# "High-ranking sources":  Canada considering nuclear subs?



## The Bread Guy

This from CBC.ca:


> CBC News has learned the Harper government is considering buying nuclear submarines to replace its problem-plagued fleet of diesel-powered subs, all of which are currently awash in red ink and out of service for major repairs .... High-ranking sources tell CBC News the government is actively considering cutting its losses on the dud subs, and mothballing some if not all of them.  Defence Minister Peter MacKay is hinting they might be replaced with nuclear submarines that could patrol under the Arctic ice, something the existing diesel-electric subs cannot do.  Outside the Commons this week, MacKay told CBC News the government is anxious to have its submarine fleet fully operational as soon as possible, providing a “very important capability for the Canadian Forces.”  But asked whether the government might look at other subs, MacKay said: “Well there was a position taken some time ago to go with diesel-electric.  “But you know, in an ideal world, I know nuclear subs are what's needed under deep water, deep ice.” ....



A (possibly?) cheaper option, according to one just-noticed-the-CBC-story defence blog post?  Lease LA Class subs from the U.S.!


> .... Something tells me Rep. Joe Courtney (Conn) could come up with a few ideas here - just saying. What would it cost to refuel and refit a Los Angeles class submarine for a second time to add 15 or so more years to the submarine? In 2005 the cost was slightly over $200 million, so even if we estimate the total refit per submarine to be around $350 million (serious modernization), Canada would only be spending $1.4 billion for four SSNs with a service life of 15 years vs $2 billion for four SSKs with a service life of 10 years. Another big advantage for Canada would be they could use the rest of the money to put their sailors through existing US Navy submarine training schools and use existing US contractor services for upkeep, both of which would allow Canada to save a bunch of money.
> 
> The cost difference for the hardware would be $25 million per sub per year for SSNs vs $75 million per sub per year for SSKs. While it is true the operational, maintenance, and personnel costs will be higher for SSNs than it would be for SSKs, there are likely enough cost savings to be gained through existing US infrastructure that it's hard to believe the SSNs would be so much more expensive as to make it a bad deal.
> 
> I'm just floating this idea, but really trying to highlight that leasing Los Angeles class SSNs would likely be cost neutral (or perhaps even cost saving) for the Harper government given the big problems Canada is facing with the Victoria class.
> 
> I don't know if the US Navy even has four 688s that they would be willing to sell to Canada (although in a time of short term budget cuts impacting the Navy, now is the time to talk about this type of thing). I also don't know if the US and Canada can work out a realistic agreement that would give Canada the ability to utilize US Navy infrastructure for training and other services related to 688s. I do know that going down the road of supporting foreign SSNs would be good for either/both Electric Boat and Newport News, because when one looks at the trends they are having in Australia with their submarine industry - a deal with SSNs with Canada now would go a long way towards getting process and framework for this type of high end military deals in place so when our next very close ally comes along - we have a system and experience in place to support such agreements.


----------



## HItorMiss

If this is true, the Nuke boats would be a huge boon to the CF as a whole. There is a projection of power with nuke subs "we are out there and we are watching...". It adds a huge bonus to being able to put a flotilla to sea for international missions. If Canada goes with the new Frigates and a couple of the "BHS" we could in theory put our forces anywhere we wanted with a C&C capability and the ability to protect our ships while we go there and the ability to sub service deploy our SOF pers ( I think I just got all excited  ...). Not to mention the added benefit of being able to patrol our own ice pack....


This really would be a win win, but will the Canadian people and opposition parties let it fly? I fear that the avg Canadian will hear Nuclear Submarine and the spectre of the nuclear bogey man will rear its ugly head not to mention the hippies will start thinking WAR MACHINE....

Sadly maybe its a pipe dream but I like this dream and I don't really want to wake up from it.


----------



## Stoker

While it would be nice to have Nuke subs, there would be too much public outcry just like the last time we toyed with the idea. I personally would like to see the resources and more importantly the personnel go back to the fleet where we're currently hurting. I know we would lose an important capability however we could always go back to subs again when we rebuild the navy with the ship building program.


----------



## Haletown

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> This from CBC.ca:
> A (possibly?) cheaper option, according to one just-noticed-the-CBC-story defence blog post?  Lease LA Class subs from the U.S.!



Of course this assumes the USN wants the RCN to have nuclear boats capable of patrolling areas that the USA considers international waters and Canada maintains are part of our sovereign territory.

Just saying.


----------



## GnyHwy

Of course we're considering it.  We would be stupid otherwise.  I'm considering buying a Bentley right now......... Ok, I'm done; no Bentley for me.


----------



## ekpiper

I think that in order to help inform the public, these news pieces mentioning 'Nuclear Subs' should explain the difference between Ballistic Missile Subs and Nuclear Propulsion Subs.  To be quite honest, I didn't understand the difference between Attack subs and Missile Subs until I had seen several submarine movies and read The Hunt For Red October.  This was some time ago, but it only happened because I had a personal interest in the Navy.


----------



## Stoker

ekpiper said:
			
		

> I think that in order to help inform the public, these news pieces mentioning 'Nuclear Subs' should explain the difference between Ballistic Missile Subs and Nuclear Propulsion Subs.  To be quite honest, I didn't understand the difference between Attack subs and Missile Subs until I had seen several submarine movies and read The Hunt For Red October.  This was some time ago, but it only happened because I had a personal interest in the Navy.



It doesn't matter. The average Canadian doesn't care, all they see is nuclear. Especially with all the bad press Atomic energy has gotten from the disaster in Japan.


----------



## Old Sweat

But there is this denial, from the CBC News website, which is reporduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. 



Nuclear sub buy not planned, Conservative MP says
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/28/pol-nuclear-submarines.html

CBC News 

Posted: Oct 28, 2011 12:19 PM ET 

Last Updated: Oct 28, 2011 12:12 PM ET 

The government isn't looking to buy nuclear submarines, despite a hint by the defence minister, House leader Peter Van Loan said Friday.

In response to a question from an NDP MP, Van Loan said there is "no plan to replace the diesel-electric fleet purchased by the Liberals."

"I think the honourable member has to be wary of relying unduly on misleading reports from the CBC. What is true is that our government is investing in the right mix and the right balance of our forces to have a naval capacity necessary to defend and protect Canada's sovereignty on all our ocean frontiers," Van Loan said.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay hinted earlier this week that Canada's current sub fleet might be replaced with nuclear submarines that could patrol under the Arctic ice, something the existing diesel-electric subs cannot do.

Outside the Commons, MacKay told CBC News the government is anxious to have its submarine fleet fully operational as soon as possible, providing a “very important capability for the Canadian Forces.”

But asked whether the government might look at other subs, MacKay said: “Well, there was a position taken some time ago to go with diesel-electric.

“But you know, in an ideal world, I know nuclear subs are what's needed under deep water, deep ice.”

Nuclear submarines $3B each

Nuclear submarines are hugely expensive — they start around $3 billion apiece — and it is unclear where the Harper government would find that kind of money, much less how it could justify such an enormous expenditure during a period of supposed austerity.

The last time a Canadian government seriously considered nuclear subs was in the late 1980s before then prime minister Brian Mulroney sank the whole program amid a public uproar.

A decade later, Jean Chrétien’s Liberal government bought four used diesel subs from the British navy in large part because it was seen as such a huge bargain.

The four second-hand subs the Chrétien government bought from the British navy in 1998 for $750 million were portrayed at the time as the military bargain of the century.

Instead, they have spent almost all of their time in naval repair yards, submerging Canadian taxpayers in an ocean of bills now totalling more than $1 billion and counting.

One of the subs, HMCS Chicoutimi, has been in active service of the Royal Canadian Navy exactly two days in the 13 years since it was purchased from the Brits.

The Chicoutimi caught fire on its maiden voyage from the U.K. to Canada, killing one sailor and injuring a number of others.

_- mod edit to add link -_


----------



## The Bread Guy

Haletown said:
			
		

> Of course this assumes the USN wants the RCN to have nuclear boats capable of patrolling areas that the USA considers international waters and Canada maintains are part of our sovereign territory.
> 
> Just saying.


I see I wasn't the ONLY one thinking this  ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

ven if the USN was interested, we would have to make some likely unpopular agreements regarding rights of passage and would have to agree to a level of interoperability that might hamper our sovereignty. Then of course there is the question of Canadian of various origins having access to highly classified USN material and technology.

From a strategic point of view, if the USN had to surplus the subs due to funding pressures  and could hand us the operational vessels and keep the capacity they offer with a close ally, it would make perfect sense.


