Warships that should never been built?

What should Canada have procured instead? And would it change much if King (or who ever else is PM) saw the war clouds on the horizon and started laying the ground work for the mobilization of the Canadian economy a couple years in advance of WWII?
Fletcher or Gearing class destroyers from the US maybe?
 
Fletcher or Gearing class destroyers from the US maybe?
The Canadians actually considered it especially as Churchill himself apparently recommended them doing so however, they eventually didn't because they viewed the Tribal's as
"superior" to the US design in its extensive use of high-tensile steel and "comparative simplicity" which is rather vague. There was also concerns because the design they looked at which would later become the Fletcher, was still in development. The Canadians were the first non-Americans given access to the plans and prototypes. Due to the potential difficulties associated an unproven design, there was a lot of push back on building US. The head Canadian naval architect judged that it would in fact be easier to overcome the supply problems associated with the Tribal's than to face the potential issues of an unproven design from a nation they were not used to working with in such matters. Although the issues of supply and logistics for materials and assistance with building the ships would have been much

What should Canada have procured instead?
I personally would say leave the Tribal construction to the British and focus more on a much more balanced and newer design. Half the point of the Tribal's was to provide Canada with an effective post war fleet however, the Tribal's were getting to be a bit outpaced by technological development. A newer and unproven design would have likely been better.

But that's just my opinion.
 
Fletcher or Gearing class destroyers from the US maybe?
It is the old Canadian problem. What do they need a navy for?
It takes 30 years to build a navy. What could possibly justify such a continuous effort when either the world's first or second navy will cover Canada.
 
Even worse. The French design, the Scorpène, works. The Spanish began to develop it with the French, but they wanted a bigger submarine, so they renegaded the agreement to develop their own. But in the process, they used the French technology (some might say they stole it) they didn't completely comprehended, hence the story.
They should have bought U214s instead.
 
They should have bought U214s instead.
Why ? The Scorpène is at least as advanced. And Spain bought French subs for the last 2 generations (with no problems).
The problem is that the Spanish tried to screw the French. So when problems arised, they couldn't count on their expertise.
Had Spain tried to build a U-214 derivative without German consent, it would have gone as bad.
 
Good article, thanks for posting that link.


Tongue in cheek and no criticism implied at anyone (Except maybe Kockums as a Danish Navy joke puts it.).

a. Options to go with a successful submarine designer were available in BOTH cases and in both cases it turned out that the designer in question had to be called in to fix everything boloed on those boats, adding enormously to the program expenses for both nations.

b. Barbel does not look so bad now, does it?

^1 Trust the Swedes to design your ship? Do you know how to swim? (Danish navy joke.).
I've wondered in the past if the RAN and RCN couldn't collaborate more on different requirement options. While I can see surface ships differing more with operational requirements and environment, I think they could have a standardized, submarine, replenishment and training vessels for both navies.

I would have liked to seen the Barbels wind up with the ROC Navy, but that's just me...

Regards,
 
Last edited:
Why ? The Scorpène is at least as advanced. And Spain bought French subs for the last 2 generations (with no problems).
The problem is that the Spanish tried to screw the French. So when problems arised, they couldn't count on their expertise.
Had Spain tried to build a U-214 derivative without German consent, it would have gone as bad.
The problem (as far as I can see) is that they tried to enlarge the existing design and ended up with a non-functioning submarine.
The U-214 was a READY design based on the U-212. They could have bought it off-the-shelf and limited the risk of developing a new submarine.

The Scorpene is a fine submarine, no doubt about it. But even the idea of buying 4 such advanced subs for a price of 1.4 billion on a yet to be developed design seems quite utopic to me.

I am not saying that the U-214 class didn't have it's problems too. Look at the problems with the first Greek U-214...
 
Last edited:
Was Britain really making the right choice in the 1980's when they ordered new diesel electric submarines? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upholder/Victoria-class_submarine.

Leaving aside the problems spending years in mothballs caused was this a wise choice for a navy with ever shrinking funding, that could have perhaps been better used on more capable nuclear boats? Also why the bloody hell weren't they provided with an air independent propulsion system?

1580476399775.png
 
Last edited:
The problem (as far as I can see) is that they tried to enlarge the existing design and ended up with a non-functioning submarine.
The U-214 was a READY design based on the U-212. They could have bought it off-the-shelf and limited the risk of developing a new submarine.

The Scorpene is a fine submarine, no doubt about it. But even the idea of buying 4 such advanced subs for a price of 1.4 billion on a yet to be developed design seems quite utopic to me.

I am not saying that the U-214 class didn't have it's problems too. Look at the problems with the first Greek U-214...
Maybe
My understanding of the Spanish attitude is that they wanted their own design. It was more a political matter than anything. Spain wanted to be able to design and construct all of its ships and to be able to sell them on the market (see the bid Spanish in the Netherlands for example ).
I'm convince that the French design team would have been capable of making the S-80 work for a fraction of the cost the Spanish paid OTL.
 
