Replacing the Subs

[Maxman1]

You've got that backward. The French Barracuda-Class is a SSN. The Shortfin Barracuda they were building for Australia was a conventional variant. The Aussies dropped that in order to switch to the AUKUS program in order to get SSNs. There were obviously issues that Australia had with the French team but possibly a simpler solution for them would have been simple to go for the original French Barracuda SSN (if the French were willing to offer that)

Mostly it's the French reactors needing refueling every ten years versus the Virginia class lasting 33 years that was the deciding factor.

 

[KevinB]

Nuclear powered submarines are entirely a non-starter for Canada, no political party now or in the future is likely to sign us up for such a program due to the potential fallout. In order to properly set up the required infrastructure, knowledge base and actually procure the submarines, you are looking at program costs which would easily shoot past the PBO's $80 billion and climbing CSC program figure alongside likely decades to get everything rolling. Going from operating a handful of Cold War vintage SSK's to a fleet of SSN's is a leap that I find hard to eloquently put into words. Canada has tried twice in the past to procure SSN's and it has been canceled both times due to feasibility and costs. People think the CF-35 or CSC procurement is bad? An SSN procurement in the hands of the Canadian govt would be a disaster of astronomical proportions.

No disagreement here.

Britain's SSN building capability is entirely tapped out for the foreseeable future for their own programs, America is already stretched to the limit and then some to fit Australia's order in and France is also at capacity. The French are building their own SSN class, a class of SSBN's and 4 SSK's for the Dutch, they have no space for Canada now or into the future. French reactors are also messy affairs that require frequent refueling, no bueno for Canada.

Ack

Uncrewed vessels are not an option besides when launched from an SSK mothership, the technology is far too immature and potentially prone to being lost for the costs you would need to put into it. If you want any capability remotely approaching a proper submarine, you won't get it out of an SSK.

Canada will have to either shutter the submarine branch or invest in the largest, most potent off the shelf SSK design they can find. You won't be doing long term under ice patrols but they can be on station for periods of time in the North alike the AOPS, in warmer months and throughout the chokepoints leading in and out of the Arctic. That is the best we could hope for.

Honestly my belief is that Canada would be better off joining AUKUS. However maybe a partial join, in that Canada shutters it’s Victoria’s and offers crew to the USN SSN’s?
With a vague goal of maybe potentially sometime in the undefined future could think a lot about the goal of having SSN’s.

 

[dimsum]

No disagreement here.


Ack

Honestly my belief is that Canada would be better off joining AUKUS. However maybe a partial join, in that Canada shutters it’s Victoria’s and offers crew to the USN SSN’s?
With a vague goal of maybe potentially sometime in the undefined future could think a lot about the goal of having SSN’s.

I can’t even begin to think about the NOFORN implications that the USN would impose. It wouldn’t be a 1:1 substitution, that’s for sure.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I can’t even begin to think about the NOFORN implications that the USN would impose. It wouldn’t be a 1:1 substitution, that’s for sure.

If we can overcome the security issues, this is actually a path that I can see potentially working. The submarine would be USN property, but “leased” to Canada. It would do all it’s maintenance in the US (there is a very convenient submarine base proximate to Esquimalt); with US regulatory oversight on subsafe. We provide the crew.

 

[KevinB]

I can’t even begin to think about the NOFORN implications that the USN would impose. It wouldn’t be a 1:1 substitution, that’s for sure.

Australia enters the chat…

 

[Kirkhill]

Victorias - complement of 53
Astutes - complement of 98
Virginia - complement of 135.

All of our submariners together could man one Virginia.

KSS III - complement of 50
212 CD - complement of 27

Type 212CD: Germany's Stealth Submarine That Could Sink Anything?