----------



## observor 69

Don't know anything about subs but this one looks great.

Type 214 submarine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214_submarine

What say ye in the know?

Shows a price of $330 million?


----------



## Bass ackwards

I'm curious how we would go about manning such a vessel given that we've never had nuclear powered vessels before. 

Could we borrow advisors from the Brits or the Yanks ? Would we _want_ to ?
Would it not take a very long time to get senior officers and engine room staff to the point they could effectively operate these boats ?


----------



## ballz

Just saw a poll on CBC's "Power & Politics" asking "Does the Canadian Forces need nuclear subs"

While it wasn't 50+% yes, there was a higher "yes" than I expected. The results were:

Yes: 42%
No: 54%
Not sure: 4%

Maybe the public could support it?


----------



## Pusser

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> I'm curious how we would go about manning such a vessel given that we've never had nuclear powered vessels before.
> 
> Could we borrow advisors from the Brits or the Yanks ? Would we _want_ to ?
> Would it not take a very long time to get senior officers and engine room staff to the point they could effectively operate these boats ?



We actually went through all of that the last time.  We actually started building the capability and teaching folks about nuclear propulsion.  RMC started a program on it.

We also tried to educate the public about nuclear propulsion vs nuclear weapons.  Didn't do us one bit of good.  The public didn't understand and chose day care instead.


----------



## cupper

Pusser said:
			
		

> We actually went through all of that the last time.  We actually started building the capability and teaching folks about nuclear propulsion.  RMC started a program on it.
> 
> We also tried to educate the public about nuclear propulsion vs nuclear weapons.  Didn't do us one bit of good.  The public didn't understand and chose day care instead.



I would also think that if they did go nuke, that some form of exchange program would be developed to give the oppourtunity to train crews while the boats are being built so that by the time the first boat is ready to go, we'd have enough qualified to run it, and train new crews coming up.


----------



## PuckChaser

Pusser said:
			
		

> We actually started building the capability and teaching folks about nuclear propulsion.  RMC started a program on it.



We still have the small reactor there, correct?


----------



## old medic

Lorne Gunter: Mothball ‘dud subs,’ buy nukes
From the Full Comment section of the National Post 28 October 2011
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/28/lorne-gunter-mothball-dud-subs-buy-nukes/



> Boy did the Brits ever see us coming in 1998 when the Chretien Liberals pulled up to Honest Nigel’s Used Submarine Shop looking to buy four underwater patrol boats.  The quartet they sold us for the unbelievably low price of just $750 million have been up on blocks in our front yard almost ever since, with weeds growing out the portholes. I expect Canadian Pickers to come along anytime now and offer us $2,000 for the set, take it or leave it.
> 
> None of the four is currently in service. HMCS Chicoutimi — the one that caught fire on its voyage from Britain’s previously owned boat lot to Halifax in Oct. 2004 — has, according to the CBC, “been in active service of the Royal Canadian Navy exactly two days in the 13 years since it was purchased.” It is not expected back in service for another two years, at which time about $400 million will have been spent on repairs and upgrades.
> 
> No sub purchased by the Liberals will be floating underwater around our coasts until at least next year. And by the time all four are operational in 2016 — five years from now and 18 years after they were purchased! — making them seaworthy will have cost Canadian taxpayers $3 billion.
> 
> Let’s face it, the Limeys sold us lemons. If the Liberals had just agreed from the start to buy new nuclear subs, Canada would have spent about the same money ($3 billion), but we would have had subs we could have been using for the past 10 years already, with another 30 years to go. Now by the time we get our British diesel subs fixed, they will be 30 years old and have only about 10 years of serviceable life remaining. Moreover, they still won’t be able to sail under the North Pole and patrol the Arctic because they need air to feed their engines and no aspirated sub can stay underwater for the 14-21 days it takes to sail under the Polar icepack.
> 
> This is not unlike the Liberals decision in the same era to cancel the EH-101 helicopter contract. Breaking the deal signed by the Mulroney Tories in the early 1990s cost taxpayers $500 million, on top of which we had to buy new helicopters anyway. Pretty much the same helicopter at pretty much the same price.
> 
> Asked about the “dud sub” purchase on Thursday, Senator Art Eggleton, who had been Defence minister at the time, insisted the Liberals got a good deal because “we got them at a quarter of the cost it would have cost to build new ones.”
> 
> No, you didn’t, Sir. Since the purchase, taxpayers have had to spend more than four times the original price just to bring the boats up to code and in the meantime our navy has been without subs. In no way is that a bargain. You and your colleagues got hosed, pure and simple, while trying to take the cheap way out.
> 
> So what should we do? Buy nuclear submarines or get out of the sub business altogether.
> 
> Remember a nuclear submarine is one powered by a nuclear reactor. When the Mulroney Tories tried to buy nuke subs in the late 1980s, the move got nixed, in part, because the Liberals were able to convince people the Tories were trying to buy subs with nuclear missiles onboard. That wasn’t true then and it isn’t true now.
> 
> If we want to preserve our Arctic sovereignty, we need submarines capable of staying submerged for weeks. Only subs with nuclear powerplants can do that reliably. So if we want to patrol our northern ocean effectively we need nukes. Either that or we should just get out of the sub-owning business altogether.
> 
> But one way or the other, we should just tow out to sea the diesel subs the Brits stuck us with, sink them and turn them into barrier reefs that tourists and divers can visit. Maybe that way we can recoup a little tax revenue.


----------



## ModlrMike

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Don't know anything about subs but this one looks great.
> 
> Type 214 submarine, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_214_submarine
> 
> What say ye in the know?
> 
> Shows a price of $330 million?



Maybe we can get the Greek ones at a bargain.  ;D


----------



## MJP

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Maybe we can get the Greek ones at a bargain.  ;D



But then they would only work 33 hours a week and retire early with generous pensions...

I would love to see my RCN brethren in subs that are operational but I don't think we are going nuc any time soon.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If the we get the Greek ones we will still have to "Canadianize" them with Rum and the Lash.


----------



## The Bread Guy

ballz said:
			
		

> Just saw a poll on CBC's "Power & Politics" asking "Does the Canadian Forces need nuclear subs"
> 
> While it wasn't 50+% yes, there was a higher "yes" than I expected. The results were:
> 
> Yes: 42%
> No: 54%
> Not sure: 4%
> 
> Maybe the public could support it?


Even more interesting as of this post - more than two-to-one support for nukes over no subs at all.  See attached for more.  Click here if you want to vote.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> If the we get the Greek ones we will still have to "Canadianize" them with Rum Screech and the Lash.


FTFY  ;D


----------



## ModlrMike

So I took the time to read the article again, in detail. I notice that the Minister did not expressly say we were interested in nuclear boats. 

My interpretations: 

This: MacKay said: “Well there was a position taken some time ago to go with diesel-electric. “But you know, in an ideal world, I know nuclear subs are what's needed under deep water, deep ice.”

Has been construed as: ...Harper government is considering buying nuclear submarines...

I don't think the two mean the same thing at all. I read that the Minister was in effect saying "This is what we're doing, accepting that this other thing is the best choice."


----------



## AmmoTech90

Interview this morning on The House (CBC1), the minister gave one direct answer, and that was we are not going to get nuclear subs.


----------



## Danjanou

Colin P said:
			
		

> If the we get the Greek ones we will still have to "Canadianize" them with Rum and the Lash.


 :rofl: :bowdown:


----------



## a_majoor

Sadly, Canadian public opinion has been poisioned against nuclear power (even nuclear power reactors that provide something like 44% of the baseline load for Ontario), so discussing this topic in a rational manner outside professional forums is probably pointless.

This is actually frightening, since nucler submarines will be _the_ capital ships of any 21rst century Navy, replacing aircraft carriers as surely as carriers replaced the battleship. Subs can move relatively undetected anywhere on Earth and carry weapoins and equipment capable of supporting operations on land, sea and air. The Russians showed the way with large nuclear cruise missile subs like the Charlie and Oscar class, and the USN has repurposed Ohio class SSBN's to cruise missile carriers, along with most attack subs being able to carry cruise missiles as well. Landing teams of SEALs is another capability most subs can carry out, and in the future, launching and operating UAVs and UCAVs will be possible as well.

If Canada wants to be able to patrol the Arctic, or participate in operations like the one concluded in Lybia, then a robust nuclear submarine with the internal volume (or exterior carriage) for cruise missiles and like weapons along with more conventional weapons like torpedoes is a must have, otherwise we will have a very vulnerable and second rate fleet.


