Asia's Dreadnoughts

Dreadnoughts.  The first modern battleship - big guns and steam turbine power. Prior to WWI these new super-warships triggered a major naval arms race between Britain and Germany.

Something similar is underway today across Asia and the South Pacific only this time its a naval arms race focused on submarine superiority.  We don't hear much about it but just about every player from the Sea of Japan, the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean and the south/central Pacific is rapidly rearming with submarines.

Even the city state of Singapore has a fleet of six subs, some of which are soon to be replaced with the latest and greatest.  Australia is wrestling with plans to replace its Collins-class boats with up to a dozen new subs.  Vietnam is beginning to deploy new Russian boats.  The Philippines is establishing its own submarine service.  Thailand is following suit.  India, seeking to establish a Blue Water navy has a major submarine programme that includes the development of an indigenous nuclear missile sub.  Pakistan is looking to buy new subs from China.  Japan may amend its constitution to allow the export of new technology submarines to potential customers like Australia.

What's driving all the panic for U-boats is, of course, China and its rapidly expanding naval force.  Now even the US Navy is expressing concerns about the size and capability of China's submarine force.

China now has a larger submarine fleet than that United States, a U.S. admiral said on Wednesday. Speaking to the House Armed Service Committee’s Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee (which oversees the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps), Vice Admiral Joseph Mulloy said that China is building some “fairly amazing submarines,” both diesel- and nuclear-powered. Mulloy is the deputy chief of naval operations for capabilities and resources.

Mulloy told the subcommittee that China is “out experimenting and looking at operating and clearly want[s] to be in this world of advanced submarines.” He also noted that China is increasing the geographical area of deployment for its subs, as well as the length of time per deployment.

...Nuclear-power submarines are a particular area of emphasis as China looks to improve its ability to conduct military operations outside its own near seas. China is continuing to produce Jin-class nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and Shang-class nuclear-powered attack submarines (SSNs), and is expected to introduce new models over the next decade (the Type 096 SSBN and Type 095 guided-missile attack submarine or SSGN). For now, however, the DoD reports that diesel-powered subs are still “mainstay of the Chinese submarine force.”


Right now the leading edge in submarine technology is with the ultra-quiet, conventional submarine with AIP or air-independent propulsion. These non-nuclear boats can operate underwater for up to two-weeks at a stretch. The big suppliers are Germany, France, Sweden and, perhaps soon, Japan. The hapless subs Canada operates do no have AIP and are completely outclassed, even when they are fit for duty.

The Royal Canadian Navy did establish a record today.  For the first time since they acquired their second-hand subs from the Brits, three out of the four were operational today.  Tomorrow could be another matter.  No one knows.

Arms Race Update - There Goes the Neighbourhood

Singapore's RSS Swordsman

When Obama announced America's military "pivot" out of the Middle East and into Asia-Pacific, it was bound to shake up the neighbourhood - that plus China's rapid military expansion that the pivot is intended to counter.

When China and the U.S. get testy it's guaranteed to stir up the neighbourhood and so it has.  Aviation Week reports that America's "partners" - Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Thailand - are unlocking their treasuries and going on an armaments buying spree.  For the five-year period of 2013 to 2018, the partners are expected to spend $1.4-trillion on military research and procurement.  That's a 55% jump from the $919-billion spent in the previous five years which, of itself, was far from shabby.

A lot of the spending will be on ships.  The partners are expected to add 263 surface vessels and another 31 submarines atop the substantial number of submarines already acquired over the past five years.

Analysts recognize that China is on edge and already feeling encircled.  All those new ships and subs to be deployed by the partners won't do much to lessen Beijing's concerns.

If you're looking for perspective, consider this.   Even the city-state of Singapore, population 5.3-million, all 710 sq. kms. of it,  has a navy that operates six modern submarines.   Canada, with the longest coastline in the world, has four aging and clapped-out ex-British subs, two of which might actually be able to leave the dock under their own power.

Turning to Submarines

HMCS Victoria

Back in the 60's the Royal Canadian Navy fielded a small number of reasonably capable submarines, the Oberon-class boats we bought from the UK.   We had five of these subs.   Introduced in 1965 they were decommissioned in the late 90's, a commendable service life.

As the Oberon boats were being phased out Canada went shopping for replacements and, voila, the Royal Navy happened to have four "nearly new" Upholder-class subs it was looking to unload.   These subs had been mothballed after just four years of somewhat chequered service.

During construction of the first boats it was recognized that the weapon-discharge system design did contain flaws. The torpedo tube slide valve controlling operation of the torpedo tube doors could have, under certain system failure conditions, allowed the opening of the inner door while the outer door was open. The flaw was quickly fixed in the first three boats and the modifications included in the fourth boat while still under construction.

Miscalculations were made in the design of the main-motor control circuitry. During the sea trials of Upholder, when performing the specified trial for an emergency reversal ("crash back"), a flash-over incident occurred, which resulted in the complete loss of all power and propulsion. On investigation, this was traced to a fault in the design of the control circuitry insulation, resulting in a battery short circuit current of more than 60,000 amperes.

The diesels were originally designed for use in railway locomotives, and were not intended to be rapidly stopped and started. Shutting them down after snorkelling led to many failures. Similarly, the motor-generators were operated at full power for longer than expected, and consumed brushes and filters rapidly (the brush problems were not specific to the Upholders, and were a widespread issue on all UK RN vessels at that time).

