what is the "best" high endurance SSK

Well, Chicoutimi is banned for sea now, and is going to preserve.
Would have been a good boat though.
Only funny thing is that the first thing canadians did when they got them was to remove the FCs and replace it with the one that was in the old O-class.

KJ, japanese are, culturally, serving their boats with more crew then others.
Doesn’t mean it is a bad thing though, as we can say they are a model for social life.
For T-471, it was a requirement from Ozzie DoD to have a small crew. Mainly because they find it hard to field ppl in.

The last itteration of the Kilo is 2,600ton – not that big.

The older ones are 3,000tons, but they have that double hull that makes them cramped like a type-VII.
Walrus had their share of problems too.

Anyway, what is this about steel that doesn’t rust? :confused: Every ship owner in the world, commercial or military, or operator of offshore rigs and equipment in coastal areas would love to know :rolleyes:

Well, if you buy boats never commissioned properly that have sat rusting and decaying for a decade and don’t do a proper evaluation of whether you have the capabilities to re-activate the things don’t blame anybody else for the f**k up. Same with hatches, if the crew don’t maintain good sea discipline then don’t point fingers at others.

Are these the only non-soviet type ocean going SSK’s in the world?

Oyashio class
Collins class
Walrus class

Do you guys have any data on their patrol endurance?

Hmm, I think I’ve seen a picture of Sub-Harpoon inside Walrus (in KIJK, I know, very basic mag, but excellent pictures 😉 and interesting stories if you’re not interested in the real details )

That is entirely possible because the RNthN does practise with ’em. They just don’t own any :rolleyes:

Both Collin and Oyashio are over 3000ton, as is newer Kilo, if I’m not mistaken. Oyashio, however, always seem to carry a bit of excess crew complement of over 70, whereas bigger Collins carry some 40? crew and officer I believe? The number of crewmen should have a lot of issue.

Hallo,

Yes I’d like you to find something that is unrelated to a boat thats spent 10 years laid up alongside without reserve maintenance. The majority of the faults listed were found on sea trials. That is the whole reason why ships undergo sea trials!. The article is obviously written by someone with zero knowledge of ships.

The four subs was supposidly 700 million cdn but price rose exceedingly to 900 mill cdn and was three years overdue… thats what i call a lemon.

Are you aware of the finance deal that the Canadian Forces got though?. The bartering agreement that was set up to allow UK forces use of Canadian training facilities as part payment for the lease ring any bells?. The actual cash outlay for the subs was ridiculously small.

A single ‘dent’ in one ship!?. :confused:

Corrosion???. What ship that isnt undergoing routine maintenance doesnt suffer from rusting?! Plus, seeings as the problem with Chicoutami was a bit worse than the others (hardly suprising seeings as she was first-of-class), the MoD agreed to a price reduction. How much fairer can you get?.

From the moment Lieutenant Chris Saunders died on Oct. 6 of the delayed effects of a major electrical fire, the navy has steadfastly insisted the submarine was seaworthy, despite a refit the Canadian military has described as a nightmare.

I repeat….the Navy (Canadian) has steadfastly insisted the submarine was seaworthy. OF COURSE the refit was a nightmare – the submarine was not in reserve status so it was not receiving reserve maintenance while it was laid up for 10 years. How many different ways does this need to be said?.

problems? read this… it seem the Brits are too eagre to point fingers somewhere else and never admit to the possibility that its a sour deal to start with.

Hallo perhaps you need to read a little deeper into a subject than just the first few media articles that sensationally hit the front pages. If you’ll notice the Canadian Forces are the ones who’ve signed off on every boat before its gone across the Atlantic. Faults have arisen as they invariably do at sea there is nothig strange about it.

Hmm, I think I’ve seen a picture of Sub-Harpoon inside Walrus (in KIJK, I know, very basic mag, but excellent pictures 😉 and interesting stories if you’re not interested in the real details )

Never heard of the Walrus.. i’m also interested in what kind of Torpedos they are armed with.. after all a weapons systems is only as good as it’s weapon right? 😉

They are an improved Dutch Zwaardvis class, of which the Taiwanese Hai Lung class is a variation.

