Vanguard Magazine

14 OCTOBER/NOVEMBER 2017 www.vanguardcanada.com Her Majesy's Canadian Submarine (HMCS) Chiquotimi awaits Peoples Liberation Army (Navy) ships visiting Victoria on behalf of the Chinese military, 13 December 2016. Photo: Cpl Carbe Orellana A Maritime Surface and Sub-Surface (MARS) Officer on Her Majesty's Canadian Ship IROQUOIS, takes a compass bearing. Photo by: Cpl Chris Ringius s suBmarIne retain a nuclear-only submarine fleet. This had caused four recently commissioned Upholder-class conventional submarines to be withdrawn from British Royal Navy service. While admittedly the design of these submarines was not optimal for Ca- nadian requirements (namely endurance), they were well worth the investment as a capability life extension. Notwithstanding the plethora of unin- formed media reports, these are very good submarines that have and will continue to serve Canada well as a globally deployable underwater capability. Since acquiring the Victoria-class submarines, the maturity of what is termed "parent navy" responsibil- ity has grown across the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), government and Canadian industry. safe, Functional and affordable One then must ask what does Canada need in a submarine and why is this dif- ferent than other Allies who operate sub- marines? I would argue that a submarine designed to meet Canadian requirements should: • Be ocean going (Atlantic/Pacific). • Have some (albeit limited) under-ice capability (Arctic). • Have long endurance (which includes crew habitability considerations). Notwithstanding the above, it must first and foremost be Safe, Functional and Af- fordable. A true Canadian submarine would be able to operate in all three of Canada's oceans without restriction, which necessi- tates the ability to operate independently from the atmosphere (air) for prolonged periods of time during under-ice activi- ties. Currently, there is only one type of air-independent propulsion that can re- generate the atmosphere necessary for prolonged submerged operations – that is nuclear propulsion. It is not the intent of this article to debate the merits of nuclear propulsion for Canadian submarines, but suffice to say this was investigated in the late 1980s under the Mulroney Govern- ment 's three-ocean strategy of procuring 10-12 nuclear-propelled submarines. The nuclear infrastructure was found to be unaffordable in relation to overall Gov- ernment of Canada fiscal priorities. That assessment will most assuredly have not changed over the last three decades. canadian requirement The Canadian requirement can then be defined as a large ocean-going non-nu- clear powered submarine that can patrol off the coasts of Canada, with limited ice- edge forays into the Arctic, and be able to deploy worldwide in response to Canadian government requirements, either indepen- dently or as part of a coalition force. But does this submarine exist? To answer this question, one must take into account some further considerations. Given that the submarine could be in ser- vice well beyond the traditional 25-year design lifespan, flexibility for fitting future equipment changes and ever demanding habitability requirements must be con- sidered in the baseline design. In other words, if you want to recruit submariners in 2050 the accommodations will have to be significantly better than the 1950s. Taken all together, this drives a modern ocean-going conventionally powered sub- marine to a displacement of at least 4000 tons. The issue with growth is tied directly to power generation and submerged en- durance – the bigger and more capable the submarine, the more power is needed to be generated (and stored) in order to op- erate it efficiently. conventional submarines Most conventional submarines in the world today are small – less than 1500 tons. They are designed to meet national requirements, usually in a coastal defence role. The realities of Canada's immense geography (for example, the distance be-

• Cover