? This of course doesn't address that they don't suite our needs....

They are faster than the Vclass too.

12 and 19 knots respectively.

So? Our Subs are larger and meet our requirements.

a crafty canada would find a way to repurpose the vclass equipment on the new subs such as towed arrays. meanwhile mothballing the VClass or using them for an alternate purpose such as shore defence as opposed to overseas operations.

So you advocate recycling equipment from the Victoria class and fitting to their eventual replacements……hmm déjà vu strikes again….

Here is more info on the s80

http://en.wikipedia....class_submarine

You should like this they are partnered with Lockheed.

I probably know more about the class then you or wikipedia….but thanks.

[AlienB]

Explain the failure of these MILSPEC parts:

Well together we can welcome China to the 1960s.....

Well I agree that we shouldn’t use equipment until rust-out, replacing billion dollar pieces once a decade is not feasible.

Why is a Chevy Cobalt not a 1987 Chevy Silverado?

Because new ones cost more then the maintenance costs associated with our current fleet........

Do they run on elbow grease? And no, the Spanish subsidized shipyard has not completed a single over budgeted sub to date.........And of course the cost are approaching 1 billion per sub, and of course, this does not include support.......As I said, look to Brazil or the RAN for modern SSK costings.

They're too small to suite our needs........and use a French fire control system, sonars etc....

Careful William login shortlived alienB

Have you read the final report and findings from the board of inquiry on the HMCS Chicoutimi fire……..clearly you have not.

Yes, I know......I said as much........Canada doesn't need undersized (French, Chinese or Russian) submarines though today.......

And what does it cost to operate those four boats over ten years, including purchase price? This of course doesn't address that they don't suite our needs....

So? Our Subs are larger and meet our requirements.

So you advocate recycling equipment from the Victoria class and fitting to their eventual replacements……hmm déjà vu strikes again….

I probably know more about the class then you or wikipedia….but thanks.

I think you area seriously underestimating China's technological capacities take for instance their attack helicopter from two years ago the WZ

I could go item for item against the US equipment roster including their new jet which has superior performance to the f35, I sort of expect their other top line stuff to also be superior performance in various roles to US equipment which is burdeoned under a fractured military industrial complex, which in China is state run. I don't see how $2.50 a year is unfeasable for Canadians for 4 new subs every 10 years. I think you are just not budgetting properly or placing your priorities properly. The whole structure you seem to be advocating is rather blind. I have the feeling you don't really have a big picture view of Canada's defence needs or what the budget should be or where money should go and how it should be raised.

As stated costs are something that would need to be worked out but I suspect the newer boats will cost far less than the older boats, particularly in fuel efficiency, which with less tonage means less weight, it also means a smaller target, more manouverability, greater transport potentialse. Likewise it has an air independent system meaning it can stay fully underwater and run for like a month unlike the Victoria Class which needs to snorkle.

Now I'm not saying scrap these today, but quite frankly Canada cannot continue to use them, this is really the end of the road for them. It will take a few years atleast to replace them, but it should be very obvious these things are near the end of their life, and likewise any upgrades or equipment purchased for them should be bought in mind with future repurposing, so that crew will be trained and prepared on the next ship with as little retraining as required. Bear in mind the extra crew might be put on an extra working boat, however you are wrong about, the space, frankly they have around the same crew compliment.

I'm not a submariner I won't pretend to be one. I'm also not a Naval Logistics officer, nor a procurement specialist. To get the numbers down to an actual number would take some time, also it would need to figure out what sub exactly was used. bear in mind, this new sub won't be here tomorrow, it will be 5 or so years from now at minimum. Even Spain's new boats are on a schedule for 2018 or later and they are first in queue for instance for DCN. However the potentials area actually quite limited because there really arn't many subs of these types left being built.

[Guest Derek L]

I think you area seriously underestimating China's technological capacities take for instance their attack helicopter from two years ago the WZ

I could go item for item against the US equipment roster including their new jet which has superior performance to the f35, I sort of expect their other top line stuff to also be superior performance in various roles to US equipment which is burdeoned under a fractured military industrial complex, which in China is state run. I don't see how $2.50 a year is unfeasable for Canadians for 4 new subs every 10 years. I think you are just not budgetting properly or placing your priorities properly. The whole structure you seem to be advocating is rather blind. I have the feeling you don't really have a big picture view of Canada's defence needs or what the budget should be or where money should go and how it should be raised.

And you’re basing your assessment on what? As I said, why are the Chinese trying to purchase or steal all the Western (and Russian) technology they can get their hands on if theirs is superior?

An honour roll student doesn’t cheat off a “C” student…..

As stated costs are something that would need to be worked out but I suspect the newer boats will cost far less than the older boats, particularly in fuel efficiency, which with less tonage means less weight, it also means a smaller target, more manouverability, greater transport potentialse. Likewise it has an air independent system meaning it can stay fully underwater and run for like a month unlike the Victoria Class which needs to snorkle.

