Amur Class,Type 214 and Scorpène-class submarine Comparison

Francis

New Member
Most of us know that in 1998 Canada had bought four British mothballed submarines , but state of the art Upholder-class diesel-electric submarines that were made surplus by the Royal Navy's decision to operate only nuclear-powered submarines such as the Trafalgar-class boats. In October 5, 2004 one of the four submarines HMCS Chicoutimi had a partial flooding incident which killed a sailor and injured others. because the Upholder-class diesel-electric submarines are from the cold war and more than a decade old , In my opinion they should be replaced but if the Canadian Navy is given the chance to buy a new class of submarines by the Canadian Government what class of submarine should they buy? Only 3 countries export Air Indendent Propulsion Submarines. Russia's Amur Class , Germany's Type 214 and France's Scorpène-class submarine. What submarine should Canada buy. According to my sources the Amur Class is cheaper and has the same capabilities as the Scorpène and the Type 214. But is this claim true ? and what are the true features of the Amur Class Submarine and does it pass the test as a killer of the deep? and does it have a chance agianst the type 214 and the Scorpène-class submarine?

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

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214_submarine
 

Rich

Member
Can you see Canadians operating Russian submarines? I cant! I also think there is a very real chance the Canadians will sink their sub navy. They have done it at various times in the past and the last time I checked they had only one Victoria class even capable of operations, "and then that tragic fire"? And now? I think the real question here is "Does Canada have the support for another class of SSk"?

I hope so. The SSK is pretty much a perfect boat for an arctic navy, especially one that has such a vast coastline as its responsibility.
 

Francis

New Member
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #3
Can you see Canadians operating Russian submarines? I cant! I also think there is a very real chance the Canadians will sink their sub navy. They have done it at various times in the past and the last time I checked they had only one Victoria class even capable of operations, "and then that tragic fire"? And now? I think the real question here is "Does Canada have the support for another class of SSk"?

I hope so. The SSK is pretty much a perfect boat for an arctic navy, especially one that has such a vast coastline as its responsibility.
I approve of what you are saying. But why is the Canadain Submarine fleet so '' obsolete '' and ill-equiped?
 

Francois

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
I approve of what you are saying. But why is the Canadain Submarine fleet so '' obsolete '' and ill-equiped?
I also wonder why the 'Upholder' class can't be updated and brought up to the same sort of capability as say the RAN's 'Collins' class. The 'Upholder' class was originally built to replace the RN's 'O' class at the same time as Australia chose the Kockum's design for the same purpose, so they are of similar design vintage.

I agree that air independent propulsion should be a must when the time comes for new Canadian SSKs but maybe that time has not quite arrived.

Cheers

:confused:
 

Francois

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Aip?

From Rickusn on another forum:
SSK stealth is partially a myth. WHy do I say that? Because it is usually very temporary.

(1) A state of the art SSK has a maximum endurance of about 400km at about 4 knots on its batteries. You don't get anywhere at 4 knots and you certainly are not going to be very successful chasing your quarry at that speed. You also do not typically run your batteries 95% flat before a recharge. Rather you tend to do it at conventient times when you don't think there is anyone around to find and kill you. When you surface to run your diesels you have very little stealthy on your side. You are noisy and at periscope depth. In fact, every other thing aside, running fast and near the surface is doubly bad acoustically because your screw cavitate like hell near the surface whereas at depth the water pressures migates the formation of vaccum pockets on the trailing edged of your screw reducing or eliminating cavitation. Radars can find your snorkel, SSNs and ASW ships can hear your from a long way off and aircrafts can literally see you at that depth. You are basically exposing yourself!

(2) There is always the option of AIPs. The problem is that firstly AIPs, probably with exception of the Fuel Cell, is not as silent as motors on batteries. The sterling is a reciprocating piston engine running of separately heated working gas. The Close cycle diesel is exactly that a diesel engine running on diesel fuel, oxygen and part of its recycled exhaust. The MESMA is a steam turbine running on the products of alcohol-oxygen combustion. They all make more noise than a battery does and they all have exhausts to get rid of. The worst thing howeveris that power density is in usually horrible enough that cruise speed on AIP is no better than 5-6 knots and there is every little power left over to recharge the batteries in a timely manner. The Fuel Cell which is the quietest AIP setup also happens to have the worst energy density by a long shot... large PEM stacks, large LOX tanks and huge LH2 tanks, all for less energy yield than the combustion type AIPs. In the end what it means is that AIP boats usually transit or maneuver tactically by running their diesels and running on the surface or at snorkel depth to get close to their quary. In a real war with a massive navy like the USN, a lot of them will be picked off while doing this by ASW aircraft and a forward screen of SSNs.

