Lease or Sell Virginia Class Boats

[tomahawk6]

Interesting article about providing the Australian Navy with Virginia class attack boats,to counter China's ambitions in the area.I like the idea and it makes military sense to provide some of our most reliable allies in the Pacific,first class attack subs.I would extend this to Japan as well if their citizens would allow it.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/sale-americas-lethal-nuclear-powered-submarines-15344

There was a time a few years ago, however brief, that some of us Asia-defense nerds had an unorthodox idea to tip the military balance in Asia. Quite a few people thought it was crazy and highly unlikely, but an idea none the less worth considering.

It went a little something like this: in order to lessen the impact of China’s massive naval build-up and negate the lethality of Beijing’s growing anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) battle networks in the Pacific, Washington could sell or lease what many would call its most sophisticated weapons platform, nuclear-powered attack submarines. Specifically, the mighty Virginia-Class attack sub.

 

[CougarKing]

Duplicate topic of original at the ADF section:

Australia mulled leasing Virgina class subs?

 

[tomahawk6]

This topic is not specific to the RAN but rather than any ally in the Pacific,your topic wasnt specific to The Virginia class unless I misread it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A common sub design for Pacific nations allied to us would be useful, a nuke sub requires significant infrastructure and if US supported comes with serious caveats. 

 

[tomahawk6]

As the article mentions there is also a cost saving both operational and in training.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Too bad we couldn't get in on the action as well.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think tagging onto the end of the Aussie sub buy would be the smartest move for us, by the time they launch their final boat, it be time to replace the Upholders and the builders will have the bugs worked out and there will be adequate spare parts and we can share knowledge and training.

 

[tomahawk6]

I could see greenlighting Canadian and Aussie procurement of the Virginia's.Or give away LA boats to close allies.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

When the Mulroney white paper on defence came out in 1987 and called for nuclear boats for Canada, the US was invited to the competition but refused to offer any boats (which would have been Los Angeles class back then). Many people thought it was because the US did not want Canada to have nuclear boats that would keep track of them in the Arctic.

That was, of course complete, uneducated, bul**hit. The Brits were allowed to offer their most modern boat, and yet, they could only do so with the assent of the US in view of the large amount of US technology onboard (including, in particular, the nuclear reactors). The main reason was that we were at the apex of the cold war and the US was building up at full capacity to build the "600" ship Navy of president Reagan. Electric Boats just couldn't go any faster in peace time.

Nowadays, the situation is different. Having extra orders for Electric Boats, whether for Australia or Canada, would certainly help in the maintenance of highly skilled jobs in a much lighter market.

Moreover, the idea that US nuclear submarines could be leased would effectively make their acquisition by Canada politically easier to justify to the public, if the cost of support infrastructure for repairs, refuelling and heavy maintenance were in the US, and the re-fueling and decommissioning period were undertaken by the US Navy so no residual nuclear waste found its way to Canada. In exchange, however, Canada would probably have to accept the possibility for the US to "recall" the boats should hostilities become possible and the US Navy wanted more boats in a hurry.

Personally, I think it could be a win-win situation.

 

[dapaterson]

But no jobs in Halifax or Victoria for repair and overhaul

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

There would still be some work in Halifax and Esquimalt. You wouldn't go to the US for every little repair, only for the more important ones, and in particular, for anything related to the pressure hull or the propulsion system. but for routine maintenance of the onboard electronics and first degree repairs of more mundane equipment generically found on submarines, you would still do it locally.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The local Green Party, NDP and most of U Vic would come completely unglued if someone seriously proposed basing nuclear submarines in Esquimalt.




Let's do it!  >

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It dammed near happened before

 

[quadrapiper]

There would still be some work in Halifax and Esquimalt. You wouldn't go to the US for every little repair, only for the more important ones, and in particular, for anything related to the pressure hull or the propulsion system. but for routine maintenance of the onboard electronics and first degree repairs of more mundane equipment generically found on submarines, you would still do it locally.

How much slack is there in the FMF/Vic Ships (and equivalent facilities on the East Coast) ability to refit and maintain - let's say with the fleet as it was before the AOR and destroyer decommissionings?

Nuclear subs and AOPS sound like an intriguing maritime high/low mix for the Arctic.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If we get rid of the maintenance hog Upholders and actually start hiring some skilled trades again, is suspect quite a lot of capacity would suddenly appear again.

Especially if the USN remained responsible for reactor and hull work.

A lease deal could actually work- and probably cheaper than actually buying a next class of diesel subs.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect that every sub out there is a maintenance hog. Any work on the reactor no matter how minor would require a trip to Bremerton I suspect. Plus you are totally at the USN mercy when it comes to ops, if a government here decides to challenge sub transits through the Arctic, you can bet the US will pull those leases the next day. I don’t want them to have that much leverage over us.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Then I guess we should just pony up and buy the next class of diesel subs.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I suspect that every sub out there is a maintenance hog. Any work on the reactor no matter how minor would require a trip to Bremerton I suspect. Plus you are totally at the USN mercy when it comes to ops, if a government here decides to challenge sub transits through the Arctic, you can bet the US will pull those leases the next day. I don’t want them to have that much leverage over us.

We keep running into this "Arctic transit" argument. It's time to put it to rest.

We, Canada, do not own the bloody Arctic. There, that's it final: The Arctic OCEAN, is just that, an ocean: international waters for anyone to use and transit. You access it, on our side of the other oceans, either through the Bering Strait or, on the other side, through Kennedy Channel, between Ellesmere Island and Greenland, which is an international strait by definition (and less than 15 Nautical miles wide). In any event, it would be pretty ridiculous for an American boat captain to run the very high risks associated with that last passage when it is barely longer to go around the other side of Greenland in the Svalbard/Greenland gap.

Here is the big deal: Nuclear boats don't go through what we call the Canadian Arctic, which is the archipelago of Canadian Islands up there. From a nuclear submarine point of view, those various passages are not very deep and not very large and to risk going under them in ice condition would be pretty dangerous, for no operational reason: the fight, if any, is against other nations submarines (read China or Russia) in the open Arctic ocean or near their Arctic coasts or access points.

There are no operational gain to be made by anyone or usefulness in going through Canadian Arctic waters under the ice that would even be close to being commensurate with the risks being taken.

This argument that there are submarines under Canada's Arctic waters has always been a fabrication by the Canadian anti-American establishment and the Helsinki based peace movements. From a naval point of view, there are no reasons whatever for Americans, or anyone else, to be there.

I've said it before: If you want to consider Arctic issues, look at it on a globe, not on a "flat" map or map projection. The issues become a lot clearer when looked at that way. 

 

[Journeyman]

Any work on the reactor no matter how minor would require a trip to Bremerton I suspect.

Bremerton -- yet another argument for Left Coast deployment (if only because our Pacific sailors are probably up to speed on those Swifter MopTM commercials that are likely filmed nowhere else but a Bremerton, newly-posted USN family).  ;D

As far as reactor work, I'm sure RMC Nuclear Engineering folks will jump on the bandwagon, stating their capabilities.  :nod:

 

[tomahawk6]

Actually Bremerton and Bangor fall under Naval Base Kitsap.It is one of the USN's 4 nuclear shipyards.So if Canada were to go this route Kitsap would probably handle West Coast support,with Portsmouth being the East Coast shipyard.