Again you clearly don’t know what you’re talking…….Speed, size and manoeuvrability etc are a moot point with submarines when faced against a torpedo travelling 40+ knots………And you clearly don’t understand what AIP brings (and doesn’t bring) to the table……Both diesel and nuclear submarines can recycle their oxygen/CO2 supplies well submerged, but they will snort (periscope depth) to change it out….Also current and proposed AIP systems generate very little power, so little that speed is reduced to nearly steerage and the boat’s hotel requirements can’t be met simultaneously…….

Now I'm not saying scrap these today, but quite frankly Canada cannot continue to use them, this is really the end of the road for them. It will take a few years atleast to replace them, but it should be very obvious these things are near the end of their life, and likewise any upgrades or equipment purchased for them should be bought in mind with future repurposing, so that crew will be trained and prepared on the next ship with as little retraining as required. Bear in mind the extra crew might be put on an extra working boat, however you are wrong about, the space, frankly they have around the same crew compliment.

Again, you’re highlighting your ignorance on this subject……..This is far from the end of the road for the Victoria class, to add, we’ll have three operational by years end (How many do the Spanish have?)……..And space has nothing to do with compliment, but range………You can fit more fuel, weapons and food into a larger submarine…..full stop.

I'm not a submariner I won't pretend to be one. I'm also not a Naval Logistics officer, nor a procurement specialist. To get the numbers down to an actual number would take some time, also it would need to figure out what sub exactly was used. bear in mind, this new sub won't be here tomorrow, it will be 5 or so years from now at minimum. Even Spain's new boats are on a schedule for 2018 or later and they are first in queue for instance for DCN. However the potentials area actually quite limited because there really arn't many subs of these types left being built.

A new Submarine won’t be in Canadian service, at best, until post 2025, more likely 2030.……..As I said, there is no requirement as of yet to replace them, and our navy has far more pressing requirements at the moment.

[AlienB]

And you’re basing your assessment on what? As I said, why are the Chinese trying to purchase or steal all the Western (and Russian) technology they can get their hands on if theirs is superior?

An honour roll student doesn’t cheat off a “C” student…..

Again you clearly don’t know what you’re talking…….Speed, size and manoeuvrability etc are a moot point with submarines when faced against a torpedo travelling 40+ knots………And you clearly don’t understand what AIP brings (and doesn’t bring) to the table……Both diesel and nuclear submarines can recycle their oxygen/CO2 supplies well submerged, but they will snort (periscope depth) to change it out….Also current and proposed AIP systems generate very little power, so little that speed is reduced to nearly steerage and the boat’s hotel requirements can’t be met simultaneously…….

Again, you’re highlighting your ignorance on this subject……..This is far from the end of the road for the Victoria class, to add, we’ll have three operational by years end (How many do the Spanish have?)……..And space has nothing to do with compliment, but range………You can fit more fuel, weapons and food into a larger submarine…..full stop.

A new Submarine won’t be in Canadian service, at best, until post 2025, more likely 2030.……..As I said, there is no requirement as of yet to replace them, and our navy has far more pressing requirements at the moment.

To asses the capabilities of that technology as well as to use if required for false flag activities. Why does the US buy Russian technology? Why do they have Migs, and Assault Rifles etc.. The Chinese are some of the best students out there.

Yes but being a smaller and faster boat that can stay underwater for 100 times the amount of time does assist in not getting detected by a torpedo, and yes size and maneuverability can matter when it comes down to it, although the fact the new sub runs quieter is it right there, also less metal to detect, less sonar to ping etc..

The boats will not be able to fill their mission role 10 years from now.

Those things will be a needle sitting on a table.

Edited July 10, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

To asses the capabilities of that technology as well as to use if required for false flag activities. Why does the US buy Russian technology? Why do they have Migs, and Assault Rifles etc.. The Chinese are some of the best students out there.

The Chinese can’t even copy a reliable high performance jet engine that the Russians designed in the 70s……

Yes but being a smaller and faster boat that can stay underwater for 100 times the amount of time does assist in not getting detected by a torpedo, and yes size and maneuverability can matter when it comes down to it, although the fact the new sub runs quieter is it right there, also less metal to detect, less sonar to ping etc..

A diesel sub can remain underwater to recharge it’s batteries………and with batteries, can power the entire ships electrical requirements and also propel the sub……AIP is a myriad of compromises since it doesn’t generate enough power to operate all the sub‘s systems at once, well only propelling the sub to a max of ~5 knots ………As to noise, an SSK on batteries is quiet, quieter then most modern nuclear submarines, as it will be quieter then a AIP sub that still requires (depending on the AIP system) some form of mechanical movement to generate power……Of course the AIP sub can also operate on battery like the SSK, but that’s kind of defeating the purpose…

At the end of the day, there is no reason that the Victoria's replacements can't have a AIP system incorporated, but as it stands now, there is no reason to replace our current subs today (or the near future), especially with a substandard platform that you have been proposing......