Lots to unpack.

They should have bought U214s instead.
Base data and articles are Wiki. Comments are mine and are my opinion YMMV and should. I will keep it strictly to the boats and whether these should have been built and did they serve their intended customers.

Scorpene.

General characteristics
Type:Submarine
Displacement:
  • 1,565 tonnes (1,725 short tons) (CM-2000)
  • 1,870 tonnes (2,060 short tons) (AM-2000)
  • 2,000 tonnes (2,200 short tons) (S-BR)[1]
Length:
  • 61.7 m (202 ft) (CM-2000)
  • 70 m (230 ft) (AM-2000)
  • 75 metres (246 ft) (S-BR)[1]
Beam:6.2 m (20 ft)
Draught:5.4 m (18 ft)
Draft:5.8 m (19 ft)
Propulsion:
Speed:
  • 20 knots (37 km/h; 23 mph) (submerged)
  • 12 kn (22 km/h; 14 mph) (surfaced)
Range:
  • 6,500 nmi (12,000 km) at 8 kn (15 km/h; 9.2 mph) (surfaced)
  • 550 nmi (1,020 km; 630 mi) at 5 kn (9.3 km/h; 5.8 mph) (submerged)
Endurance:
  • 40 days (compact)
  • 50 days (normal)
  • 50 + 21 days (AIP)
Test depth:>350 metres (1,150 ft)[2]
Complement:31
Armament:6 × 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes for 18 Whitehead Alenia Sistemi Subacquei Black Shark heavyweight torpedoes or SM.39 Exocet anti-ship missiles, 30 mines in place of torpedoes
Note: MESMA AIP has two major issues.
a. It is hot.
b. Bottled oxygen that must be pressurized at 60 atmospheres to feed an essentially steam turbine system. This makes the whole sub an oversized Type 93 torpedo situation with all the incredible dangers and problems associated with that type setup.

Comments: Decent boats for what the French intended, which is coastal and littoral operations. Very quiet and reasonably safe and effective. The Indians love them.

S-80 submarine

General characteristics
Type:Submarine with air-independent propulsion
Displacement:
  • 3,200 tonnes (3,100 long tons; 3,500 short tons) surfaced
  • 3,426 tonnes (3,372 long tons; 3,777 short tons) submerged
Length:81.05 m (265.9 ft)
Beam:11.68 m (38.3 ft)
Draught:6.20 m (20.3 ft)
Propulsion:
  • 1 shaft Etanol-AIP
  • 3 bio-ethanol engines (3 × 1,200 kW)
  • 1 electric motor (3,500 kW), 1 AIP fuel cell unit (300 kW)
Speed:
  • 12 kn (22 km/h; 14 mph) surfaced
  • 19 kn (35 km/h; 22 mph) submerged
Complement:32 (plus 8 troops)
Armament:6 × 533 mm torpedo tubes with DM2A4 torpedoes and Harpoon missiles
Notes: Based on the known data of this class, I can estimate that she has approximately 1500-2500 kilometers travel endurance at creep speed on air independent propulsion for 360 hours. Her conventional endurance amounts to 1,000 hours on snort/diesels and battery banks/electric motors. Her combat radius travel is based on that powered endurance. She was designed to be twice the size of the Scorpene and to be a blue water boat. This conforms to her surface travel endurance of somewhere about 13,500 nm or 25,000 km. The plug the Americans helped put into her has increased endurance by 5 days.

She is outfitted with American control systems and weapons fit-outs. Her AIP system is still unproven and based on Coprox reactor technology. When that works, the hydrogen/ethanol fuel system drives an electric creep motor. It is an interesting contrast to MESMA as the fire hazard is different and the expected explosion a bit more violent.

Comments: Collins 2.0, I do not know if the Spaniards realized what headaches they bought for themselves when they tried to 2x the size of the Scorpene. They made a NASA type mistake and when it caught up with them in simulation, they were well over their level of expertise in trying to fix it. Submarine design is TIGHT. a 1% error will give the builder a paper weight. The Americans were quite perplexed at first, because anything done to the boat will change operational characteristics (CM/CG/diving depth, surface and submerged stability (See Greeks and the U-214 disaster.) drastically. No-one will know if the plug Electric Boat helped design will cure or kill the boat until it gets wet after a shakedown. The AIP looks chancy, too. By 2023 we should know if it works.

U-214 class.

