Canuck Sub In Distress Off Irish Coast

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-05 12:43pm

Just breaking.

BBC News

Submarine issues call for help

A major rescue effort has been launched off Ireland after a Canadian submarine asked for assistance.

The Canadian Defence Force said HMCS Chicoutimi had suffered a mechanical failure and its crew were all safe.

A Royal Air Force Nimrod has been diverted to the area and a search and rescue helicopter from the Royal Navy base in Ayrshire is on its way.

The submarine, which was bought from Britain, is not nuclear-powered or carrying nuclear warheads.

The request for assistance came from the vessel some 100 miles north west of Ireland.

Neil Smith, a spokesman for the Faslane submarine base on the Clyde, said that Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessel Wave Knight had been turned round and was on its way to the scene.

A Type 23 frigate, HMS Montrose, is being sent from Faslane, accompanied by tug boat support.

"At this moment in time we don't have the exact details," said Mr Smith.

"We are in communication with the people on board.

"We are doing everything we can to assist them, and at this moment in time my colleagues are working hard to make sure that happens as quickly as possible."

Hope they work everything out. First thing I thought was another Kursk.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2004-10-05 12:58pm

The Irish don't have any helocopters to aid in the rescue?

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-05 12:59pm

I see those used lemon-boats we bought from the Brits are still working just as well as usual...

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-05 01:20pm

Not be having such problems if it were an Upholder class at least.

Ligier · Post by **Ligier** » 2004-10-05 01:26pm

Oh, the shame. OK, so our subs aren't exactly hot stuff. What's the rest of the fleet like? Any good?

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-05 01:29pm

Ligier wrote:Oh, the shame. OK, so our subs aren't exactly hot stuff. What's the rest of the fleet like? Any good?

Ahhh, I'll leave others to fill you in on the (grim) news.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2004-10-05 01:38pm

Why do the Canadians feel they need subs? They have their neighbor to the south to protect them from errant ice flows and polar bears right?

On a serious note I hope those sailors will be fine.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2004-10-05 01:48pm

why do you think they still have a naval base in the great lakes?

yes, they tend to remember that little invasion in 1812....

Ligier · Post by **Ligier** » 2004-10-05 01:51pm

CBC source.

Three submariners inhaled fumes, but there were no serious injuries, said Halifax-based military spokesman Mike Bonin.

Looks like they'll will be alright.

And I echo Stravo's statement, "why do we need subs?" I always thought subs were more of an offensive thing: sink other subs, do battle with surface ships, etc.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-05 01:54pm

Ligier wrote:
Looks like they'll will be alright.

And I echo Stravo's statement, "why do we need subs?" I always thought subs were more of an offensive thing: sink other subs, do battle with surface ships, etc.

Diesel-electric SSKs are ideal for smaller nations doing stealthy patrols in littoral waters. They're even quieter than the more expensive nucleat SSN hunter-killers and far cheaper, but don't have the endurance. If Canada were to be attacked by sea, then they'd be pivotal in stopping any amphibious operations. But no one is going to invade so long as the US and Commonwealth has a say in the matter.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-10-05 01:57pm

Stravo wrote:Why do the Canadians feel they need subs? They have their neighbor to the south to protect them from errant ice flows and polar bears right?

On a serious note I hope those sailors will be fine.

They use the subs to do ASW training.

Ma Deuce · Post by **Ma Deuce** » 2004-10-05 02:18pm

Oh, the shame. OK, so our subs aren't exactly hot stuff. What's the rest of the fleet like? Any good?

The bulk of our fleet vessels consists of 12 Halifax class frigates, built between 1992-1996. These ships are 1,100 tons heavier than their closest US equivilent, the Oliver Hazard Perry class guided-missile frigates, but have a much lighter armament. The Halifax class is designed mostly for anti-submarine warfare (ASW).

Next are the 4 Iriqouis-class destroyers, whcih were built during the '70s. With the indroduction of the Halifax, these were relegated to the role of "air defence destroyers", but they only have a fraction of the capability as modern air defence vessels, especially ones equipped with the AEGIS air defence system, such as the US Arleigh Burke or Ticonderoga class vessels, or the Japanese Kongo class. The Iriqouis are going to be replaced by a program called CADRE (Command-and-Control and Air-Defence Capability Replacement), which is inteneded to produce a modern air defence and command vessel for the RCN.