In a press release, the German Ministry of Defense announced the conclusion of a contract agreement between Norway, Germany, and Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems for six new Type 212 submarines to be delivered to the German and Norwegian navies. Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems is a German shipbuilding...

nationalinterest.org

 

[Rainbow1910]

Honestly my belief is that Canada would be better off joining AUKUS. However maybe a partial join, in that Canada shutters it’s Victoria’s and offers crew to the USN SSN’s?
With a vague goal of maybe potentially sometime in the undefined future could think a lot about the goal of having SSN’s.

That would be politically untenable for Canada and it does not change the reality of the situation, it would ironically make the situation worse with the retirement of the Victoria class, the loss of indigenous submarine operational capability, knowledge and its domestic infrastructure. None of what I explained is going to get better overtime, shipyards might eventually open up for Canada to place SSN orders but the hurdles to overcome in order to do the rest of the program seem insurmountable.

 

[KevinB]

Victorias - complement of 53
Astutes - complement of 98
Virginia - complement of 135.

All of our submariners together could man one Virginia.

KSS III - complement of 50
212 CD - complement of 27

Type 212CD: Germany's Stealth Submarine That Could Sink Anything?

In a press release, the German Ministry of Defense announced the conclusion of a contract agreement between Norway, Germany, and Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems for six new Type 212 submarines to be delivered to the German and Norwegian navies. Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems is a German shipbuilding...

nationalinterest.org

Range and speed of Virginia...

My point is that even if Canada jumps with both feet into AUKUS today - that it would take years to get a RCN crew able to fully crew a SSN. There are trades on those boats that have no Canadian equivalent - so you would need to crawl, walk, run into that sort of endeavor just like the Aussies are having to do -- the main difference is that Canada does have a Nuclear Power program, and that puts it exceedingly ahead of the Aussies.

If you took the notational 212 crew for the Victorias, that would be probably enough for 3 partial USN/RCN boats. You could work up to 4-6 partial RCN/USN boats in a few years. It would give Canada some personnel in and around the Arctic - and probably be the best bang for there buck - even if there was never an intent to get fully RCN SSN boats.

 

[KevinB]

That would be politically untenable for Canada and it does not change the reality of the situation, it would ironically make the situation worse with the retirement of the Victoria class, the loss of indigenous submarine operational capability, knowledge and its domestic infrastructure. None of what I explained is going to get better overtime, shipyards might eventually open up for Canada to place SSN orders but the hurdles to overcome in order to do the rest of the program seem insurmountable.

Is 2 sailable 1980 era boats really a submarine capability? I think you'd grow a lot more actual skills and capability with a joint crewing model down here.

 

[Kirkhill]

I make the same argument for SSK support that I do for AOPS support.

Placing stations with boats around the patrol area permits the use of boats with shorter legs and more time on station. In conjunction with the AOPS as tenders and UxVs a solid defensive strategy coud be generated.

The crews could rotate in and out of the vessels at the various stations. The vessels could rotate through the stations independently of the crews passing an FMF on afixed schedule.

Treat them like aircraft.

 

[Maxman1]

If we can overcome the security issues, this is actually a path that I can see potentially working. The submarine would be USN property, but “leased” to Canada. It would do all it’s maintenance in the US (there is a very convenient submarine base proximate to Esquimalt); with US regulatory oversight on subsafe. We provide the crew.

So basically the same situation as Nabob and Puncher.

 

[MacNav63]

So basically the same situation as Nabob and Puncher.

Or HMCS Grilse?

 

[suffolkowner]

You've got that backward. The French Barracuda-Class is a SSN. The Shortfin Barracuda they were building for Australia was a conventional variant. The Aussies dropped that in order to switch to the AUKUS program in order to get SSNs. There were obviously issues that Australia had with the French team but possibly a simpler solution for them would have been simple to go for the original French Barracuda SSN (if the French were willing to offer that)

I doubt the French would be unwilling but I think the supply of reactors would be an issue as they have/had moved on to K22 reactor for the new SSBN from the K15 in the Barracuda, Triumphant and Charles de Gaulle. Same issue for the UK with their small production runs.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

So basically the same situation as Nabob and Puncher.