The Zwaardvis class when built employed Honeywell Mk 37 mod2 plus the upgrades NT 37 C mod2 and NT 37 C/D/E. Later-on it also got Honeywell Mk 48 Mod 4. No SSM capability as built. 20 torpedoes carried

The modified Zwaardvis / Hai Lung class has AEG SUT, dual purpose, wire-guided, active/passive homing to 12 km (6.6 nm) at 35 kts, warhead 250 kg. These are manufactured under license in Indonesia. Provisions were made for carrying Feng 2 SSM’s but, like Walrus class, none are carried. 20 torpedoes

The Walrus class employs Honeywell Mk 48 Mod 4 and Mk 48 ADCAP. It can also fire Honeywell/Northrop (NT) 37 C/D/E (currently in reserve stock only). The class is “fitted for but not with” McDonnell Douglas Sub-Harpoon. 20 torpedoes or Sub-Harpoon. 40 mines in lieu of torpedoes.

Walrus carries up to 20 Mk48 ADCAPs (I think block 2 or 5). And of course there is also the possibility of mixing those with Harpoon.

how disappointing, I thought Canada built their own subs. I’m mixed about the Kilo, I hear the Koreans were not too impressed with theirs.

so far Oyashio and Collins seem to be the better and newer operational long endurance SSK subs..

Never heard of the Walrus.. i’m also interested in what kind of Torpedos they are armed with.. after all a weapons systems is only as good as it’s weapon right? 😉

Nah building subs cost money which our navy don’t have! We value health plan and education more highly than military spending…That’s why our pilots are still flying faulty Sea King hellas, and no money to replace them.

Canada only build frigates if that’s what you wanted to know.

Hallo,

Which unit leaks below 160ft depth?.

a dent was on HMCS Victoria limiting dive depth i can’t find the article can someone post it up?

The four subs was supposidly 700 million cdn but price rose exceedingly to 900 mill cdn and was three years overdue… thats what i call a lemon.

problems? read this… it seem the Brits are too eagre to point fingers somewhere else and never admit to the possibility that its a sour deal to start with. The canadian Navy is on a tough budget that’s why we’ve become bargan hunters, but why get good equipement when you simply have the US of A…

Chicoutimi arrived with list of problems

New documents reveal rust, software woes

By MURRAY BREWSTER
Canadian Press Globe and Mail
Thursday, November 18, 2004 – Page A6

HALIFAX — When HMCS Chicoutimi was handed over to the Canadian navy in October, the submarine had trouble drawing in fresh air, could not dive to certain depths and suffered from computer bugs, newly released documents say.

Telex messages between the ill-fated warship and navy headquarters in Ottawa, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, reveal a litany of problems, including the following:

The used vessel could not “snort” — the navy’s term for drawing in fresh air while travelling at full power just below the ocean’s surface during an emergency.

The warship could not dive to its maximum depth because rust had rendered portions of its pressure hull vulnerable to collapse.

Software glitches prevented the sub’s autopilot from functioning.

The revelations raise questions about whether the submarine, which was the scene of a deadly fire Oct. 5, was ready for its maiden voyage to Canada.

From the moment Lieutenant Chris Saunders died on Oct. 6 of the delayed effects of a major electrical fire, the navy has steadfastly insisted the submarine was seaworthy, despite a refit the Canadian military has described as a nightmare.

A spokesman for Vice-Admiral Bruce MacLean, commander of Canada’s navy, repeated that assertion yesterday.

Major Tony White also stressed that the list of glitches had been whittled down to a handful by the time Canada formally accepted delivery of the boat on Oct. 2. “We don’t take these things lightly and we would never sacrifice safety for schedule,” he said in an interview.

He said none of the outstanding mechanical troubles could have contributed to the fire, which crippled the submarine and left it adrift for days in the stormy North Atlantic northwest of Ireland.

All of the problems listed in the messages were discovered during sea trials last summer for the newly refurbished boat.

Navy engineers and the boat’s British builders tried to fix the problems with the submarine’s snorkel system. However, time constraints and a lack of equipment prevented modifications to the system, which allows the submarine to cruise just below the surface while replenishing its air supply.

