Author Topic: Replacing the Subs  (Read 27831 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Uzlu

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 271
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #250 on: June 12, 2020, 08:19:14 »
Does anyone know the name of this treaty?
It might be this.

This might prevent submarine nuclear reactors from the United Kingdom or France from being acquired by Canada without permission from the United States:
Quote
Detailed procedures shall be jointly established to effectuate the foregoing provisions, and all situations not specifically covered shall be settled by mutual agreement governed by the basic principle of equivalent benefits to both Parties.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 30,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,130
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #251 on: June 12, 2020, 10:21:25 »
It might be this.

This might prevent submarine nuclear reactors from the United Kingdom or France from being acquired by Canada without permission from the United States:

This may have been superseded with the ITAR rules.  As an example the US needed to give Australia permission to sell us their F-18's even though we already have the same vintage models in stock.

However, there is always French nuclear tech.  Developed separately from the US/British models.  And wholly owned by the French.  And they'll sell weapons to anyone.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 253,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,998
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #252 on: June 12, 2020, 11:39:19 »
However, there is always French nuclear tech.  Developed separately from the US/British models.  And wholly owned by the French.  And they'll sell weapons to anyone.

As opposed to Canada, which only sells nuclear power to countries that promise not to use the technology to support nuclear weapons programs.  Countries such* as....well, you know...Pakistan and India. #peacefulCANDU

*edit - spelling
« Last Edit: June 12, 2020, 12:54:59 by Good2Golf »

Offline dapaterson

    Halfway to being an idiot-savant.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 522,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,072
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #253 on: June 12, 2020, 12:51:58 »
As opposed to Canada, which only sells nuclear power to countries that promise not to use the technology to support nuclear weapons programs.  Countries suck as....well, you know...Pakistan and India. #peacefulCANDU

Are you suggesting Canadian nuclear technology is only used by untrustworthy actors?
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,085
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #254 on: June 12, 2020, 13:38:30 »
Are you suggesting Canadian nuclear technology is only used by untrustworthy actors?

It is also quite possible that South Korea will choose to develop nuclear weapons in the not too distant future as they realize they cannot rely on the US (maybe even under another president):
http://www.candu.org/Pages/KHNP.aspx

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 45,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,078
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #255 on: June 12, 2020, 13:55:20 »
As opposed to Canada, which only sells nuclear power to countries that promise not to use the technology to support nuclear weapons programs.  Countries such* as....well, you know...Pakistan and India. #peacefulCANDU

*edit - spelling

The whole point of CANDU reactors is that they can run on natural uranium, whereas for a weapons program you need enriched uranium. You can read the history on wikipedia, but most of the reactors are in Canada, with South Korea, Romania and Argentina as other countries that have them without a nuclear weapons program. We stopped selling to India after they detonated a nuclear bomb, but they already had the technology and know how so they keep building CANDU derivatives.

It's old tech, but was something they came up with that they could use to make electricity without having access to the then classified enrichment equipment. That has been OBE with improvements in enrichment methods, but the heavy water reactors are something you can do without risking having enriched uranium floating around, but also doesn't need the same kind of massive scale of machining either. If you already have a nuclear weapons program, that may not be an issue for you, but it was meant to be a less complicated way to make power without having atom bomb proliferation.

Offline Spencer100

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 615
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #256 on: June 12, 2020, 14:17:19 »
I don't think any one has mentioned South Korea's new sub's

The South Korea arms manufacturing is moving up on the world.  Looking to build a 5/6 gen fighter etc.

They have the worlds most efficient ship building industry.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosan_Ahn_Changho-class_submarine

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/06/rok-navys-1st-3000-tons-kss-iii-submarine-dosan-ahn-chang-ho-started-sea-trials/

This sub looks to have about everything Canada would need.   I bet priced the best too.

As an aside the The Sejong the Great class DDG look to beasts.

Offline Uzlu

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,175
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 271
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #257 on: June 12, 2020, 15:21:51 »

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,655
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,085
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #258 on: June 12, 2020, 15:33:37 »
The whole point of CAND
Quote
U reactors is that they can run on natural uranium, whereas for a weapons program you need enriched uranium.

Actually, from a nuclear weapons development standpoint, the beauty of CANDU is that is produces plutonium, the other bomb material, without the need to enrich uranium to run a reactor--p. 2 PDF here:

Quote
...
First, at a CANDU 6 plant it is comparatively easy to divert spent fuel in order to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons...
http://www.joint-project.org/upload/file/Risks_associated_with_CANDU_reactors.pdf

This natural uranium fueled (heavy water moderation), Canadian supplied research reactor led to this:

Quote
...CIRUS reactor provided the plutonium for India's 1974 "peaceful nuclear explosions."..
https://www.nti.org/learn/facilities/832/


Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,286
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #259 on: June 12, 2020, 17:10:38 »
I don't think any one has mentioned South Korea's new sub's

The South Korea arms manufacturing is moving up on the world.  Looking to build a 5/6 gen fighter etc.

They have the worlds most efficient ship building industry.

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosan_Ahn_Changho-class_submarine

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/06/rok-navys-1st-3000-tons-kss-iii-submarine-dosan-ahn-chang-ho-started-sea-trials/

This sub looks to have about everything Canada would need.   I bet priced the best too.