----------



## Stoker

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sadly, Canadian public opinion has been poisioned against nuclear power (even nuclear power reactors that provide something like 44% of the baseline load for Ontario), so discussing this topic in a rational manner outside professional forums is probably pointless.
> 
> This is actually frightening, since nucler submarines will be _the_ capital ships of any 21rst century Navy, replacing aircraft carriers as surely as carriers replaced the battleship. Subs can move relatively undetected anywhere on Earth and carry weapoins and equipment capable of supporting operations on land, sea and air. The Russians showed the way with large nuclear cruise missile subs like the Charlie and Oscar class, and the USN has repurposed Ohio class SSBN's to cruise missile carriers, along with most attack subs being able to carry cruise missiles as well. Landing teams of SEALs is another capability most subs can carry out, and in the future, launching and operating UAVs and UCAVs will be possible as well.
> 
> If Canada wants to be able to patrol the Arctic, or participate in operations like the one concluded in Lybia, then a robust nuclear submarine with the internal volume (or exterior carriage) for cruise missiles and like weapons along with more conventional weapons like torpedoes is a must have, otherwise we will have a very vulnerable and second rate fleet.



But can Canada with a population of only 30 million people afford such a program? I doubt if we could support a nuclear build program from the ground up without costing billions. Even if we place an order from the US or Britain it still will cost upwards of 15 billion for 4 boats, not to mention maintenance costs. I think Canada would be better off deploying a series of underwater acoustic sensors in the Arctic in conjunction with ASW assets if that is even possible.


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> But can Canada with a population of only 30 million people afford such a program? I doubt if we could support a nuclear build program from the ground up without costing billions. Even if we place an order from the US or Britain it still will cost upwards of 15 billion for 4 boats, not to mention maintenance costs. I think Canada would be better off deploying a series of underwater acoustic sensors in the Arctic in conjunction with ASW assets if that is even possible.



What he said....

With the additional note that "conventional" AIP technologies for subs AND UUVs, as well as adding "Moon Pools" of the type being considered for the Diefenbaker Ice-Breaker to the AOPS, would result in a lot of options that would reduce the need for Perrin Beatty's dozen SSNs.

When the other chap comes at you with a sword is it necessary the you have a sword to respond or is a shield sufficient?

To oppose SSNs is it necessary to have SSNs to fence with them under the ice or is it sufficient to re-engineer the walls of Constantinople and watch the SSNs swim around them for the next 1000 years?


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> What he said....
> 
> With the additional note that "conventional" AIP technologies for subs AND UUVs, as well as adding "Moon Pools" of the type being considered for the Diefenbaker Ice-Breaker to the AOPS, would result in a lot of options that would reduce the need for Perrin Beatty's dozen SSNs.
> 
> When the other chap comes at you with a sword is it necessary the you have a sword to respond or is a shield sufficient?
> 
> To oppose SSNs is it necessary to have SSNs to fence with them under the ice or is it sufficient to re-engineer the walls of Constantinople and watch the SSNs swim around them for the next 1000 years?


Except that the role of the SSN isn't simply to oppose other SSNs.  Submarines have evolved from commerce raiders and asymmetrical naval platforms into multi-mission joint platforms.  Their roles include land attack (cruise missiles), intelligence gathering, insertion and exfiltration of special forces, etc, in addition to traditional ASW / ASuW roles.  SSNs and AIP boats simply extend the endurance and loiter time.  Personally I like the Type 216 being proposed by HDW.

PS:  Canada's population was estimated at 34,278,400 by Statistics Canada


----------



## Stoker

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> Except that the role of the SSN isn't simply to oppose other SSNs.  Submarines have evolved from commerce raiders and asymmetrical naval platforms into multi-mission joint platforms.  Their roles include land attack (cruise missiles), intelligence gathering, insertion and exfiltration of special forces, etc, in addition to traditional ASW / ASuW roles.  SSNs and AIP boats simply extend the endurance and loiter time.  Personally I like the Type 216 being proposed by HDW.
> 
> PS:  Canada's population was estimated at 34,278,400 by Statistics Canada



Excuse me for being behind the times on population  The power the SSN brings to bear is impressive, however alot of the those capabilities are not needed in the Arctic right now. We are better off in my opinion building an advanced acoustic net in conjunction with ASW assets.
As for the 216 its very impressive, but i'm not sold on the AIP technology.


----------



## a_majoor

In terms of potential resources, India, with a smaller GDP has created and sustained a large military force including strategic nuclear weapons and limited force projection in the form of an aircraft carrier and many submarines (including a leased Soviet Nuclear sub at one time), so to say we *can't* afford it is a non starter; we have the potential to afford lots of things. We simply choose to let the United States take our defense burden while we navel gaze about subsidized day care or market "supply" management.

Kirkhill, you should know that there is a need for both a sword _and_ a shield, castles and fortified cities were primarily for military forces to rest, supply and rearm before marching out to subdue the territory. The lines of sensors and the ability of Canadian icebreakers and Coast Guard vessels to deploy robotic vehicles would be a great economy of force measure, but none of that would do any good to supporting the CoG's efforts in Libya. Given there were various attempted attacks against the Canadian warship that was there, we should start thinking about how to do those missions in such a way that a competent enemy could not prevent (remember the Hezbollah received Iranian help to launch an anti ship missile at an isreali corvette during the last series of battles in Lebanon, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard operates a Naval force of small boats capable of swarming a conventional warship with mines, torpedoes and rockets, much less suicide bombs). A submarine lurking offshore (or even far out to sea) would be very difficult to detect and still have the ability to carry out suporting tasks for the mission.

While it may be possible to carry out these missions with diesel submarines or various AIP schemes, the level of complexity for most of these brings a price and support cost similar to nuclear submarines anyway. Canada also has unique requirements, having two long coastlines, an Arctic coverd in ice and the need to project forces globally, all of which point to a large, capable vessel. Nuclear submarines fit the bill nicely.

If there was a way to get around the issue, it might be to team with Australia and possibly India, since these nations also have similar strategic issues, and create a consortium to build a large number of a common SSN class.


----------



## cupper

We all know that within 10 to 15 years the need for nuke boats to sail under the polar ice will be a fantasy anyway, thanks to global warming. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for the instruction Lex, and I agree with you Thuc that there IS a need for both a sword and a shield.  But how much does it cost to build the shield and how many swordsmen do we need to hire?  And how much risk do we inevitably have to accept regardless of which solution we elect to implement?

I am a strong believer in assymetry, whether it is rock-paper-scissors or infantry-cavalry-artillery or, for that matter, engineering.


----------



## STONEY

There is also the small  "n"  option which was being worked on a few years back by Canadian researchers of putting a low power nuc in a diesel boat with just enough power output to keep its batteries charged up indefinately. This was dropped as too expensive an option to convert the Victoria's but would be cheaper than SSN'S.

Also remember that the Aussi's looked at the Brit boats but as thay wanted 6 and only 4 were available so they went and built 6 boats to a new design and and have way more problems with them at many times more cost and are having trouble keeping 1 boat operational 10 years later.

Cheers


----------



## a_majoor

Here is a snip from the latest "Maple Leaf", which points to one potential answer to the problem:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/commun/ml-fe/article-eng.asp?id=7148



> Surveillance in the Arctic extends far beyond the sky, however. Last year, Defence Research and Development Canada Atlantic set a new world record in under-ice operations employing an unmanned underwater vehicle (UUV) that travelled more than 1,000 km under ice over a 10-day period, at depths in excess of 3,000 m.



Now for various reasons UUV's are a much harder technical challenge than UAVs or UCAVs, but they can be used to patrol limited and well defined "choke points" like the entrances to the North West Passage, or to be released off hostile shores to carry out various tasks like surveillance and passing target and intelligence data to other warships and submarines. Later, armed UUV's will hunt enemy shipping or lay and clear minefields and carry out other strike tasks against the enemy. Their small size and lack of crew (or need for pressurized crew spaces) may make an AIP system viable for this role, but very capable UUV's that can deploy from Canada to foreign shores may still need to be nuclear powered in order to have the speed and range to be relevant tools for military applications.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

So if we go the route UUVs what happens when an aircraft or a ship foes down in the Arctic? Without a manned vessel presence how would you rescue the survivors? UUVs have their place but used in conjunction with manned ships.