Next are the two Protecteur-class Auxillary Oil Replenishment (AOR) vessels. Like the Iriqouis-class, these are showing their age, and are scheduled to be replaced by "Joint Support Vessels", which are supposed to be more versatle than the Protecteurs, in that they can also do things like transport armored vehicles.

We also have such minor vessels as the 12 Kingston-class coastal-defence vessels (built '94-'96), but these aren't worth much mention since they are aren't really warships, seeing that they're only armed with one 40mm gun and two .50cal machineguns.

Stravo wrote:Why do the Canadians feel they need subs? They have their neighbor to the south to protect them from errant ice flows and polar bears right?

Well, for one thing there's the fact that the bulk of our surface fleet (12 Halifax-class helicopter frigates) are ASW vessels, and thus we need to have something for them to practice against...

Lonestar · Post by **Lonestar** » 2004-10-05 03:11pm

Hope the Bubbleheads are okay. Doesn't sound like anything worse than a plain old fire, which is more common on naval vessels than you might think.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-05 05:26pm

Ligier wrote: Looks like they'll will be alright.

And I echo Stravo's statement, "why do we need subs?" I always thought subs were more of an offensive thing: sink other subs, do battle with surface ships, etc.

An SSK is nothing more then a mobile minefield in a modern naval war. Basically you bring your SSK to a location and wait for targets to sail by. Depending on the location you wait at the sub could be in an offensive or defensive role, but generally it will be defensive. In the case of these specific boats, the British built them to lie in wait for Soviet subs transiting into the Atlantic in the GIUK gap

An SSK lacks the endurance to actually seek out targets while running submerged, and while snorkeling such a boat is very easy to detect. Modern ASW forces have sonar that can potentially hear and SSK's diesel engines at a range of 100 miles. The SSK can't run, and hiding will only have a chance of working if the enemy doesn't use active sonar. But because an attacking plane or SSN has a mobility advantage unmatched by the SSK it can easily just blast away with active sonar until it finds the thing, then fire a torpedo and sink it. And once weapons are in the water, an SSK really has no chance of surviving. Even if it can evade one weapon, it still can't run away and another and another will follow. And while the SSN can keep up the running game for as long as it wants, the SSK is running on limited battery power. It might be able to go for a few hundred hours at low speeds, but high-speed evasive maneuvers could burn though that in a few hours, forcing it to death at the surface. An SSK with AIP power is much better off, but few SSK's have AIP and that still leaves them with very limited speed and endurance.

Exmoor Cat · Post by **Exmoor Cat** » 2004-10-05 06:05pm

Am watching the updates. Skimmer, why does that post remind me of Tom Clancy'sSubmarine, specifically the 'rogue' Algerian SSK v a Trafalgar class scenario?

aerius · Post by **aerius** » 2004-10-05 06:21pm

News says it was an electrical fire which was soon put out, 9 crewmen had minor smoke inhalation and the sub is currently waiting for a tow.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-05 06:21pm

Exmoor Cat wrote:Am watching the updates. Skimmer, why does that post remind me of Tom Clancy'sSubmarine, specifically the 'rogue' Algerian SSK v a Trafalgar class scenario?

Because that scenario is a 'well duh' type of event.

Exmoor Cat · Post by **Exmoor Cat** » 2004-10-05 06:25pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:
Exmoor Cat wrote:Am watching the updates. Skimmer, why does that post remind me of Tom Clancy'sSubmarine, specifically the 'rogue' Algerian SSK v a Trafalgar class scenario?
Because that scenario is a 'well duh' type of event.

The phrasing was pretty close. The other 'well duh' advantage you forgot is of course, they are cheap.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-05 06:41pm

Exmoor Cat wrote:
The phrasing was pretty close. The other 'well duh' advantage you forgot is of course, they are cheap.

Lots of pieces of military equipment are cheep, that doesn't mean they are necessarily going to be good investments. That lower cost is the result of radically reduced capability. and the price isn't even that low these days, new SSK's are going for over a half billion dollars each now. The USN's new Virginias are going for 2.5 billion, but the gap in capability is just enormous.