General characteristics
Displacement:1,690 t (surfaced), 1,860 t (submerged)
Length:213 feet 3 inches (65.0 m)
Beam:20 feet 8 inches (6.3 m)
Draught:19 feet 8 inches (6.0 m)
Propulsion:Diesel-electric, fuel cell AIP, low noise skew back propeller
Speed:
  • 12 kt surfaced
  • 20 kt submerged
Range:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214_submarine#Greece
  • 12,000 miles (19,300 km) (surfaced)
  • 420 nmi (780 km) @ 8 kt (submerged)
  • 1,248 nmi (2,311 km) @ 4 kt (submerged)
Endurance:84 days
Test depth:more than 250m (820 feet)(400m theoretical, 1312 feet)
Complement:5 officers + 22 crew
Armament:(8) 533 mm torpedo tubes, (4) subharpoon-capable
Notes: Straightforwardly German with all the complexities and idiosyncrasies involved, the combat record of German U-boats when measured by OBJECTIVE metrics has been "mixed". Latest example is the Falklands War, a recent submarine loss (ARA San Juan), and the recent Greek debacles. If one reads this aright, I am NOT a fan of German U-boats. One needs to be very aware, that these boats do not forgive mistakes and recent ones have been less than stellar examples of German quality control.

The problem (as far as I can see) is that they tried to enlarge the existing design and ended up with a non-functioning submarine.
The U-214 was a READY design based on the U-212. They could have bought it off-the-shelf and limited the risk of developing a new submarine.

The Scorpene is a fine submarine, no doubt about it. But even the idea of buying 4 such advanced subs for a price of 1.4 billion on a yet to be developed design seems quite utopic to me.

I am not saying that the U-214 class didn't have it's problems too. Look at the problems with the first Greek U-214...
Yes, look at those problems... all traced to the thing acting like a giant plucked banjo. The primary problem seems to be aft in the screws. The Germans made a serious design error that causes vibration and cavitation aft which affects everything else they tried to do when they evolved the 209. Refer to what happens when one attempts to take a small sub and stretch and fatten it. (Collins, TR 1700/U-214, S-80) off a previous design (Gotland, U-209 (twice!), Scorpene.). Submarines do not work that way. Does one think a Virginia is an evolved Los Angeles? It is a "clean" design, based off 688 experience, but brand new in execution.

Was Britain really making the right choice in the 1980's when they ordered new diesel electric submarines? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upholder/Victoria-class_submarine.

Leaving aside the problems spending years in mothballs caused; was this a wise choice for a navy with ever shrinking funding, that could have perhaps been better used on more capable nuclear boats? Also why the bloody hell weren't they provided with an air independent propulsion system?
a. Submarine building skills are perishable. The builders have to stay in practice or they screw up in interesting ways. (Trafalgar and the not so Astute classes.)
b. AIP is still very experimental with mixed results. Also, it is not a cure all for hiding. HEAT is a major problem for AIP equipped boats. It makes for a creep speed limitation and a cooling problem as to how to dump that waste heat.

View attachment 520196

Maybe
My understanding of the Spanish attitude is that they wanted their own design. It was more a political matter than anything. Spain wanted to be able to design and construct all of its ships and to be able to sell them on the market (see the bid Spanish in the Netherlands for example ).

I'm convince that the French design team would have been capable of making the S-80 work for a fraction of the cost the Spanish paid OTL.
Maybe. DCN at the time suggested that approach. But then the Spanish wanted a bigger boat to power project, and earned Collins 2.0. The sub would have worked, it is claimed, if not for that small displacement volume error. Trouble is, submarine design is a knife edge proposition and reserve buoyancy is finicky. One cannot make even a 0.1% balance mistake on flotation over the length of the sausage without killing the boat as an effective platform (stability) and 1% is a sinker. 70-100 tonnes is that error in the S-80 which amounts to about a 2% flotation error distribution. It would take someone who is really GOOD at building subs to figure out how to solve that one. Maybe Electric Boat is the only bunch on the planet besides the French or the Russians who could figure it out. Anyway, the Spanish had three choices for assistance and they made their choice.

Note, I emphatically maintain; the French could have solved the S-80. Russians, too. The Americans were not the only option.
 
Last edited:
There's no way I'd put the loss of ARA San Juan down to anything German related, but down to the miserable state of play in the Argentinian military, I mean this is the same Navy that had a Type 42 sink at it's harbour wall.
 
Comments are mine and are my opinion YMMV and should.
There's no way I'd put the loss of ARA San Juan down to anything German related, but down to the miserable state of play in the Argentinian military, I mean this is the same Navy that had a Type 42 sink at it's harbour wall.
Straightforwardly German with all the complexities and idiosyncrasies involved, the combat record of German U-boats when measured by OBJECTIVE metrics has been "mixed". Latest example is the Falklands War, a recent submarine loss (ARA San Juan), and the recent Greek debacles. If one reads this aright, I am NOT a fan of German U-boats. One needs to be very aware, that these boats do not forgive mistakes and recent ones have been less than stellar examples of German quality control.
It may surprise you to note that I entirely agree with your assessment. (^^^) But I am also aware of the Type 214's and TR 1700's design defects, too.
 
Last edited:
Top