(3) The other fallacy is that batteries and electric motor equals total silence. This is nonsense. In fact, it is frequently not flow noise and propeller noise which shows up most prominently on a sonar system when an SSK is picked up. It is frequently the inverter buzz from the switching inverters which the SSK uses to convert its DC battery power to AC current to run its motors with. Just about all high power motors are AC induction motors.

(4) The last thing when cosidering using diesels against a major surface action group is that all the silencing advantage is useless against active sonar which is routinely employed on ASW helos and once they catch a glimpse of you, an SSK has neither the speed on the endurance to slip away. Once found you are usually dead meat.
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?t=30564
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I also wonder why the 'Upholder' class can't be updated and brought up to the same sort of capability as say the RAN's 'Collins' class. The 'Upholder' class was originally built to replace the RN's 'O' class at the same time as Australia chose the Kockum's design for the same purpose, so they are of similar design vintage.

The Upholders were rejected outright by RAN. In 1999 I attended a DPConf in Canberra where VAdm Barrie gave a 2 hour response as to why we had persevered with Collins over Upholder. It had been suggested by the well informed Oz press (fed by vested interests in both industry and opponents in RAN) that we get the Upholders as an interim second squadron whilst the Collins were sorted out due to the stuff ups by the Swedes. The theory was abandon 7 and 8 and buy the Ups as a short squadron.

I believe I've posted the reasons on here in the past.

I agree that air independent propulsion should be a must when the time comes for new Canadian SSKs but maybe that time has not quite arrived.
The tests run for Collins found no meaningful improvement or benefit in going to AIP. Thats why the AIP systems are sitting on pallets in a corner of ASC. They're australias most expensive paperweights.
 
Last edited:

aaaditya

New Member
The Upholders were rejected outright by RAN. In 1999 I attended a DPConf in Canberra where VAdm Barrie gave a 2 hour response as to why we had persevered with Collins over Upholder. It had been suggested by the well informed Oz press (fed by vested interests in both industry and opponents in RAN) that we get the Upholders as an interim second squadron whilst the Collins were sorted out due to the stuff ups by the Swedes. The theory was abandon 7 and 8 and buy the Ups as a short squadron.

I believe I've posted the reasons on here in the past.



The tests run for Collins found no meaningful improvement or benefit in going to AIP. Thats why the AIP systems are sitting on pallets in a corner of ASC. They're australias most expensive paperweights.
what about pem or mesma were they evaluated with respect to the stirling?
 

Rich

Member
I approve of what you are saying. But why is the Canadain Submarine fleet so '' obsolete '' and ill-equiped?
I never said "obsolete" or "ill equipped". Please dont use words and phrases I never said. If you re-read my post you will see I said that the last time I checked the Canadians only had one of their SSKs actually operating. One being severely damaged in a fire and the other two down for various mechanical/repair reasons. Having only one of your new SSKs actually working shows either budgetary stress or a lack of importance placed on submarines by command and Political leadership.

I made no comment on the capability of the system itself.

Canada's history, current situation, and potential future procurements is what leads me to believe the Victorias will be the last SSK they will ever own. If you have any information they are seriously considering a replacement for the Victorias then please link it here.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
what about pem or mesma were they evaluated with respect to the stirling?
They weren't directly reviewed against Stirling cycle solutions, but they have come up for review as part of the normal post build improvement assessment process.

They've also been looked at as part of the eval for the Collins replacement.

There is no vision of using AIP in Collins of any type. The existing battery and recharge efficiencies make it redundant. The Collins battery bank is highly efficient.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
Can you see Canadians operating Russian submarines? I cant! I also think there is a very real chance the Canadians will sink their sub navy. They have done it at various times in the past and the last time I checked they had only one Victoria class even capable of operations, "and then that tragic fire"? And now? I think the real question here is "Does Canada have the support for another class of SSk"?

I hope so. The SSK is pretty much a perfect boat for an arctic navy, especially one that has such a vast coastline as its responsibility.
Rich

What is the main role for SSKs in the Canadian Navy?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the 'O' class that preceded the 'Victorias' were acquired mainly to provide anti submarine training for the surface fleet. This would have supported the navy's then role as a primarily ASW force. If this is still the case the fact that only one boat may be operational at any one time would not be a major issue.

