Government Looking at Mothballing Victoria Class

[AlienB]

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.

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…….

Actually I didn't in anyway suggest the german boat.. it was the spanish/american one that was my second suggestion.

I'm very surprised you are saying they are too small, what exactly is missing, why is such a large crew required? 48 instead of 40.

All I'm seeing is that these things are all due for another ERDP at the end of this decade for a few years, and that to me is the natrual turn over point because that is when the service contract is up.

The other option puts replacement in the mid to late 2020's and in that scenario the subs won't likely be too servicable if there is a problem with the replacements for callback. IMO those are the only two options... either new subs start coming on in about 7 years, or they start coming on in about 12 years.. I can't see these things being the primary and only subs into the 2030's..

perhaps you can share your vision in how these things will perform in that environment?

In either case a multi billion dollar purchasing program should have many years of prior planning 5 years is a slim.. 10 years is where it should be at at least.. and well for 2026 for the last decomisioning that is well 13 years from now, but the first is about 9 or 10 years from now. You seem to be saying these boats should be run into the 2030's, is that what you are saying?

This is a little over 100 million a year to run them.

Edited July 11, 2013 by AlienB

[Army Guy]

Not sure in what context you mean when you say the "US is purchasing Russian tech" i know that the US Army has purchased Russian equipment from not just Russia but other ex soviet block countries, or what they have capture on the battle field, to be used in their OPFOR forces used to their train ground units. But i hav'nt heard the US buying said equipment just to incorporating any Soviet block tech into their designs, and why would they US or western Tech is years ahead of soviet or chinese tech... could you please provide examples of russian or chinese tech that was used in western block designs.

[Guest Derek L]

Actually I didn't in anyway suggest the german boat.. it was the spanish/american one that was my second suggestion.

I'm very surprised you are saying they are too small, what exactly is missing, why is such a large crew required? 48 instead of 40.

Of course you’re surprised, as I said prior, you don’t understand the difference between a Blue Water & Brown water sub……….S-80s as you suggested prior are a small submarine, contrasted with the Victoria/Upholder class that is a scaled down conventional cousin of the Trafalgar class SSN…..

All I'm seeing is that these things are all due for another ERDP at the end of this decade for a few years, and that to me is the natrual turn over point because that is when the service contract is up.

Actually it's EDWP (Extended Docking Work Period) and all vessels, at varying stages of their lives, go through these, and once completed will go through another one in 5-10 years (and so on until retirement)……With the recent contract renewal, the last of that class will get her EDWP in the middle of next decade, and with that completed wouldn’t require another for ~5-10 years or better put, once they’re retired in the late 2020s & early 2030s…………Which will coincide with the (near) completion of the surface combatant replacements…….funny how that works

[AlienB]

Of course you’re surprised, as I said prior, you don’t understand the difference between a Blue Water & Brown water sub……….S-80s as you suggested prior are a small submarine, contrasted with the Victoria/Upholder class that is a scaled down conventional cousin of the Trafalgar class SSN…..

Actually it's EDWP (Extended Docking Work Period) and all vessels, at varying stages of their lives, go through these, and once completed will go through another one in 5-10 years (and so on until retirement)……With the recent contract renewal, the last of that class will get her EDWP in the middle of next decade, and with that completed wouldn’t require another for ~5-10 years or better put, once they’re retired in the late 2020s & early 2030s…………Which will coincide with the (near) completion of the surface combatant replacements…….funny how that works

The thing has a test depth of 700ft what is the Victoria classes test depth? You didn't really answer the question can you go back and answer the question

The schedules are posted online I know when they are listed as. None the less the service contract with Babcock is ticking away..

Edited July 12, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

The thing has a test depth of 700ft what is the Victoria classes test depth? You didn't really answer the question can you go back and answer the question

The schedules are posted online I know when they are listed as. None the less the service contract with Babcock is ticking away..

If you want to know the Victoria classes test depth, simply look up their dive certification…..have fun, but you will need access to the DIN

[AlienB]

If you want to know the Victoria classes test depth, simply look up their dive certification…..have fun, but you will need access to the DIN

I just looked it up, according to wikipedia it is Test depth: 200 m (660 ft) which is more brown than the subs I mentioned, also its dive time is substantially less. What exactly makes a blue water boat to you?

[Guest Derek L]

I just looked it up, according to wikipedia it is Test depth: 200 m (660 ft) which is more brown than the subs I mentioned, also its dive time is substantially less. What exactly makes a blue water boat to you?

A lot deeper then that……..those figures might be closer to their direct predecessors, the old O-boats, but the Victoria’s hull shape and size will be closer to much larger SSN, like say a Trafalgar or Los Angeles class….