----------



## a_majoor

Just like UAV and UCAV's don't totally replace aircraft. I expect that since submarines are very expensive and technically demanding, Canada might be tempted to explore UUV's to replace the submarine part of the Naval mix, leaving surface vessels as the maned part of the fleet. Manned UUV tenders of some sort will be part of the mix (or warships will carry UUV's the way they carry helicopters today).


----------



## dimsum

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Just like UAV and UCAV's don't totally replace aircraft.



Yet.   :blotto:


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> There is also the small  "n"  option which was being worked on a few years back by Canadian researchers of putting a low power nuc in a diesel boat with just enough power output to keep its batteries charged up indefinately. This was dropped as too expensive an option to convert the Victoria's but would be cheaper than SSN'S.



The largest problem with Arctic submarine operations is getting the boats from their home port to the SPA. An SSn would still have an SSK transit speed, and would pretty much have to turn around as soon as it arrived at an Arctic SPA, just like a Victoria.



> Also remember that the Aussi's looked at the Brit boats but as thay wanted 6 and only 4 were available so they went and built 6 boats to a new design and and have way more problems with them at many times more cost and are having trouble keeping 1 boat operational 10 years later.



The RAN looked at the Upholders as bridging boats between the Oberons and getting the Collins fully available, and turned it down on cost-effective grounds.

The Collins program is pretty much sorted out now, and has produced a much better boat than SCLE has.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Can't afford it, cant support it logistically, and there is no point in attempting to introduce what would likely be another underarmed, under equipped, high maintenance, low serviceability vessel, in both official languages.  AOPS is a prime example of that- expensive, ill equipped and of no value as a deterrent. A floating flagpole at great cost and distraction to more effective means and effort.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> The Collins program is pretty much sorted out now, and has produced a much better boat than SCLE has.


You would have trouble convincing the RAN of that!  Their Defence Minister noted in July 2011 there are “long-term difficulties with the Collins Class submarine fleet, and announced a full independent review led by British private sector expert John Coles.   The Minister noted too many stretches where only 1-2 submarines (of 6) have been available and there are reportedly doubts that the subs’ diesels are robust enough to last until 2025 as planned.  Google "Coles Review" for more of the same.

As far as cost and value for money, and shared with the usual caveats:

Figures obtained by the Herald Sun show the six Collins subs cost about $630 million a year – or $105 million each – to maintain, making them the most expensive submarines ever to put to sea…. The annual price for “sustainment” (maintenance and support) is $415.9 million for 2011-12 with operating costs running at $213.4 million for the year, for a total of $629.3 million.


----------



## The Bread Guy

In this column against nuclear subs, I'd love to hear from those in the know about such things:  is the bit highlighted in yellow true?


> .... What is it about submarines that dazzles Canadian governments? It’s understandable that the navy falls in love with exotic toys — and submariners are a breed apart, doing a tough and dangerous job to which not everyone can adapt. Historically, Canada’s navy has an envious record — without submarines. So why do we want them? In 1998, we bought four submarines from Britain at the discount price of $750 million. A real bargain, we thought.Lucky we weren’t offered suits of armour.
> 
> The damn subs have been mostly in dry dock ever since — at the cost of a couple of billion since 1998, and the life of one sailor when a sub caught fire. Whenever outsiders questioned the purchase of aging subs, the explanation was that they enhanced our “sovereignty.” How sovereignty is established underwater is unclear — especially when these bloody things barely go underwater, and when they do they bump the bottom of the ocean. Or something goes wrong.
> 
> Submarines are an attack weapon. *Dating back to the First World War, no Canadian submarine has ever fired a torpedo in anger. Our destroyers were pretty effective at killing German U-boats in war, but they aren’t essential for our navy, war or no war.*
> 
> Now, Defence Minister Peter MacKay is making noises about acquiring nuclear submarines, which he’s called “a very important capability for the Canadian Forces ... nuclear subs are what’s needed under deep water, deep ice.” Oh? Why are they “needed?” We’ve had the nuclear sub argument before — with the government explaining that “nuclear” sub means nuclear-powered, not armed with nuclear weapons. What advantage would nuclear subs give Canada? Well, we could better detect Russian subs under Arctic ice. What would we do if we detected Russian subs? Well, we could inform the CBC, which would relay the fact to Canadians. Would we consider torpedoing a Russian sub? Good gracious, no! Not even an American sub ....


----------



## aesop081

Poor, clueless Peter Worthington




> Originally Oberon-class submarines in the Royal Navy, named Unseen, Unicorn, Ursula and Upholder, we re-named them as the more mundane Victoria, Windsor, Corner Brook and Chicoutimi.



Wrong. They were Upholder-class submarines in RN service.

Maybe when he can perform basic fact-checking, i will pay attention to what he says.


----------



## Monsoon

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Poor, clueless Peter Worthington
> 
> 
> Wrong. They were Upholder-class submarines in RN service.
> 
> Maybe when he can perform basic fact-checking, i will pay attention to what he says.


It's astonishing how many basic (and easily verifiable) facts he can get wrong in a single column. The RCN has had submarines since the First World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_CC-1) and continuously since 1965.


----------



## The Bread Guy

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Poor, clueless Peter Worthington
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Oberon-class submarines in the Royal Navy, named Unseen, Unicorn, Ursula and Upholder, we re-named them as the more mundane Victoria, Windsor, Corner Brook and Chicoutimi.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. They were Upholder-class submarines in RN service.
> 
> Maybe when he can perform basic fact-checking, i will pay attention to what he says.
Click to expand...




			
				hamiltongs said:
			
		

> It's astonishing how many basic (and easily verifiable) facts he can get wrong in a single column. The RCN has had submarines since the First World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_CC-1) and continuously since 1965.


Ouch - thanks for sharing the fact checks.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Did anyone try emailing him? There is a link at the site the column is in to email him personally. I may after work today just to ask him where he obtained his facts though admitedly both the major ones could be nothing more than a sudden onset of momentary lapse of judgement.


----------



## The Bread Guy

Pat in Halifax said:
			
		

> Did anyone try emailing him? There is a link at the site the column is in to email him personally. I may after work today just to ask him where he obtained his facts though admitedly both the major ones could be nothing more than a sudden onset of momentary lapse of judgement.


Here's a link to his list o' columns:
http://www.lfpress.com/comment/columnists/peter_worthington/
which includes a link to e-mail him at peter.worthington@sunmedia.ca - let us know what he has to say if you do write.

I'm also surprised there's no comments pointing these things out yet.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> You would have trouble convincing the RAN of that!  Their Defence Minister noted in July 2011 there are “long-term difficulties with the Collins Class submarine fleet, and announced a full independent review led by British private sector expert John Coles.   The Minister noted too many stretches where only 1-2 submarines (of 6) have been available and there are reportedly doubts that the subs’ diesels are robust enough to last until 2025 as planned.  Google "Coles Review" for more of the same.
> 
> As far as cost and value for money, and shared with the usual caveats:
> 
> Figures obtained by the Herald Sun show the six Collins subs cost about $630 million a year – or $105 million each – to maintain, making them the most expensive submarines ever to put to sea…. The annual price for “sustainment” (maintenance and support) is $415.9 million for 2011-12 with operating costs running at $213.4 million for the year, for a total of $629.3 million.



The major availability issues with the Collins is that their refits are taking too long, exacerbated by lack of crew. Both issues should be handled over the next few years as they get more experience. 

Operational costs are high, but so are ours. You could generate similar numbers from dividing the number of days at sea by the current submarine program costs, but neither figure is a terribly accurate prediction of future costs. 

The diesels on the Collins apparently had manufacturing defects that have been rectified.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

milnews.ca-

It is true that no Canadian submarine has ever fired a torpedo in anger.  But, so what?

No Canadian Warship has ever fired a missile in anger- does that mean that we don't need missile armed warships?

No Canadian Fighter has ever fired an air-to-air missile at another airplane- does that mean that we do not need missiles or inteceptors?

The columnist's train of logic and grasp of the facts is hazy, at best.


----------



## The Bread Guy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> milnews.ca-
> 
> It is true that no Canadian submarine has ever fired a torpedo in anger.  But, so what?


Just seeking to confirm the factoid since I'd never heard it before.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> No Canadian Warship has ever fired a missile in anger- does that mean that we don't need missile armed warships?
> 
> No Canadian Fighter has ever fired an air-to-air missile at another airplane- does that mean that we do not need missiles or inteceptors?
> 
> The columnist's train of logic and grasp of the facts is hazy, at best.