Exmoor Cat · Post by **Exmoor Cat** » 2004-10-05 07:53pm

TYHe Russiansare still putting them out on the export market. IIRC, Algeria got some recently, as did India.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-05 08:04pm

Ma Deuce wrote: The Iriqouis are going to be replaced by a program called CADRE (Command-and-Control and Air-Defence Capability Replacement), which is inteneded to produce a modern air defence and command vessel for the RCN.

Yeah right. If we use the TCCCS program as an example we won't get the new DDG'd for 35 years.

Next are the two Protecteur-class Auxillary Oil Replenishment (AOR) vessels. Like the Iriqouis-class, these are showing their age, and are scheduled to be replaced by "Joint Support Vessels", which are supposed to be more versatle than the Protecteurs, in that they can also do things like transport armored vehicles.

See above. You'll have to excuse me, my service has left a bitter taste in my mouth.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-05 08:05pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: Lots of pieces of military equipment are cheep, that doesn't mean they are necessarily going to be good investments. That lower cost is the result of radically reduced capability. and the price isn't even that low these days, new SSK's are going for over a half billion dollars each now. The USN's new Virginias are going for 2.5 billion, but the gap in capability is just enormous.

Aren't SSK's quieter when using their diesels than SSN's are? So if a target happens across them they may not detect them.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2004-10-05 08:10pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Aren't SSK's quieter when using their diesels than SSN's are? So if a target happens across them they may not detect them.

If they're using their diesels then they're either surfaced or at a depth to use the snorkel, in which case they're one big radar/IR blip asking for a bomb of some kind.

They utilise their stealthy electric drives underwater which can be quieter than nukes.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-10-05 08:28pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:
If they're using their diesels then they're either surfaced or at a depth to use the snorkel, in which case they're one big radar/IR blip asking for a bomb of some kind.

They utilise their stealthy electric drives underwater which can be quieter than nukes.

My bad. What I meant was: aren't they quieter when using their electrics. If their snorkels are covered in RAM, which I believe most are then radar signature shouldn't be an issue. As for the IR, don't the exhuast outlets have an IR baffle?

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2004-10-05 09:04pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
My bad. What I meant was: aren't they quieter when using their electrics. If their snorkels are covered in RAM, which I believe most are then radar signature shouldn't be an issue.

RAM is used on snorkels and periscopes, but it tends to get worn away by seawater. However becuase of the low height of those two things, they are still very hard to detect via radar.

A diesel sub is quieter when moving on electrical power at VERY low speeds, 2-3 knots at most, a speed sufficient for station keeping only, generally its only going to be superior with the propulsion plant completely shut down. Thus the mobile minefield value of such boats. An SSN meanwhile can move quite quietly of speeds up to 25 knots, even if it can't be as absolutely quite when stationary because it needs to keep pumps going to cool the reactor.

The problem with that advantage however, if that it can only last for a few days before the sub needs to snorkel, and current ASW doctrine for hunting SSK's basically calls for you to blast away wit active sonar. Once that happens, the SSK's silencing advantage is utterly irrelevant. And the SSK's in ability to flee quickly from an engagement or to move quickly in general, plus its generally lower capability across the board, makes it much more vulnerable to active sonar directed hunting and attacks.

As for the IR, don't the exhuast outlets have an IR baffle?

Detecting subs with infrared systems simply doesn't work (aside from say spotting a periscope or snorkel on the surface with FLIR), though that hasn't stopped people from proposing dozens of different systems for the task. The exhaust of an SSK's diesels gets mixed with seawater and is dumped underwater, so there is no plum of heat rising above the surface, and the heat from an SSN's reactor cooling system is too weak and quickly mixed with cool seawater to be noticeable at any range. There have also been crackpot IR based ASW plans to use satellites to detect the differences in surface water temperature caused by a submarines passage stirring things up. That doesn't work either. About the only non-acoustical ASW system, bedsides radar and infrared detection of periscopes, that holds much promise is a blue green laser to which seawater would be transparent. However that technology is a long way off, and will probably have a lot of trouble detecting whales.