The boats will not be able to fill their mission role 10 years from now.

Says who? Do you even know what their missions are?

Those things will be a needle sitting on a table.

[AlienB]

The Chinese can’t even copy a reliable high performance jet engine that the Russians designed in the 70s……

A diesel sub can remain underwater to recharge it’s batteries………and with batteries, can power the entire ships electrical requirements and also propel the sub……AIP is a myriad of compromises since it doesn’t generate enough power to operate all the sub‘s systems at once, well only propelling the sub to a max of ~5 knots ………As to noise, an SSK on batteries is quiet, quieter then most modern nuclear submarines, as it will be quieter then a AIP sub that still requires (depending on the AIP system) some form of mechanical movement to generate power……Of course the AIP sub can also operate on battery like the SSK, but that’s kind of defeating the purpose…

At the end of the day, there is no reason that the Victoria's replacements can't have a AIP system incorporated, but as it stands now, there is no reason to replace our current subs today (or the near future), especially with a substandard platform that you have been proposing......

Says who? Do you even know what their missions are?

Derek, I havn't actually proposed a platform, I have actually said that the subs need to be replaced because they will be 50 years old by the time they can be replaced if we decide to replace them today.

Step one is accepting the fact these subs need to be replaced, step 2 is getting a sub that will replace them. I am still at step 1. From what I know though I am aware that there are only 3 or 4 subs that will work that are currently in development. Also having a contingency should the subs be damaged or lost is always good. You can't get new upholders.

---------

None the less perhaps you are right... Canada doesn't need new subs, what is the worst thing that can happen?

It is somewhat nonsensical to be paying 1 billion dollars every 10 years for upkeep on 3 subs.

It makes no sense.

It is nearly as much as buying new subs every 10 years. the pricing is rediculous considering the ships only have a few hundred dollars worth of electronics in them. 1990's electronics are madly outdated. GPS etc.. was all the rage 20 years ago, today it is commonplace. Really the subs are dated. They are better than nothing but for a billion or 100 million in upkeep every year?

It seems disproportionate to the role they play in terms of defence spending.

Maybe you can let me know what that 100 million a year is going to. Now this is a drop in the bucket compared to the 350 million in aid given to the afghanistan government for their domestic security.. but 100 million is actually quite a bit of money to upkeep 3 boats each year.

Last I saw their operational duties were docking, and potentially stationary port defence. And other times patrol...

it seems to mostly engage in training exercises.

None the less I am not firm in any position, however I think absence of dialog on post 2020 or even the end of the current service contract needs to be brought into perspective in terms of direction after 15 years of service. I don't think you can really not have an overlap period for the boats even if it means 1 in 1 out.. this is not have new subs tommorrow this is years in advance.

Edited July 11, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

Derek, I havn't actually proposed a platform, I have actually said that the subs need to be replaced because they will be 50 years old by the time they can be replaced if we decide to replace them today.

Step one is accepting the fact these subs need to be replaced, step 2 is getting a sub that will replace them. I am still at step 1. From what I know though I am aware that there are only 3 or 4 subs that will work that are currently in development. Also having a contingency should the subs be damaged or lost is always good. You can't get new upholders.

I thought your frequent trumpeting of the French/Spanish designs was an indication of a leaning on your part…….Glad you haven’t suggested a (current) design, as the French design is flawed (as already indicated) and the other leading “contender”, the German U212/214 family of AIP subs have also had serious issues with both the underpowered and overheating of their AIP fuel cells………Regardless, as I said numerous times, even if both subs worked as intended, they are too small and wouldn’t meet Canadian requirements.

Step one is accepting the fact these subs need to be replaced, step 2 is getting a sub that will replace them. I am still at step 1. From what I know though I am aware that there are only 3 or 4 subs that will work that are currently in development. Also having a contingency should the subs be damaged or lost is always good. You can't get new upholders.

Only you (and a portion of the uniformed media) are at step one........The Navy, the subs crews and our allies actually understand where the subs are in terms of progress………HMCS Victoria had a very good RIMPAC, topped off with a SINKEX, last year……And her two sisters, HMCS Windsor and HMCS Chicoutimi will both be at her level by late 2013 & early 2014.…….Though a long and arduous journey, the RCN investment in terms of money & time has finally started to pay off and the subs are where we expected them to be in terms of capability……..To suggest replacing them now is both ignorant and asinine…..

As such, sub replacements are at the bottom of the RCN’s to-do list……..As demonstrated by the shipbuilding program…….