Agreed, in spades.


----------



## cphansen

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> milnews.ca-
> 
> It is true that no Canadian submarine has ever fired a torpedo in anger.  But, so what?
> 
> No Canadian Warship has ever fired a missile in anger- does that mean that we don't need missile armed warships?
> 
> No Canadian Fighter has ever fired an air-to-air missile at another airplane- does that mean that we do not need missiles or inteceptors?
> 
> The columnist's train of logic and grasp of the facts is hazy, at best.



Whether the submarines have never fired a torpedo in anger, they did provide submarines to train against the ASW  forces and don't think that wasn't a valuable contribution in WWII and during the Cold War. Our ASW forces may have been world class, but they wouldn't have been without submarines to train against.

I would hope that when the Victoria class subs do hit their stride that ASW training would be one of their priorities. They don't just provide targets for the ASW forces, they provide living breathing and most importantly of all, thinking adversaries.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> milnews.ca-
> No Canadian Fighter has ever fired an air-to-air missile at another airplane- does that mean that we do not need missiles or inteceptors?


 True, but one did fire an air-to-air missile at an Iraqi gunboat. Not many air forces have that honour.  ;D


----------



## Retired AF Guy

On the serious side, if the Liberals weren't trying buy something on the cheap, they could have bought a couple of the Swedish Gotland class SSK's which are considered to be some of the stealthy SSKs out there. So good in fact that the USN leased one for two years to operate against US forces; something that apparently it did very well, if this news article is to be believed.

 HMS Gotland defeats U.S. Navy in Excercises 

Here are some good exterior/interior shots taken by a group of WWII sub vets touring the HMS Gotland when it was in the U.S.

 The USS Navy gets to learn how to find diesel subs... by contracting the Swedes. 


More on Gotland class:

 The Gotland Class Submarine 

The Gotland class is fitted the  Stirling Air-independent propulsion system  that gives it its stealth capability and the ability to stay submerged up to a max of 30 days.

Not to rest on their laurels, the Swedes have already approved the purchase of two new subs called the Kockums A26. This new class well be capable of carrying out a variety of missions, including the launch and recovery of UUVs, improved survivability, and the ability to stay submerged to up to 45 days. More here:

 Kockums A26 

The above link also has a pdf file that has a good overview of the proposed A26. Unfortunately, its to large to post here.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If I recall the Gotland have a fairly short range and are not a deep diver, they have been optimized for patrolling the Baltic, just to ship them to the US they had to bring in a heavy lift ship.


----------



## SeaDog

As for the "torpedoes fired in anger" comment, it is only partially true.  During both the First and Second World Wars Canada produced submarines in our shipyards for our allies, but our RCN (and a few RCNVR) officers and crew sailed in RN submarines.  Most notably, officers who passed the Submarine Commanding Officer's Course (Perisher) - were employed as the Captains of operational RN submarines.  This started with Barney Johnson in 1915 (the RCN's first wartime submarine captain) and continued through until 1945 when J.A. Cross was the skipper of HMS Unseen (and the captured U-889).  In short, a great many Canadians, serving in the Royal Canadian Navy, trained, fought and commanded submarines in war - the only caveat being that they were RN commissioned submarines.  In all, Canadians commanded sixteen of the RN's submarines during wartime - and this number only includes actual RCN officers - not Canadians who joined the RN. Not an insignificant number.  The Silent Service in Canada has a been a bit too silent of it's achievements - but hopefully this will be changed during our upcoming celebrations for the 100th Anniversary of the Canadian Submarine Service.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Let's not forget the contributions of the BCN and it's 2 submarines in WWI  ;D


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

SeaDog said:
			
		

> As for the "torpedoes fired in anger" comment, it is only partially true.  During both the First and Second World Wars Canada produced submarines in our shipyards for our allies, but our RCN (and a few RCNVR) officers and crew sailed in RN submarines.  Most notably, officers who passed the Submarine Commanding Officer's Course (Perisher) - were employed as the Captains of operational RN submarines.  This started with Barney Johnson in 1915 (the RCN's first wartime submarine captain) and continued through until 1945 when J.A. Cross was the skipper of HMS Unseen (and the captured U-889).  In short, a great many Canadians, serving in the Royal Canadian Navy, trained, fought and commanded submarines in war - the only caveat being that they were RN commissioned submarines.  In all, Canadians commanded sixteen of the RN's submarines during wartime - and this number only includes actual RCN officers - not Canadians who joined the RN. Not an insignificant number.  The Silent Service in Canada has a been a bit too silent of it's achievements - but hopefully this will be changed during our upcoming celebrations for the 100th Anniversary of the Canadian Submarine Service.



Any links or online material regarding the submarine construction for our Allies I would be interested in finding out more about that, as its the first I have ever heard regarding Canadian submarine construction during wartime. Thanks.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Colin P said:
			
		

> If I recall the Gotland have a fairly short range and are not a deep diver, they have been optimized for patrolling the Baltic, just to ship them to the US they had to bring in a heavy lift ship.



Actually, I couldn't find anything on the range/depth capabilities of the Gotland class. As a comparison the German U-214 class which is also uses an AIP system has a range of 12,000 nm (surface) or submerged - 420 nmi @ 8 kt/1,248 nmi @ 4 kt. The U-214 was tested to a depth of 214m, with a theoretical depth of 400m. 

The A26 is planned to be capable of both littoral and deep blue sea operations.


----------



## SeaDog

I'll have to dig up something online to support this.  I've read it in several submarine histories - either Perkins or Marc Milner made mention of it for sure.  The construction of submarines was, in reality, the nucleus of the Canadian Submarine service.  Vickers in Montreal built H-boats for the RN, but it was Canadian submariners that took them to the UK and once there, stayed on as crew. Hence I argue that "never fired a shot in anger" is not quite as cut and dry as it seems.


----------



## SeaDog

http://dev.legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2005/05/the-birth-of-the-submarine-service/

Dug up this to start with.  The quintessential read on this is J. David Perkins "Canadian Submariners:1914-1923".  I'd ref it directly but I'm afraid it's in my office down at the squadron.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

SeaDog said:
			
		

> http://dev.legionmagazine.com/en/index.php/2005/05/the-birth-of-the-submarine-service/
> 
> Dug up this to start with.  The quintessential read on this is J. David Perkins "Canadian Submariners:1914-1923".  I'd ref it directly but I'm afraid it's in my office down at the squadron.



Interesting read...thank you for the link.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> The major availability issues with the Collins is that their refits are taking too long, exacerbated by lack of crew. Both issues should be handled over the next few years as they get more experience.


Main Motor, batteries, sea water systems, and diesels are all flawed.  Hence the inquiry.  Maybe your info is better than the Australian Government though.



			
				drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> You could generate similar numbers from dividing the number of days at sea by the current submarine program costs...


You could generate numbers...just not similar though.  Somewhere around 25% at a per hull cost.



			
				drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> The diesels on the Collins apparently had manufacturing defects that have been rectified.


Good to know.  You may want to let the Cole Review know.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The Cole Review is a ministerial review at the political level, responding to public perception of problems with the Collins class. It's not RAN, although any information the RAN has will be used by the review. If the RAN was running this, it would be a BoI under different rules. 

The issues that you mentioned have been issues, but most have only been major once. The lessons were learned and those particular issues didn't happen again. It's not that they weren't major and they had a large effect on the boats availabilities, but they aren't a reasonable predictor of future performance. The major issues that have ben repeated have been refits running over-long and low crew numbers. The first should be addressed as they get more experience doing these refits, and the second is turning around now.