On the other hand does the Canadian Navy still have ASW as its main priority and do the 'Victorias' now have an offensive or ASW role themselves?

I agree with you re the value of the SSK to an arctic navy.

Cheers
 

contedicavour

New Member
Rich

What is the main role for SSKs in the Canadian Navy?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought that the 'O' class that preceded the 'Victorias' were acquired mainly to provide anti submarine training for the surface fleet. This would have supported the navy's then role as a primarily ASW force. If this is still the case the fact that only one boat may be operational at any one time would not be a major issue.

On the other hand does the Canadian Navy still have ASW as its main priority and do the 'Victorias' now have an offensive or ASW role themselves?

I agree with you re the value of the SSK to an arctic navy.

Cheers
I still remember when the Canadian government was considering in the late '80s a class of up to 12 SSNs...
Today's Canadian government is making its armed forces more mobile and more overseas missions - oriented. I see LHDs and LPDs, not SSKs in Canada's future... and more AAW and less ASW focus for whatever will come after the Halifax FFGs.

cheers
 

aaaditya

New Member
I still remember when the Canadian government was considering in the late '80s a class of up to 12 SSNs...
Today's Canadian government is making its armed forces more mobile and more overseas missions - oriented. I see LHDs and LPDs, not SSKs in Canada's future... and more AAW and less ASW focus for whatever will come after the Halifax FFGs.

cheers
i believe ,that the lack of a credible submarine force would leave canadian navy vulnerable,for example should canada take the side of usa in the event of a sino-us war,they would be quite vulnerable to the chinese submarine force,which has a lot of ssk's and the distance between china and canada isnt much.
 

Waylander

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
Yeah, Chinese SSKs have nothing better to do than lurking all the way to the Canadian coast and threaten their fishing harbours while the whole USN is hunting them and bombing their coastline to pieces. :rolleyes:
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I'll take Canadian ASW capability over Chinese submarine capability anytime.

While Canada is small and sometimes the forgotten North American partner, in NATO circles Canadian ASW (and MIW) capability has been premier for decades. It isn't an accident the Canadian Navy, which has not expressed any public interest in the LCS, is a primary partner in the LCS MIW and ASW module development.

The USN learned long ago that in order to keep up with the best you team up with the best and imitate them. Another example of this is the six to ten warships that go to Neptune Warrior every cycle, or the emphasis on ASW exercises early in deployments involving allies in the Pacific off Hawaii and Guam. Both Guam and Hawaii are out of the way for the Japanese and Australians, yet to the benefit of the USN both countries make the trip with their conventionals a couple times a year.
 

Tasman

Ship Watcher
Verified Defense Pro
I'll take Canadian ASW capability over Chinese submarine capability anytime.
Galrahn

I agree completely re the expertise of the Canadians in ASW. I greatly admire the enormous contribution made to the winning of the Battle of the Atlantic by the RCN in WW2. Since that time Canada has continued to develop excellent ASW platforms of indigenous design. I would certainly want Canada on my side in any ASW campaign.

Cheers
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Galrahn

I agree completely re the expertise of the Canadians in ASW. I greatly admire the enormous contribution made to the winning of the Battle of the Atlantic by the RCN in WW2. Since that time Canada has continued to develop excellent ASW platforms of indigenous design. I would certainly want Canada on my side in any ASW campaign.

Cheers
The canadians have always been a solid outfit. Look at how often they've given RAAF, RAF and RNZF a run for their money at Fincastle - and thats with a hybrid S3 suite on their Orions (Auroras).
 

Galrahn

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
The canadians have always been a solid outfit. Look at how often they've given RAAF, RAF and RNZF a run for their money at Fincastle - and thats with a hybrid S3 suite on their Orions (Auroras).
And that is why it is so hard to play the 'who is the best' card this forum thankfully doesn't allow forum posters to do. In the case of Canadian ASW, it is about people and practice, not equipment.

How the heck do you measure that?

Empirically, you can't.
 

gf0012-aust

Grumpy Old Man
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Empirically, you can't.
absolutely. one of the reasons why we're hard on pecker competitions in this forum is because "x vs y" threads make it easier for the enthusiastic and less experienced members to focus on the kit and thus not understand that comparisons are always far more complex than godzilla vs gigantor type scenarios.

at crunch time it's always training, training, training. not toys, toys, toys.
 
Top