Chicoutimi — formerly HMS Upholder of the Royal Navy — spent 10 years in mothballs. When it was reactivated, technicians failed to get its computerized autopilot to work properly. The glitch meant that a helmsman had to steer the vessel at all times because its guidance computer was “considered obsolete and not serviceable.”

Meanwhile, problems with corrosion on the hull have been extensively documented. Before formally signing off on the boat, Britain agreed to pay Canada a lump sum for continuing rust protection and servicing. Still, the rust limited the boat’s capability. In September, the navy restricted how deep Chicoutimi could dive because of concerns over corrosion.

The latest revelations about the problem-plagued sub come as a House of Commons committee is slated to arrive in Halifax today to investigate Canada’s $810-million, lease-to-own purchase of four Upholder-class submarines.

The HMCS Chicoutimi, Canada’s rebaptized British submarine

LONDON (AFP) Oct 05, 2004
The HMCS Chicoutimi, the Canadian submarine hit by fire while submerged deep in the North Atlantic Ocean Tuesday, is one of four conventionally-powered submarines built for the British Royal Navy in the 1980s, then sold in refitted form to Canada in 2000.
The Chicoutimi, an Upholder/Victoria-class submarine like its counterparts the Victoria, Windsor and Cornerbrook, is diesel-electric-propelled.

Britain sold the four off to Canada in a 1998 deal when London opted for a entirely nuclear-powered fleet, and have replaced Ottawa’s three Oberon-class submarines which were in service for more than 30 years.

The Canadian navy has hailed the stealth and silence of the 70-meter (230-foot), 2,150-tonne submarine, saying it is difficult to detect and useful for conducting surveillance and intelligence-gathering.

The Chicoutimi, built in 1983 by Vickers Shipbuilding and Engineering, in Barrow-in-Furness, northwest England, can travel without refueling for up to 14,400 kilometers (8,950 miles), at a speed of eight knots (roughly 14.5 kilometers per hour).

With a standard crew of about 50, it is armed with Gould forward Mark 48 torpedos that are effective for hundreds of kilometers, according to Jane’s Fighting Ships reference book.

The four Victoria-class subs were purchased from Britain for 750 million Canadian dollars (595 million US dollars, 483 million euros, in current rates).

But criticism of the purchase began in 2002, when a dent was discovered in the first delivery, the HMCS Victoria.

Exhaust valves were also found to be faulty on all four ships, which led to a massive leak in 2002 on a training exercise of the HMCS Windsor.

The Chicoutimi was only formally handed over to the Canadian navy on Saturday, in a formal renaming ceremony at Britain’s Faslane submarine base in Scotland.

It was on its way to Halifax, in the eastern Canadian province of Nova Scotia, when the fire broke out Tuesday.

A major rescue operation by Britain’s Royal Navy and Air Force was under way, with helicopters and ships including a frigate dispatched to the submarine, located some 100 nautical miles (180 kilometers) northwest of Ireland.

You want more???

Hallo,

Which unit leaks below 160ft depth?.

The incident on HMCS Chicoutami was discovered as being down to a cable run using insulation that was found to age poorly in the decking under the CO’s cabin. The Royal Navy had already found this insulation problem and advised the Canadian Forces that it needed changing out. The same insulation had already been replaced on the three earlier units.

No-one seems to have an answer why this wasnt replaced on Chicoutami, but, that wiring problem and the water ingress caused by the crew leaving the hatches open the day before the fire seem to have been the factors involved with the fire. Nothing to do with any design flaw.

All of the problems with these vessels have their root cause in the fact that the ships were left in storage for nearly a decade and not maintained. Get them sailing regularly and undergoing routine maintenance and these problems will all be found and resolved. All ships have problems that only show up after repeated use or, as with Chicoutami, under a certain set of operational conditions.

Like you said they were cheap boats…after the lease period is up, in 2006, the story goes that the Canadian Forces have the option of buying each boat for the staggering sum of £1.

Give them the time to get into full operational readiness and your forces get to rewrite the dictionary definition of ‘bargain’.