[AlienB]

Derek L, on 12 Jul 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

A lot deeper then that……..those figures might be closer to their direct predecessors, the old O-boats, but the Victoria’s hull shape and size will be closer to much larger SSN, like say a Trafalgar or Los Angeles class….

hmm that was the figures for the hmcs victoria ... I'm not talking crush depth I'm talking test depth. Perhaps you can dispute the wikipedia article if you think it is inaccurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Victoria

Edited July 12, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

hmm that was the figures for the hmcs victoria ... I'm not talking crush depth I'm talking test depth. Perhaps you can dispute the wikipedia article if you think it is inaccurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Victoria

It's wikipedia, and no, the RN and RCN wouldn't release those figure to the public.........With that said, read the quoted passage:

and has a deep diving depth in excess of 200 meters.

[AlienB]

It's wikipedia, and no, the RN and RCN wouldn't release those figure to the public.........With that said, read the quoted passage:

Scorpene test depth is

>300 metres (980 ft)

[Guest Derek L]

Scorpene test depth is

>300 metres (980 ft)

Did someone tell you that from DCN?

[AlienB]

Did someone tell you that from DCN?

that's what wikipedia said. Are you suggesting someone is putting up false test depths, underestimating the Victoria, and overestimating the scorpene?

Who would do that in English?

Edited July 14, 2013 by AlienB

[Guest Derek L]

that's what wikipedia said. Are you suggesting someone is putting up false test depths, underestimating the Victoria, and overestimating the scorpene?

Who would do that in English?

No, I’m saying that wikipedia is misinformed and is forced to speculate………Simply put, both the British and Canadian Governments have not, nor will release that specific kind of information, hence why the Wiki quote states in “excess of 200 meters”………for perspective, a World War II German type VII U-boat and the Victoria’s predecessors, the Oberon class, both had test depths in excess of 200 meters…….

The Victoria/Upholder class share a hull form with the British Trafalgar class SSN, which was an advancement of the now retired (hence now declassified) Swiftsure Class SSN, which had a test depth of about 800 meters…..

[Guest Derek L]

Though slightly off-topic, the story of the USN nuclear attack boat the USS Miami offers a comparison to the costs associated with operating (and repairing) a submarine force:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08/07/navy-drops-plans-to-repair-uss-miami-sub/?test=latestnews

The Navy has decided that it will not repair the nuclear-powered submarine USS Miami after concluding that the cost of repairing damage from a fire set by a civilian worker is more than it can afford due to mandated budget cuts.

The decision to scrap the Groton, Conn.-based sub comes after a damage assessment by the Navy found that estimated repair costs, originally estimated to be about $450 million, have risen dramatically, a Navy official told The Military Times.

Rear Adm. Rick Breckenridge, director of undersea warfare, said Tuesday that repairing the submarine would have meant canceling work on dozens of other ships because of new budget constraints. He said that would've hurt the Navy's overall readiness.

Though it touches a tiny bit on the cause of the fire in the first paragraph, a touch more detail:

A shipyard worker, Casey James Fury, of Portsmouth, N.H., was sentenced to 17 years in prison after admitting he set fire to the Miami, which was in dry dock during a 20-month overhaul at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine.

It took 12 hours and the efforts of more than 100 firefighters to save the Los Angeles-class attack submarine. Seven people were hurt.

I heard one rumor that suggests Fury's motivation for setting the fire.......he wanted to get off work early

Politics aside, as mentioned in the article, the Miami still has had at least 10 years of service left, on a boat that's 23 years old, quite a hit for the USN in some ways, well in others, saving both the money to be spent on repairing her and operating her for the rest of her service, will likely save or extended the life of other USN vessels..........

[Guest Derek L]

And to those that think Russian material is a viable option:

http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21583699-week-triumph-and-tragedy-indias-navy-all-sea

The cause of the explosion on the 16-year-old Sindhurakshak, built in Russia, is not yet known for certain. But it is likely to be the result of hydrogen gas leaking during the recharging of the batteries that propel the Kilo-class submarine when it is submerged. A fire seems to have spread to the missile compartment: the Sindhurakshak carries Russian Klub-S cruise missiles, which have a range of about 200 kilometres (125 miles). That triggered a series of explosions that resulted in the submarine sinking and, according to some reports, the launch of two torpedoes that struck other vessels (including another submarine) in the dockyard. Internal bulkheads were destroyed by the force of the explosions, trapping or drowning the crew

.

From what I’ve heard, the several hatches actually are believed to have melted……..

The Sindhurakshak had been reintroduced to service only in April after a refit in Russia, but it also suffered a battery-related fire in 2010 that killed a sailor. With nine other Kilo-class boats in the 14-strong submarine fleet, navy investigators will need to find out quickly whether the accident was caused by faulty manufacturing or by sloppy operation. The temptation will be to blame Russian quality control (with some reason). However, the Indian navy has a poor accident record, with several mishaps in recent years. In 2008 another Kilo-class boat collided with a merchant ship when it was exercising off Mumbai, and in 2011 a frigate, the Vindhyagiri, capsized after yet another collision at sea near Mumbai

In the cases of both the HMCS Chicoutimi and USS Miami, the fires were attributed to human error/malfeasance…….Who’s to say with Russian equipment, in Indian hands….