As an aside the The Sejong the Great class DDG look to beasts.

The timeframe works for us as well, as they near the end of production we can tap in to it and start replacing our subs, where we have gotten benefits from the latest upgrade and they are beyond economical repair. Plus the Canadian mods (weapons systems most likely) can be incorporated at the building phase and we would benefit from their learning curve and any upgrades they do. The same applies to both the Japanese and planned Aussie sub

I found this interesting:

The Sōryū class is relatively young: the first sub was launched in 2009, and in many navies it’s difficult to imagine work already proceeding on a replacement. Japan however typically keeps its submarines in service for just twenty years, a relatively short time for modern warships. So it’s not exactly surprising that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, one of Japan’s top submarine builders, has already unveiled the country’s next-generation submarine design, designated 29SS. The sub due in the late-2020s. (The designation “29SS” is derived from the 29th year of the reign of Emperor Akihito, otherwise known to everyone else as 2017, and SS is the international shorthand for non-nuclear attack submarine.)

from https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a28184939/29ss-japan-submarine/

 

Offline JMCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 87
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #260 on: June 12, 2020, 17:50:54 »
Both Japan and south Korea are good examples of planning  and continuous production, both for warships and subs. Long times between batches make loss of design and know-how capabilities.

These are to make a case study.

Back to korean boats...
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/madex-2019/2019/10/madex-2019-dsme-on-track-with-kss-iii-batch-2-submarine-program-for-rok-navy/

... with 4 x 150 kW fuel cells plus LIBs, should be able to sail at 8 knots just on FC and use the batteries for sprints. Will be able to recharge quickly the batteries with the AIP (FC). 600 kW more than doubles the FC power of the U-212 boats (240kW)...
if my data are correct.

« Last Edit: June 12, 2020, 18:11:24 by JMCanada »

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 30,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,130
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #261 on: June 14, 2020, 10:37:11 »
The timeframe works for us as well, as they near the end of production we can tap in to it and start replacing our subs, where we have gotten benefits from the latest upgrade and they are beyond economical repair. Plus the Canadian mods (weapons systems most likely) can be incorporated at the building phase and we would benefit from their learning curve and any upgrades they do. The same applies to both the Japanese and planned Aussie sub

I found this interesting:

The Sōryū class is relatively young: the first sub was launched in 2009, and in many navies it’s difficult to imagine work already proceeding on a replacement. Japan however typically keeps its submarines in service for just twenty years, a relatively short time for modern warships. So it’s not exactly surprising that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, one of Japan’s top submarine builders, has already unveiled the country’s next-generation submarine design, designated 29SS. The sub due in the late-2020s. (The designation “29SS” is derived from the 29th year of the reign of Emperor Akihito, otherwise known to everyone else as 2017, and SS is the international shorthand for non-nuclear attack submarine.)

from https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a28184939/29ss-japan-submarine/

Japan doesn't seem to build large numbers of the same ship class.  It seems more like they build four or five and then a new ship class is produced.Very interesting how they work.  But hey, worlds second most powerful navy can do what they want.  It works for them.

Offline Spencer100

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 15,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 615
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #262 on: June 17, 2020, 10:35:03 »

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 238,025
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,278
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #263 on: June 17, 2020, 13:01:09 »
I've exercised with the Perle in the past (Dynamic Manta 15);  how unfortunate.  Happy there are no reports of injury or fatalities! 
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.

Online MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,950
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,186
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #264 on: June 27, 2020, 22:02:44 »
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Fred Herriot

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 281
  • Retired word processor jockey
    • http://NA
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #265 on: June 28, 2020, 06:15:09 »
Oh, wouldn't that be nice.  And convert our SSGNs into ABM platforms launching the enhanced Standards instead?

Ah, it's such a great dream, isn't it...?
Non Nobis Sed Patriae
Servire Armatis

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 147,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,792
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #266 on: June 28, 2020, 08:04:58 »
And a dream is all it will stay: Think about the money spent and the cost of changing the torpedoes on the VICTORIA's - and that was just to replace tube and handling systems from Tigerfish to Mk 48's.

How much more complex do you think it would be to modify a SSBN meant to fire ICBM's so they carry and fire the much much smaller diameter  SM-3? Moreover, where on earth do you put all the associated radar work you need to do ABM on a submarine? Finally, do you know what is required to adapt a missile so it is possible to fire it from underwater?

Some dreams are just that, sorry.
+25

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 168,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,865
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #267 on: June 28, 2020, 10:26:52 »
Not to mention: does anyone seriously think that the USN will let any foreigner near their newest strategic asset, much less sell them to Canada.

What else do you want: the Starship Enterprise? It is the same level of reality involved in these “dreams”.
+150

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 166,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,286
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #268 on: June 28, 2020, 14:39:57 »
We restarted our sub arm by leasing US boats. I wonder if another country would lease us subs, perhaps placing the Vics on one coast and the leased boats on another.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 238,025
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,278
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Replacing the Subs
« Reply #269 on: June 28, 2020, 15:38:29 »
Oh, wouldn't that be nice.  And convert our SSGNs into ABM platforms launching the enhanced Standards instead?

Ah, it's such a great dream, isn't it...?

Uhh... ?
"What a f$$kin' week!" - me, every Monday at about 1130hrs.