View Full Version : Victoria Class Submarine pic

10-05-2004, 01:18 PM

[ 10-14-2004, 07:56 AM: Message edited by: popeye ]

10-05-2004, 03:13 PM
Tiney little thing isnt it? :rolleyes:

10-10-2004, 06:51 PM
Neat boat, but I'm covinced that sails should be made of dacron not steel (or even canvas for the traditionalists). I certainly couldn't do 90 days under water...

10-10-2004, 07:34 PM
I'm embarassed to say that the first thing i thought was "looks pretty small" but then again I used to sail in groton CT so I'm used to Los Angeles class and larger boats ;)

Subs are cool.

10-10-2004, 07:46 PM
Yes it does look small. We had a tour of an OHIO class sub, the MAINE a few months ago.

Mike Field
10-10-2004, 08:24 PM
Cor crikey! Have a heart, Popped Eye.

Try this for size --


10-10-2004, 08:30 PM
Is it three vertical orange lights for a sub surfacing? I think that's what I recall from the safe boating course - that and the instructor's comment to seriously get the heck out of the way :eek: :eek:

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-11-2004, 05:58 AM
This class of submarines are intended to be small - and very, very quiet.

BTW, the reason the RN laid them up was not because of any problems with them - it was a budget constraint. You may notice that we have three "Harrier carriers", but only two are in commission at any given time - same problem.

This is not un-connected with the RN's decision to go to an all gas turbine powered surface fleet. Their fuel bill is downright silly!

Oyvind Snibsoer
10-11-2004, 08:34 AM
The Norwegian Ula Class may be even smaller. OTOH, it's a small country with a small navy smile.gif



But then again, they're very efficient at playing hide-and-seek in coastal waters. At a NATO exercise recently, one single sub was so efficient at keeping the UK amphibious task force at bay that it had to be ruled out of the exercise for three days so that the land operations could commence as planned. They may not have the punch or stamina of the Los Angeles class, but they're able to operate completely submerged in very confined waters.

HMS Albion seen through the periscope of KNM Utvær at said exercise, before the sub was ruled out of the exercise for 72 hours.

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-11-2004, 09:10 AM
Nice one, Oyvind!

You've just illustrated why these boats made no sense for the UK, but make very good sense for Canada. Coast defence is not a big issue for the RN, but it is for the KNM and for the RCN.

ion barnes
10-13-2004, 02:56 AM
Could you believe it? Loose wiring connections? Howd that get missed?

10-13-2004, 11:16 AM
ACB , you do realize that our third coastline is bounded by a very thick Artic ice cap and the battery powered sub can't stay submerged that long.

Care to speculate on what the plan is in this case?

ion barnes
10-14-2004, 01:31 AM
I was in conversation with an old submariner about this incident and he first said, "It isnt the first time nor will it be the last. The risk of fire on a sub is always there." He went on to explain that in the old fleet classes of subs, there were occupied spaces and there were machinery spaces. Now that we have multiple decks, there is not a clear definition of space. When it was of the single deck format, the batteries were connected directly to the motor room by buss bars. The present method, because of the multiple decks, is cables that can be bent to go around things. The bends are potential weak spots as well as junction points. In addition, cables that are not used will deteriorate more quickly than ones in use. The amperage involved is in the relm of 300,000 amps!

Andrew Craig-Bennett
10-14-2004, 04:01 AM
Originally posted by popeye:
ACB , you do realize that our third coastline is bounded by a very thick Artic ice cap and the battery powered sub can't stay submerged that long.

Care to speculate on what the plan is in this case?Happy to speculate, Popeye, based on some acquaintance with Canadian merchant shipping and Canadian ports, including (never to be forgotten!) Nanisivik, which is about as icy as a port can get! But this is just speculation.

I can see three reasons for the RCN to buy these submarines:

1. The icy bits of coast are pretty well protected already, by ice. These are places that are impossible, or almost impossible, for a surface vessel to get to, and quite impossible for a surface vessel to get near un-detected.

Canada's sea communications, which are very important, pass through the ice free straits, which are classic "choke points". Coast defence submarines are an orthodox solution to the problem of defending these sea lanes against intrusion by hostile submarines.

2. The RCN is a NATO force, and as such takes part in joint exercises with other NATO navies. As an alliance member with very quiet non-nuclear boats the RCN is a desirable training partner.

3. Nuclear submarines can operate under ice, of course. But the only reason for a hostile submarine to operate under Canadian ice would be to bring missiles within range of Canadian targets, and the missiles carried by such vessels now have enough range for the submarine to stay much further away.