In terms of per-sea-day cost equivalents, we would have a division-by-zero problem. We haven't had a fully certified boat since Onondaga paid off, so the first sea day for Victoria would have to bear the entire cost of the program divided by 1. That's not reasonable as a future predictor either.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Actually, I couldn't find anything on the range/depth capabilities of the Gotland class. As a comparison the German U-214 class which is also uses an AIP system has a range of 12,000 nm (surface) or submerged - 420 nmi @ 8 kt/1,248 nmi @ 4 kt. The U-214 was tested to a depth of 214m, with a theoretical depth of 400m.
> 
> 
> The U-214 seems a tad bigger, but the Upholders are 10m larger than the Gotland class
> 
> Gotland class
> 
> The A26 is planned to be capable of both littoral and deep blue sea operations.



isplacement:	Surfaced: 1,494 tonnes (1,470 long tons)
Submerged: 1,599 tonnes (1,574 long tons)
Length:	60.4 m (198 ft 2 in)
Beam:	6.2 m (20 ft 4 in)
Draft:	5.6 m (18 ft 4 in)
Propulsion:	2× Diesel-electric MTU engines
2× Kockums v4-275R Stirling AIP units
Speed:	Surfaced: 11 knots (20 km/h)
Submerged: 20 knots (37 km/h) on batteries; 5 knots (9.3 km/h) on AIP

U-214
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:	12,000 miles (19,300 km) surfaced
420 nmi (780 km) @ 8 kt
1,248 nmi (2,311 km) @ 4 kt

Upholder Class 

Displacement:	2,455 tons
Length:	70.26 m
Beam:	7.2 m
Draught:	7.6 m
Propulsion:	Diesel-electric- 1 shaft
2 × Paxman Valenta 2,035 hp (1.517 MW) 1600 RPA SZ diesels (3.035 MW total)
1 × GEC electric motor (5 MW)
Speed:	12 knots (surface)
20+ knots (submerged)
Range:	8,000 nmi (15,000 km; 9,200 mi)


----------



## a_majoor

An old article, but it lays out many of the options that are still on the table today:

http://centreforforeignpolicystudies.dal.ca/cdq/Compton%20Hall%20Winter%201989.PDF


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

ugh....just saw on Wikipedia that the RCN is looking at getting up to 8 Virginia class SSNs.  :


----------



## yoman

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> ugh....just saw on Wikipedia that the RCN is looking at getting up to 8 Virginia class SSNs.  :



If it's on wikipedia it must be true.  8)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

For a few hunderd dollars no less  ;D

http://www.fxmodels.com/192Virginia.shtml


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Colin P said:
			
		

> For a few hunderd dollars no less  ;D
> 
> http://www.fxmodels.com/192Virginia.shtml



Oh those are nice....


----------



## Navy_Blue

You guys have no idea how close we are to having no Subs.  Nukes are not going to happen.  It will be heart braking if these boats get canceled at the 11th hour.  We have spent so much money to this point and committed millions more for the future.  It will be just like the EH-101 the contractors will get all the cash for doing nothing.  For those that say it will never happen I believe the public is getting more upset and the government is having a harder and harder time selling the platform with no results.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Every "fleet" is always under the gun. The submarines have a lot of high level support from a lot of sources: civil and military.

There are those, to be sure, who support the submarines simply because they believe that when we have a real, valid operational requirement for something we must never back down in the face of public or political pressure - even, as was the case with Admiral John Anderson  in 1993, "speaking truth to power" costs one his job. (Anderson was CDS and was fired by Jean Chrétien for contradicting Chrétien's assertions that the Navy didn't need either nuclear submarines (I'm not sure about the need but I am certain (because of where I used to work) that the Mulroney/Beatty cost figure of $10 billion was too low by at least $10 billion) or EH-101s.

But there are also many senior officers and senior civil service who understand the need for a balanced force and who understand that submarines, however few, are part of that balance.

Some people talk about "higher priority" needs for tanks, guns, aircraft, etc but they are reminded that what goes around comes around and, eventually, the Navy will be in charge. So they, too, are "on board" if only for _insurance_ purposes.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

You could use the "balanced force" argument to justify anything from carrier aviation to launching our own RORSATS. 

The question is whether the current submarine capability is worth it's opportunity cost to the rest of the Navy and the CF in general. I think the capability is seen as worth the cost right now, while the current Arctic negotiations are being worked out. That may change when the negotiations are complete.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> You could use the "balanced force" argument to justify anything from carrier aviation to launching our own RORSATS.
> 
> The question is whether the current submarine capability is worth it's opportunity cost to the rest of the Navy and the CF in general. I think the capability is seen as worth the cost right now, while the current Arctic negotiations are being worked out. That may change when the negotiations are complete.



If it's seen as worth the investment now, won't that positive impression only increase as more boats become operational?

As a side note, in order to try to obtain NDP support, I'm surprised that no one in the Navy is suggesting that any nextgen submarines should be discussed in the context of being an add-on to the existing National Shipbuilding Program.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> If it's seen as worth the investment now, won't that positive impression only increase as more boats become operational?
> 
> As a side note, in order to try to obtain NDP support, I'm surprised that no one in the Navy is suggesting that any nextgen submarines should be discussed in the context of being an add-on to the existing National Shipbuilding Program.



Maybe someone in a backroom has?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

WHy is NDP support required?


----------



## aesop081

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> WHy is NDP support required?



He forgot that "majority" translates to "suck it NDP" in political language ?


----------



## Haletown

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> He forgot that "majority" translates to "suck it NDP" in political language ?



NDP support is as useful as a jock strap with worn out elastic.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Haletown said:
			
		

> NDP support is as useful as a jock strap with worn out elastic.


I'd rather take the jock strap, at least it has some potential value, which is more than can be said for the NDP.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> WHy is NDP support required?



The reality is if you don't get the NDP onboard, as the official opposition, the NDP can directly and indirectly (using mouthpieces like Steven Staples) create a non-stop stream of negative news releases that galvanizes a large portion of the population against the purchase..

On the other hand if they're on board with the idea by focusing on domestic labour spending....not only do you not need to fight, you may actually gain an ally.

Basic Art of War principles....


----------



## OldSolduer

The biggest problem I see here is the word "nuclear".

It doesn't matter if its stated "nuclear powered submarines which can submerge for x number of days at a time to patrol under the Arctic ice pack". Left wingers and enviro types will stop at the word "nuclear".

PLUS - our allies may not want to transfer technology to us.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Maybe we should start pronouncing it "nukelar", a la Bush. 

Seriously though, during Nuke Boats round one (Mulroney era), the French had no qualms about selling us their attack boats. In view of their current military ships order book, I am sure they still would be willing.

As for the Americans, in round one, they could not accommodate us (some thought they did not want too, but in fact, it was height of cold war and they were cranking out their own nuke boats as fast as they could), but they did authorize the Brits to sell us their subs, which required US authorization because Brits use American nuclear power plants themselves. The US had no problems with that and the Brit boats were probably just as good as US ones technologically.

Nowadays, the US has problems getting congress to buy enough replacement nuclear subs at a level barely sufficient to retain the technological knowledge base required at the yards that build them. I think they would welcome the possibility of filling an outside order of 6 to 8 subs, especially for the only naval ally they trust almost as much as their own.


----------



## Kirkhill

The Yanks have got Brit pilots on secondment flying Yankee aircraft off of Yankee Carriers.  It wouldn't surprise me if "Redundant" Brit Harrier pilots ended up flying their old aircraft for the USMC on secondment.

Perhaps the same thing could apply to SSNs as applies to AWACs.   Canada chips in for the cost of the vessel. The US manages the maintenance and support and Canada supplies crew (initially part of the US crew and eventually independent crews).

I still believe something of the same sort could be agreed with the Brits in terms of manning and operating their two (eventually) new carriers.

After all..... we're all good pals together.  Right?  ;D


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think they would welcome the possibility of filling an outside order of 6 to 8 subs, especially for the only naval ally they trust almost as much as their own.


I guess the issue is again the cost.  At a per unit cost for the U.S. Virginia Class submarines of $1.8billion (2009) x 6, that's $10.8billion just for the boats not including any training, facilities upgrades etc.  Even if we were to scale that purchase back to 4 subs, that's still $7.2billion at a time that budget cuts are being the talk of the day.  Especially since we're already spending $33billion on 28 ships, it's going to be a hard sell to put that number over the $40billion mark.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the expenditure to replace our aging equipment, I'm just realistic in the this being pushed infront of Canadian taxpayers and us not getting a positive response.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Your quite right to point out the cost Canadian.Trucker.

However, the 33 $B for 28 ships does not include (yet) the replacement of the "Upholders" that will have to be replaced at some point anyway. At that point a replacement "new" diesel boat that meets our requirements is likely going to be in the $1.2B to $1.5B range per boat. That by the way is what the 14 SCSC's in the 28 ship currently slated for construction will also likely cost each. 

At that rate, spending 50% more for each boat but getting a nuclear propelled one instead of diesel is a bargain.

You also have to understand that all this is stretched over a period on 20 years, so even at a total value of $40B, its just about $2B/year, something that would be part of the ongoing annual materiel acquisition budgets.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker

True the Victoria class subs need to be replaced, and I do believe they should be so we can retain this skillset.  As I've said in other posts I'm all for replacing our aging equipment, I'm just realistic about how these ideas will be met.  The Upholders were the "deal of the century" that turned out to be a full lemon cart.  I think we need to cut our losses and look at going with something else, if that is nuclear then so be it, arctic sovereignty should be at the forefront of our minds WRT the purchase of new subs.


