I was thinking for a tactical/employment point. SSN and SSK have different strengths and weaknesses, that work for and against them. A diesel boat, sooner or later, has to snort. They can 'sprint' but in limited fashion compared to a nuc. Nuc's can go all day and night, but are generally noisier than a diesel boat on battery making steerage. That kind of stuff.
So if we were to beef up our submarine force...would it be a 'primarily defensive' or 'primarily offensive' force? Many questions to ask...I also think the average Canadian thinks the difference between 'normal' subs and 'nuclear subs' is about the weapons they carry, not what is turning the screws.
Too true about how Canadians and uneducated people in general act when you say "nuclear submarine".
The example I chose is one of the smaller nuclear submarines in service, so it gives the owner the long range and sprint capabilities needed to cover large areas of ocean. In the Canadian context, we do indeed have lots of area to cover, not to mention out affiliations with things like NATO task forces, which require getting across the ocean to marry up with the fleet. All this is outside of the other obvious need to operate near or even under the arctic ice.
Since the Arihant class also carried long range weapons (SLBM's or mini SLBMs), it means any similar capital ship outfitted the same way become that much more potent and flexible. It is capable of both tactical (anti-ship) and strategic missions, and being a submarine, will be very difficult to detect or counter. While still relatively large as submarines (@ 6,000 tonnes displacement vs 2,900 tonnes for the Sōryū-class submarine or 2,050 tons for the Israeli Dolphin class submarines), the flexibility of nuclear power makes it a logical choice for a Canadian capital ship
all other factors being equal.
Since it is very clear all other factors are
not equal, this is more of a thought experiment than anything else.