10-14-2004, 08:18 AM
Hmmm ok. So if NATO subs are playing war games under the ice, in Canadian sovereign waters, each with the capability to stay submerged for long periods, and each with the ability to surface thru the ice- fire a long range missle - and re-submerge.

What is the mission of a quiet battery powered sub in this exercise?

10-14-2004, 09:06 AM
To lie in wait at the entrances of the Arctic Basin and catch the boomers before they enter the playground.

John E Hardiman
10-14-2004, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by mmd:
To lie in wait at the entrances of the Arctic Basin and catch the boomers before they enter the playground.Unlikely, the "street sweeper" (SSN escort) would "pick up the trash" before the boomer arrives.

Remember, sub fights in the MIZ is like a gunfight in a dark room with the radio on....you stumble into the other person...but the nuc boat can wait in one place longer.

The reasons for a diesel sub is:

1) Cause an expendature of much greater assets to hunt and kill than a comperable surface ship.

2) To deny free use of sea lanes of communication. You have to protect the sea lift ships. And yes, an SS can hunt in the choke points, but if he does then we are just back to (1) because I'll just throw all my ASW assets at him because I know he'll be there.

Read my discussion in this topic (http://media5.hypernet.com/cgi-bin/UBB/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=002902&p=) from August. Please ignore my error when I refered to the "U" class as the "O" class early in that thread. redface.gif

Oyvind Snibsoer
10-14-2004, 01:18 PM
In today's world, a conventional, all-out attack against any NATO country is highly unlikely.

OTOH, as most of us know, NATO is increasingly involved in conflicts outside its primary area of deployment, such as ex-Yugoslavia and Operation Enduring Freedom

One of the great virtues of small, modern diesel-electric subs is that they are able to operate in much more confined and shallow waters than larger, nucler subs. It's not uncommon for subs of the ULA class to approach a harbor completely submerged, surfacing just a few meters from their berth.

Several of these subs have been stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean recently. Although the KNM doesn't say much about what they actually do there, their primary job is probably to gather intelligence from potentially hostile ports in Syria and Lebanon.

While sending a conventional surface ship into an area in the early stages of a conflict may be seen as a provocation and escalate the situation, a sub can operate unnoticed. It may gather intelligence pasively, and/or send out and retrieve special forces unnoticed.

The ship in the periscope pic above is an amphibious assault ship and command center for land operations, and would've been one of the most capital assets in the enemy surface group. As you can see, the sub has penetrated the ASW defences, and would've sunk the ship in a real situation.

What do you do when the sub is to small to have a sluice chamber for divers? Why, you use the torpedo tubes, of course smile.gif

John E Hardiman
10-27-2004, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by Braam Berrub:
but a nuke cannot wait more quietly.
A modern (post '85) nuc is as quiet as a modern (post '85) diesel when both are at patrol speeds. Either boat has the same vulnerabilities when sitting silent. And a nuc's overall mission acoustic profile is better, especially in the MIZ. In a poor acoustic environment such as is found in the MIZ, advantage is to the nuc, just because she can run faster and longer and hide longer. Only advantage of the diesel is that it is smaller.

10-27-2004, 01:42 PM
A diesel can lie more quietly than a nuke, unless the nuke has idled her reactor to the point where coolant pumps are not necessary. At that point, it takes a lot of time to safely reheat the reactor before higher power levels are available. If the nuke idles at a point where coolant pumps are necessary, the diesel is quieter because there are no coolant pump or coolant circulation noises.

Tom Robb
11-02-2004, 02:53 PM
Does anyone know if the d/e boats still use lead-acid batteries, or has that changed?

BTW, the Phone Co. uses some of the same sort of stuff to power their equipment and has both buss bars and cables running all over the building. Fires are pretty rare events there.
Did the burnt boat have Lucas electrics :D

11-02-2004, 03:44 PM
Latest reports seem to indicate that the insulation was not completely waterproof, a problem that was diagnosed and much of the insulation replaced; however, the wiring underneath the commander's cabin was not replaced, even though it's almost directly underneath the conning tower.

As a result there was a flashover /fire in the area after taking a wave. What were they doing with the hatch open in the North Atlantic? An early report said that there were two "unrelated fires", the other being in an oxygen generator f'wd. I would speculate that they had a small fire, then opened the hatch to refresh and took a wave in the process, which caused a much more serious fire. This implies both poor engineering and poor command decisions.

Sub veterans question commander's actions

Saturday, October 16, 2004, Page A1

The fateful combination of HMCS Chicoutimi rolling heavily in a near gale with both conning tower hatches open while sailors probed for an electrical fault below may have allowed sea water to pour onto high-voltage lines, experienced submariners and officials close to an inquiry said yesterday.

[ 11-02-2004, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: WWheeler ]