----------



## a_majoor

Given that nuclear submarines are likely to be "the" capital ships of the 21rst century, you might be able to factor out surface ships as time passes, creating cost savings while developing superior abilities and capabilities. Nuclear attack subs (SSN) have strategic range, mobility and strike capabilities (using cruise missiles)

(Of course, pigs might fly as well, unless a very effective sales and education job is being done to the public and politicians).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Your quite right to point out the cost Canadian.Trucker.
> 
> However, the 33 $B for 28 ships does not include (yet) the replacement of the "Upholders" that will have to be replaced at some point anyway. At that point a replacement "new" diesel boat that meets our requirements is likely going to be in the $1.2B to $1.5B range per boat. That by the way is what the 14 SCSC's in the 28 ship currently slated for construction will also likely cost each.
> 
> At that rate, spending 50% more for each boat but getting a nuclear propelled one instead of diesel is a bargain.
> 
> You also have to understand that all this is stretched over a period on 20 years, so even at a total value of $40B, its just about $2B/year, something that would be part of the ongoing annual materiel acquisition budgets.



Don't forget the CSC project is still at 15 ships, don't gut us before we get gutted by the paper pushers in Ottawa.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> Given that nuclear submarines are likely to be "the" capital ships of the 21rst century, you might be able to factor out surface ships as time passes, creating cost savings while developing superior abilities and capabilities. Nuclear attack subs (SSN) have strategic range, mobility and strike capabilities (using cruise missiles)



You could get all of those qualities with a nuclear-powered CSC. CGN's were good for a 30+ knot SOA.


----------



## a_majoor

Since we are dreaming in technicolour anyway  

1. Surface warships are becoming too vulnerable. High speed missiles, submarines, high speed torpedoes (even supercavitating ones that approach at 300KPH or more), smart mines and saturation attacks with low tech weapons or even speed boats put conventional displaement hulls at a huge disadvantage.

2. Surface combatents need to be able to move a lot faster to have a chance to avoid these threats, and would be even better off if they were not actually in the water (this is needed to go really fast anyway, water is 800 times denser than air). This suggests a Wing in Ground Effect vehicle (WIGE or WIG). The Russians experimented with various designs ranging from jet powered models bigger than a 747 to turboprop powered vehicles similar in size to large transport aircraft. These type of vehicles can also land in the water and "drift" if needed to deploy and recover hydrophones or UUV's. They would be conceptually similar to seaplanes (and could even _be_ seaplanes if flying is considered more advantagious than WIG flight. The Martin Seamaster was roughly similar to the B-47 in terms of payload and performance).

3. Underwater combatents have the unique advantage of being mostly invisible, so can stay on station for a long time, "lurking" but being very hard for the enemy to detect. Current state of the art gives the highest performance to SSN's powered by nuclear reactors, and this is not likely to change unless some unconventional, compact and high energy density power source comes along to replace the current nuclear reactors.

4. Being able to stay on station for long periods of time also suggests that blimps or other Lighter Than Air (LTA) craft should be part of the mix of future fleets, performing surveillance and other tasks.

Future fleets will be very different from what we see today...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Don't forget the CSC project is still at 15 ships, don't gut us before we get gutted by the paper pushers in Ottawa.



Quite correct, a typo - My bad - and I noticed too late to edit.


----------



## GAP

So maybe we could get some of these......


Newer Isn't Always Better Enough
Article Link
December 4, 2011: 

Russia has begun construction of its second "Improved Kilo" class diesel-electric submarine. These are mostly for the export market, although the Russian Navy is buying a few more of this improved model as well. The Kilos weigh 2,300 tons (surface displacement), have six torpedo tubes and a crew of 57. They are quiet, and can travel about 700 kilometers under water at a quiet speed of about five kilometers an hour. Kilos carry 18 torpedoes or SS-N-27 anti-ship missiles (with a range of 300 kilometers and launched underwater from the torpedo tubes.) The combination of quietness and cruise missiles makes Kilo very dangerous to American carriers. But for the Russians, their Kilos are mostly for home defense. Nuclear subs are used for the long distance work. The successor to the Kilo, the Lada, underwent three years of sea trials before they were declared fit for service two years ago. One has been built and another is under construction and eight are planned. The problem with the Lada is that it is not enough of an improvement on the latest Kilo to attract any export orders.
The Kilo class boats entered service in the early 1980s. Russia only bought 24 of them, but exported over 30. It was considered a successful design, especially with export customers. But just before the Cold War ended in 1991, the Soviet Navy began work on the Lada. This project was stalled during most of the 1990s by a lack of money, but was revived in the last decade.

The Ladas have six 533mm torpedo tubes, with 18 torpedoes and/or missiles carried. The Lada has a surface displacement of 1,750 tons, are 71 meters (220 feet) long and carry a crew of 38. Each crewmember has their own cabin (very small for the junior crew, but still, a big morale boost). When submerged, the submarine can cruise at a top speed of about 39 kilometers an hour (half that on the surface) and can dive to about 250 meters (800 feet). The Lada can stay at sea for as long as 50 days, and the sub can travel as much as 10,000 kilometers using its diesel engine (underwater, via the snorkel). Submerged, using battery power alone, the Lada can travel about 450 kilometers. There is also an electronic periscope (which goes to the surface via a cable), that includes a night vision capability and a laser range finder. The Lada was designed to accept a AIP (air independent propulsion) system. Russia was long a pioneer in AIP design, but in the last decade, Western European nations have taken the lead. Construction on the first Lada began in 1997, but money shortages delayed work for years. The first Lada boat was finally completed in 2005. A less complex version, called the Amur, is being offered for export.

The Ladas are designed to be fast attack and scouting boats. They are intended for anti-surface and anti-submarine operations as well as naval reconnaissance. These boats are said to be eight times quieter than the Kilos. This was accomplished by using anechoic (sound absorbing) tile coatings on the exterior, and a very quiet (skewed) propeller. All interior machinery was designed with silence in mind. The sensors include active and passive sonars, including towed passive sonar.

Russia has 17 Kilos in service (and six in reserve) and six Improved Kilos on order. More than that is on order from foreign customers, and efforts to sell the Lada continue.
end


----------



## Pusser

The world bought Ladas back in the 80s.  I don't think anyone wants to go through that again!


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

The problems with submarines are that they can't affect air operations much, and they can't do the presence mission very well. They're a great complement to surface warships, but they can't replace the surface fleet.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> The problems with submarines are that they can't affect air operations much, ...



It is with great regrets that Defence Research acknowledges its failure in developing a working version of the "flying-submarine" carried by the USS Nautilus in "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" after more than 50 years.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since we are dreaming in technicolour anyway
> 
> 1. Surface warships are becoming too vulnerable. High speed missiles, submarines, high speed torpedoes (even supercavitating ones that approach at 300KPH or more), smart mines and saturation attacks with low tech weapons or even speed boats put conventional displaement hulls at a huge disadvantage.
> 
> 2. Surface combatents need to be able to move a lot faster to have a chance to avoid these threats, and would be even better off if they were not actually in the water (this is needed to go really fast anyway, water is 800 times denser than air). This suggests a Wing in Ground Effect vehicle (WIGE or WIG). The Russians experimented with various designs ranging from jet powered models bigger than a 747 to turboprop powered vehicles similar in size to large transport aircraft. These type of vehicles can also land in the water and "drift" if needed to deploy and recover hydrophones or UUV's. They would be conceptually similar to seaplanes (and could even _be_ seaplanes if flying is considered more advantagious than WIG flight. The Martin Seamaster was roughly similar to the B-47 in terms of payload and performance).
> 
> 3. Underwater combatents have the unique advantage of being mostly invisible, so can stay on station for a long time, "lurking" but being very hard for the enemy to detect. Current state of the art gives the highest performance to SSN's powered by nuclear reactors, and this is not likely to change unless some unconventional, compact and high energy density power source comes along to replace the current nuclear reactors.
> 
> 4. Being able to stay on station for long periods of time also suggests that blimps or other Lighter Than Air (LTA) craft should be part of the mix of future fleets, performing surveillance and other tasks.
> 
> Future fleets will be very different from what we see today...



Me not want to be in ground effect aircraft meeting steep 100' wave.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Colin P said:
			
		

> Me not want to be in ground effect aircraft meeting steep 100' wave.