Yet despite this week’s embarrassing tragedy, it is the symbolic importance of the Arihantand the Vikrant that will live on. India’s navy is generally far behind China’s in overall size and capability, but it is actually ahead when it comes to operating carriers. Its ambition to be a serious blue-water force still burns brightly.

But only ever so slightly.......

[Topaz]

The Canadian miltary is a mess and the Tories better do something more for the CRNavy, since we have three coast to look after. The US is looking more to thier western coast because of problems down the road like with China. http://www.canada.com/opinion/op-ed/Canada+needs+navy+21st+century/8788350/story.html

[Guest Derek L]

And some news on this topic:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/rebuilt-hmcs-chicoutimi-submarine-to-return-to-navy-1.2486251

Chicoutimi has been fully repaired and upgraded, says the navy's top commander.

It entered the water in late November after three years of work at Victoria Shipyards Co. Ltd., a return that is about two years behind the navy's original schedule.

The submarine is in the process of being turned over to the military and the crew is expected to begin sea trial in waters off Esquimalt, B.C. over the next few weeks, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman told The Canadian Press in a recent interview.

[bush_cheney2004]

Has it really been 10 years ? We use to have a teasing phrase between nuclear and diesel boat crews actually getting underway back in the 80's:

(USS) Harder, Darter, Trigger, Trout

Always in and never out.

[Guest Derek L]

Has it really been 10 years ? We use to have a teasing phrase between nuclear and diesel boat crews actually getting underway back in the 80's:

(USS) Harder, Darter, Trigger, Trout

Always in and never out.

Yup……in fairness to the boats themselves, manpower and fiscal restraints can be attributed to most of the delays…

[bush_cheney2004]

Yup……in fairness to the boats themselves, manpower and fiscal restraints can be attributed to most of the delays…

OK...but if the boat (sub) was still in commission, then a crew (ship's force) would still have been attached, even in reduced numbers. If sea trials go well, they still have another dockside availability to complete and crew work up / certification phase to complete (e.g. MK48 range quals). Another year at least....

[Guest Derek L]

OK...but if the boat (sub) was still in commission, then a crew (ship's force) would still have been attached, even in reduced numbers. If sea trials go well, they still have another dockside availability to complete and crew work up / certification phase to complete (e.g. MK48 range quals). Another year at least....

I’m talking wide angle…….the entire fleet has been delayed due to funds and personal being stretched thin for the GWOT, all the while Chicoutimi’s fate was uncertain……..For the Chicoutimi itself, yeah, a year sounds about right, but most of the crew will have been pulled from another sub (IIRC HMCS Corner Brook)……..As to the mk48 quals themselves, Nanoose Bay is only a day trip up-island…

[PIK]

The Canadian miltary is a mess and the Tories better do something more for the CRNavy, since we have three coast to look after. The US is looking more to thier western coast because of problems down the road like with China. http://www.canada.com/opinion/op-ed/Canada+needs+navy+21st+century/8788350/story.html

The military was a complete disaster before harper came along and he is doing his best to build it back up with breaking the bank. At least he cares, because the liberals certainly did not have any respect for the military. So agin this brings me to ask what the hell did chretien do for 13 yrs, because harper seems to be stuck with problems that we had during chretiens reign of darkness. Loopk at what the forces had when they 1st went to afghanistan compared to what they had when it was over. Edited January 9, 2014 by PIK

[Guest Derek L]

The military was a complete disaster before harper came along and he is doing his best to build it back up with breaking the bank. At least he cares, because the liberals certainly did not have any respect for the military. So agin this brings me to ask what the hell did chretien do for 13 yrs, because harper seems to be stuck with problems that we had during chretiens reign of darkness. Loopk at what the forces had when they 1st went to afghanistan compared to what they had when it was over.

In fairness, a good portion of both completed and ongoing defence programs were started under the Liberal governments of the early 2000s (F-35, replacements for the navy, MHP and FWSAR), with the Conservatives transforming & carrying on with said programs (well mostly constrained to a minority government), well fighting a war, all the while initiating programs under their tenure through namely sole source contracts that have been completed or are in the process of (Leopard II tanks, Chinooks, Globemasters, 155mm artillery, MRAPS etc)

Of course the Liberal initiated programs are still ongoing and often the target of the Opposition, but there you go.

[bleeding heart]

Just as a point of order, I don't think that "GWOT" is any longer the preferred nomenclature...just as well, since the term is a monumental joke anyway.

[Guest Derek L]

Just as a point of order, I don't think that "GWOT" is any longer the preferred nomenclature...just as well, since the term is a monumental joke anyway.

Of course said reference was to the decade preceding……..