Canada bought these boats in 1998 only to find them chock full of gremlins.  Fourteen years later the Canadian navy hopes to have one of them operational this year.  It's now thirty years or more since those submarines became operational with the Royal Navy.   Thirty years in submarine years is just about a full lifetime.

So not only are Canada's subs about to enter service as geriatrics, they're no longer state of the art in the engine room where it really counts.   The propulsion units of these diesel/electric subs are a somewhat advanced version of what submarines have used since WWI.   That is so yesterday.

A big disadvantage to conventional, or non-nuclear, subs has been that they could use their diesel power only while surfaced or while running just below the surface using a snorkel.   One way or another they needed a source of air to run at full power.   Nuclear  boats were air independent and could chug along in the ocean depths for months at a time.

Conventional subs bridged the gap recently with the introduction of air-independent propulsion engines.   The latest German submarines of the 212 class use fuel cell technology that allows them to cruise fully submerged for weeks.   This gives them an endurance capability vastly greater than our vintage subs and somewhat similar to nuclear submarines without the noise penalty of nuclear power units.

Why does this matter, especially to Canada?  For the first time in our nation's history we're probably going to have a genuine need for a submarine capability, that's why.   The Arctic Ocean is going to become ice free.   That means Canada's northern waters are destined to become a major shipping route.   It also means the Arctic Ocean will see something akin to a gold rush in the pursuit of seabed resources from oil and gas to mineral wealth.   That in turn will fuel tensions over unresolved territorial disputes.   That will also lead to new and expanded military presences in the far north.

There will be no shortage of legal, diplomatic, commercial and military muscle-flexing in the decades ahead.   Right or wrong, like it or not, Canada will need to establish and maintain a credible presence to uphold our sovereignty and protect against encroachment.  You snooze, you lose.  It's that simple.

Submarines, especially of a type our potential rivals cannot readily detect, are essential for defending Canada's north.   That means we need modern boats that are capable of silent, extended patrolling underwater.

Let's face it, if Harper gets his way and Canada does wind up saddled with a few dozen single-engine, limited range, minimal payload F-35s, we can pretty much kiss goodbye any meaningful ability to defend the vast north from the air.  We will need something to pick up the slack.

Which brings us back to Canada's not-ready-for-primetime Victoria class subs.  It is possible to retrofit those boats with air-independent propulsion systems but is it feasible given their age, remaining usable life, ongoing reliability questions and the substantial cost?  Anyone who has owned an old car knows that sometimes you have to cut your losses and get a new car.

It's time for the Canadian government to admit that the Victoria boats were yet another disastrous mistake brought to us by the dimwits that populate our National Defence headquarters.  It's probably time to stop throwing good money after bad.  It's probably time to go shopping for new boats.   This time we might even be able to get new for cheap.   Greece has several new boats on order from the Germans and it's looking like Greece is a bit short on Euros to pay for them.   Could be a deal there.

Dud Subs, Dud Torpedoes

Those four second-hand subs the Defence Department duped the Canadian government into buying?   18-years after we got stuck with them, one of them, HMCS Victoria, actually managed to fire a torpedo.  Victoria is the only one of the four to fire a torpedo which is probably a good thing because the other three aren't even in the water.

A Canadian Navy comedian couldn't restrain himself at the joyous event.  "As the submarine fleet achieves steady state it will be ready to act decisively at sea in defence of Canada, when and where needed", Capt. Luc Cassivi, director of the Canadian Submarine Force, said in a news release.

The Victoria fired her torpedoes at the Nanoose underwater weapons range in the waters north of Nanaimo.   Funny, I drove right past there and didn't see a thing.  Oh way, I get it, the sub was underwater.

The Victoria began life as HMS Unseen in a Scottish boatyard in 1987.    It was commissioned into the Royal Navy in 1991 and mothballed after just three years in service in 1994.  They were fobbed off on Canada in 1998.  The Canadian Navy hopes the Victoria will become fully operational this summer.  If it does, Canada will have a submarine force of exactly one boat out of the four we bought 14-years ago.

And a British MP, government backbencher Mike Hancock, the Liberal Democrat MP for Portsmouth South, is asking awkward questions about the sub deal in his Parliament.

"Why were the Canadians daft enough to buy them?"

"My God, it's a sad tale, isn't it? 'Buyer beware' should have been painted on the sides of these submarines."

The subs were based in Hancock's riding before the Royal Navy unloaded them on us.   Now he's suggesting that Canada should ask for its money back.  Of course before we could get to the point of demanding a refund, we'd have to track down the slack bastards at DND who are responsible for persuading the government to purchase these disasters in the first place.


Canada probably does need a submarine capability because it's almost certain our northern territory is going to be disputed, commercially if nothing else, in the decades ahead.  The Arctic is losing much of its ice and may become ice free, something that encourages both shipping through the Northwest Passage and seabed resource exploration.

Pouring billions into early 1980s technology submarines and expecting them to meet operational requirements for decades to come sounds foolish at best.  Today's state of the art, non-nuclear submarines are being built by the Germans like the 200 Series and Gotland class boats  built by Thyssen Marine that feature high-performance, long-range fuel cell propulsion instead of the air dependent diesel engines on Canada's antique subs.