What's the problem?  Then, we would be in the submarine business again.


----------



## a_majoor

Anyone flying a WIG in that sort of weather deserves to be in the submarine business!


----------



## a_majoor

An intermediate design between a ship and a WIG. Think of a catamarine with the center deck being a wing (a tunnel hull speedboat is a good starting point to imagine):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamically_Alleviated_Marine_Vehicle

Incat apparently experimented with the idea, coming up with the design pictured below. Unfortunatly this seems to have crashed and no follow up was done. The second illustration (edit to add) lays out the various forces acting on such a ship, although retrofitting a set of wings and a jet engine to a MCDV would be rather amusing,,,,


----------



## cupper

Why not go back to the hydrofoil concept again?


----------



## Fishbone Jones

cupper said:
			
		

> Why not go back to the hydrofoil concept again?



I often wondered what would happen if the wing of the Bras D'or ever hit anything like a dead head (submerged log) at speed.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Nothing good I'd imagine.  IIRC one of the problems they faced was keeping the foil happy.  Understandably it took a bit of a pounding at speed and there was always worries about cracking etc.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

recceguy said:
			
		

> I often wondered what would happen if the wing of the Bras D'or ever hit anything like a dead head (submerged log) at speed.



They tried to run a Boeing hydrofoil out here on the West coast running from Vancouver to Nanimo, it was defeated by the woody debris, which often measures 2' across. The Russian seemed to be the only ones that were successful in running and building large fleets of Hydrofoils.


----------



## Navy_Blue

Dolphin Code 38  ;D

We don't need nukes, we wont ever see nukes in my life time...Diesel or AIP is the way to go.  Even the US are considering a conventional sub program again.  They can have 4 to 6 subs for the price of one Virginia.  The Germans are developing effective light anti air missiles for subs and have a 30mm mast mounted MG.  I can't see us fitting these things but we could.  We removed the Sub launch Harpoon equipment but modern up to date gear would take up a fraction of the space.  The Victoria's will be effect capable boats on there own.  We just need to get them running.  The clock is ticking now they have made real progress the last few weeks on the Windsor I just hope they can keep up the momentum.


----------



## aesop081

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Dolphin Code 38  ;D
> 
> Dophin code 61
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even the US are considering a conventional sub program again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reasons for that have little to do with a SSN/SSK performance debate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They can have 4 to 6 subs for the price of one Virginia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not a cost issue either. The performance of the Virginia-class program has been so good that more boats have been authorized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Germans are developing effective light anti air missiles for subs
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Missiles breaking the water's surface mark the datum really well.......
Click to expand...


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Missiles breaking the water's surface mark the datum really well.......


Much like aircraft debris reminds aircrew to back off a bit.  >  

IDAS is a game changer for MPA/MH employed in an ASW role.  The datum on page 2 doesn't look too bad either.


----------



## a_majoor

Larger subs might also carry UAV/UCAV's on board to provide their own air cover. Subs might also have UUVs that operate in conjunction with the main vehicle, if you need to launch something the UUV will do the deed and take any consequences.

The best things subs can do though is to become stealthier. They already use the mass of the ocean to hide their signature, new developments like "Metamaterials" can effectively bend sonar or radar around the submarine, rendering the vehicle invisible.


----------



## Kalatzi

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Maybe we should start pronouncing it "nukelar", a la Bush. ]
> 
> Ahem, let me assist you and oldgate bgate driver both , and possibnly more, Bwa haah haa!!!!
> 
> I have communed with the the spirits!!!! and the avatar of the Sith Lord Cheney!!
> 
> The correct answer is  `New Clear` weapons policy for the CF!!!
> 
> If Diefenbacker and Pearson could do it!!!!
> 
> Amaze your friends!!! Impress your enemies!!!
> 
> `New Clear weapons`are the way
> 
> The Future is glowing!!!


----------



## aesop081

Lex Parsimoniae said:
			
		

> game changer for MPA



Its another consideration but not a game changer, for reasons that don't belong on this website.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> IDAS is a game changer for MPA/MH employed in an ASW role.  The datum on page 2 doesn't look too bad either.



They'd probably affect an MH dipper, if they work. 

The chances of IDAS reliably working is pretty small. Keeping a finer-optic line intact isn't easy when the two ends aren't manoeuvring at hundreds of knots relative motion, through two different media.


----------



## a_majoor

Subs using advanced avoidance techniques (like metamaterial coatings that "bend" sound around them) are probably far safer than subs which actively fight back against aircraft. Anyway, the rest of the task force has assets to deal with annoying people (and if we go back upthread and look at high speed surface concepts, we are close to having an air battle already).

To make the mix even more confusing, LTA craft can orbit overhead for prolonged periods to supply tracking information to the task force, and if the USN's experiments pan out, surface ships and perhaps aircraft in support of the task force will have laser and electromagnetic railgun weapons to keep enemy ships and aircraft at bay.


----------



## Haletown

submarine porn . . .

http://ca.zinio.com/reader.jsp?issue=416209274


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Larger subs might also carry UAV/UCAV's on board to provide their own air cover. Subs might also have UUVs that operate in conjunction with the main vehicle, if you need to launch something the UUV will do the deed and take any consequences.



A UAV defending a sub would be doable at some point. but having worked with SFU on communicating video just across thermoclines and not across two mediums, I suspect the UAV would be autonomous with instructions to defend said area prior to launch. It would be a one way trip for the UAV. The possibility might be to have one small short range missile attached and a internal warhead. The UAV would hunt any aircraft within the programmed zone until it has destroyed the contacts, run out fuel or was destroyed/struck enemy aircraft/helicopter.


----------



## a_majoor

Colin P said:
			
		

> A UAV defending a sub would be doable at some point. but having worked with SFU on communicating video just across thermoclines and not across two mediums, I suspect the UAV would be autonomous with instructions to defend said area prior to launch. It would be a one way trip for the UAV. The possibility might be to have one small short range missile attached and a internal warhead. The UAV would hunt any aircraft within the programmed zone until it has destroyed the contacts, run out fuel or was destroyed/struck enemy aircraft/helicopter.



Nothing wrong with that; it is the aerial analogue to a torpedo (especially the older kinds which moved in a zig zag pattern until they struck a ship).


----------



## MightyIndustry

Has anybody considered the fact that you can't go completely silent with a nuke sub? You can't turn the reactor off. You can mitigate noise very well, but its always there. The Victoria class, however, can shut everything down and just passively listen, undetected by subs trying to sneak around without pinging. That's what the brits designed them for. Anyway, in another ten years there will be a clear channel through the northwest passage all year round. As it is now its clear virtually all summer.  We can sit up there and scare the $hi# out of the Russians and the Americans by metaphorically jumping out and saying Boo!


----------



## aesop081

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> Has anybody considered



Yes.


----------



## GK .Dundas

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> Has anybody considered the fact that you can't go completely silent with a nuke sub? You can't turn the reactor off. You can mitigate noise very well, but its always there. The Victoria class, however, can shut everything down and just passively listen, undetected by subs trying to sneak around without pinging. That's what the brits designed them for. Anyway, in another ten years there will be a clear channel through the northwest passage all year round. As it is now its clear virtually all summer.  We can sit up there and scare the $hi# out of the Russians and the Americans by metaphorically jumping out and saying Boo!


 Actually Yes you can  the are two methods to deal with reactor noise aside from the usual quieting such raft mounting  just about everything that can make noise or coating in rubber anything that can't be raft mounted. As for the reactor, travel at speeds that don't require the circulating pump  to kick in . Or as the Americans did in one Sub give it a reactor  that didn't need a circulating pump.


----------



## Old Sweat

MightyIndustry said:
			
		

> Anyway, in another ten years there will be a clear channel through the northwest passage all year round. As it is now its clear virtually all summer.  We can sit up there and scare the $hi# out of the Russians and the Americans by metaphorically jumping out and saying Boo!



Source, please.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

> Actually Yes you can  the are two methods to deal with reactor noise aside from the usual quieting such raft mounting  just about everything that can make noise or coating in rubber anything that can't be raft mounted. As for the reactor, travel at speeds that don't require the circulating pump  to kick in . Or as the Americans did in one Sub give it a reactor  that didn't need a circulating pump.



There's also moving to variable speed machinery. The Virginia class uses machinery that can be operated at different power levels rather than straight on/off. If they're going slow the pumps are barely ticking over while at flank speed the pumps are running full out.


----------