I had not thought about that analogy, but not bad.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Range and speed of Virginia...

My point is that even if Canada jumps with both feet into AUKUS today - that it would take years to get a RCN crew able to fully crew a SSN. There are trades on those boats that have no Canadian equivalent - so you would need to crawl, walk, run into that sort of endeavor just like the Aussies are having to do -- the main difference is that Canada does have a Nuclear Power program, and that puts it exceedingly ahead of the Aussies.

If you took the notational 212 crew for the Victorias, that would be probably enough for 3 partial USN/RCN boats. You could work up to 4-6 partial RCN/USN boats in a few years. It would give Canada some personnel in and around the Arctic - and probably be the best bang for there buck - even if there was never an intent to get fully RCN SSN boats.

Is 2 sailable 1980 era boats really a submarine capability? I think you'd grow a lot more actual skills and capability with a joint crewing model down here.

The fact that we have a sovereign capability that we can deploy wherever, whenever and for whatever reason we wish is a submarine capability. Hard to grow capability when you are effectively squatting on somebody else's property. What is the point of joint crewing vessels if we will never get our own boats? Just giving free manpower to the Americans? This is politically impossible for Canada and a poor use of our limited resources.


A civilian nuclear industry is little bearing on the operation and utilization of military grade submarine reactors and the associated submarines. Unlike Canada, Australia has the long term political willpower and seemingly the finances to support such an action. SSK's are not a perfect option but they are far more realistic than SSN operation and far better than some strange joint crewing arrangement.

 

[GR66]

How about AECL teams up with HD HHI to install a Slowpoke reactor in the the KSS-III to charge the batteries when submerged. Apparently quite a bit of research into maritime applications of the reactor was done by RMC

During the mid-1980s Canada briefly considered converting its Oberon class submarines to nuclear power using a SLOWPOKE nuclear reactor to continuously recharge the ship's batteries during submerged operations.[4] A good deal of work had been done on potential marine applications of the reactor at Royal Military College of Canada.[5]

Korea builds the boats and Canada supplies the reactors. This reactor design is apparently quite safe.

In addition to passive cooling, the reactor has a high degree of inherent safety; that is, it can regulate itself through passive, natural means, such as the chain reaction slowing down if the water heats up or forms bubbles. These characteristics are so dominant, in fact, that the SLOWPOKE-2 reactor is licensed to operate unattended overnight (but monitored remotely). Most SLOWPOKES are rated at a nominal 20 kW, although operation at higher power for shorter durations is possible.

 

[suffolkowner]

How about AECL teams up with HD HHI to install a Slowpoke reactor in the the KSS-III to charge the batteries when submerged. Apparently quite a bit of research into maritime applications of the reactor was done by RMC

Korea builds the boats and Canada supplies the reactors. This reactor design is apparently quite safe.

the SSKn

 

[Kirkhill]

the SSKn

Circa "Challenge and Commitment"

 

[Rainbow1910]

How about AECL teams up with HD HHI to install a Slowpoke reactor in the the KSS-III to charge the batteries when submerged. Apparently quite a bit of research into maritime applications of the reactor was done by RMC

Korea builds the boats and Canada supplies the reactors. This reactor design is apparently quite safe.

Pairing up an SSK gets you effectively a pretty poor SSN with all of the disadvantages of an SSN and few of the advantages of an SSK. This kind of proposal would be the opposite of what Canada needs to do in order for the Victoria class replacement to succeed, limit risk and adopt a largely off the shelf design. Trying to work a reactor into an SSK is about the furthest from that I can think of.

 

[suffolkowner]

Pairing up an SSK gets you effectively a pretty poor SSN with all of the disadvantages of an SSN and few of the advantages of an SSK. This kind of proposal would be the opposite of what Canada needs to do in order for the Victoria class replacement to succeed, limit risk and adopt a largely off the shelf design. Trying to work a reactor into an SSK is about the furthest from that I can think of.

its just another AIP isnt it?