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

[The Bread Guy]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.