Burger,

The Victoria’s are listed as ‘fitted for but not with’ AIP. The Canadians are looking at AIP for under-ice ops with the boats and are on record as saying that the boats are compatible with the technology.

nah they are all in bad condition…

being a Canadain i should care but it seems we’ve bought lemons from the Brits. Now no wonder they are so damn cheap…

One was on fire just now killing one crew and injuring others… another leaks so it can’t dive more than 160 ft, the other two are very rusted and in need of repairs!

Reworked Ming should be good… it seems they can go some distances. To japan and back without detecetion. But I still favour the improved kilo… hope the russians put AIP in it soon.

how disappointing, I thought Canada built their own subs. I’m mixed about the Kilo, I hear the Koreans were not too impressed with theirs.

so far Oyashio and Collins seem to be the better and newer operational long endurance SSK subs..

Never heard of the Walrus.. i’m also interested in what kind of Torpedos they are armed with.. after all a weapons systems is only as good as it’s weapon right? 😉

interesting reply mr Jones! I agree with you too..but i am shocked with the figure of that German sub!!

The Canadian Victoria subs look good, does it have AIP (sorry can’t help it, tis the buzz word ya know)

nah they are all in bad condition…

being a Canadain i should care but it seems we’ve bought lemons from the Brits. Now no wonder they are so damn cheap…

One was on fire just now killing one crew and injuring others… another leaks so it can’t dive more than 160 ft, the other two are very rusted and in need of repairs!

Reworked Ming should be good… it seems they can go some distances. To japan and back without detecetion. But I still favour the improved kilo… hope the russians put AIP in it soon.

Because, Pak, there is a difference between ‘high submerged endurance’ and ‘high endurance’ as friend Burger is talking about.

High endurance, as discussed here is a function of patrol endurance and range. Again though differences exist between different geographical patrol areas. HDW list a patrol endurance of 12 weeks and a 12,000 mile surface transit range for U214 which is staggering considering its 1800 ton displacement. That is in the northern hemisphere though.

Head down to more temperate southerly waters though and air conditioning has to be used more heavily, for both human and systems happiness, putting a significantly increased drain on the battery and requiring larger fuel stowage, and correspondingly a larger hull, to accomplish the same performance.

Were I selecting an SSK for open ocean patrol tasking I’d be talking to the Japanese about their Oyashio design myself. This is mainly based on the price they’re paying for the units (over half a billion $US per unit) and the rumours of the sophistication of the sensor fit. If they are what the rumours have said then these hulls may be the closest thing to an SSN level of sensor capability to sail without a reactor!. Yes please!.

Similar things were said about the Upholder/Victoria class boats and, now the Chicoutami problem has been identified as a singular known fault and nothing design related, if the Oyashio price tag was deemed a bit excessive these look like a pretty decent package in terms of range/endurance and weapons/sensor capabilities.

interesting reply mr Jones! I agree with you too..but i am shocked with the figure of that German sub!!

The Canadian Victoria subs look good, does it have AIP (sorry can’t help it, tis the buzz word ya know)

Because, Pak, there is a difference between ‘high submerged endurance’ and ‘high endurance’ as friend Burger is talking about.

High endurance, as discussed here is a function of patrol endurance and range. Again though differences exist between different geographical patrol areas. HDW list a patrol endurance of 12 weeks and a 12,000 mile surface transit range for U214 which is staggering considering its 1800 ton displacement. That is in the northern hemisphere though.

Head down to more temperate southerly waters though and air conditioning has to be used more heavily, for both human and systems happiness, putting a significantly increased drain on the battery and requiring larger fuel stowage, and correspondingly a larger hull, to accomplish the same performance.

Were I selecting an SSK for open ocean patrol tasking I’d be talking to the Japanese about their Oyashio design myself. This is mainly based on the price they’re paying for the units (over half a billion $US per unit) and the rumours of the sophistication of the sensor fit. If they are what the rumours have said then these hulls may be the closest thing to an SSN level of sensor capability to sail without a reactor!. Yes please!.

Similar things were said about the Upholder/Victoria class boats and, now the Chicoutami problem has been identified as a singular known fault and nothing design related, if the Oyashio price tag was deemed a bit excessive these look like a pretty decent package in terms of range/endurance and weapons/sensor capabilities.

A Pakistani MESMA equipped Agosta 90b will have a higher submerged endurance then any of the above surely!? Why on earth is it not listed!?