• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Replacing the Subs

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
231
Points
530
I am actually happy about that response, it clears the decks of the possibility of a "Made in Canada" sub. So they can focus on a design and builder overseas. No doubt so politician will bring it up again later and force everyone to stop and educate them.

Asking questions like if we can build something here is what we want them to do, If some thing can be built here by all means do it for the sake of the economy. The problem lies when they won't listen to reason when told that we can't/shouldn't build something here and press on stubbornly.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,768
Points
1,110
Asking questions like if we can build something here is what we want them to do, If some thing can be built here by all means do it for the sake of the economy. The problem lies when they won't listen to reason when told that we can't/shouldn't build something here and press on stubbornly.
A submarine is probably one of the most tech advanced platforms on the ocean. Its not something you build on a whim.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,485
Points
1,140
Asking questions like if we can build something here is what we want them to do, If some thing can be built here by all means do it for the sake of the economy. The problem lies when they won't listen to reason when told that we can't/shouldn't build something here and press on stubbornly.
While it could be done - it would be ruinous financially - having seen a US Sub Construction drydock - it is vastly different that a ship construction dry dock - - the only way it would make sense is if the RCN was going to buy 30 or so boats - and commit to a replacement cycle that the dock was kicking out a boat every 6 months to a year.

Even then it would be a small LARGE fortune.
You would be better off throwing several 10's of billions to the US for 12 SeaWolf class SSN's
 

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
231
Points
530
I agree with both of you completely. I didn't always, but I now see the reasoning for not building subs in Canada.

My point was that we want our politicians to ask questions so they can make informed decisions. That's their job. The problem lies when they won't listen to reason when the truth is presented to them. Few if any politicians have a deep knowledge of how construction works never mind naval construction. Most politicians are white collar their whole life and can't even change a tire. These people are trusted to make these decisions for us and they need to ask lots of questions to be well informed. When they don't ask questions and assume building a sub is no different then building a Frigate that's when the problems begin. Ignorant and teachable politicians can be informed/educated, Stubborn and ignorant politicians can destroy a country very quickly.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,485
Points
1,140
The role of education should be done by both Senior Level Military and Ministerial Staff.
Both in terms of needed capabilities - and what can or cannot be done domestically.

Of course that assume that either of the above groups know...
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,549
Points
1,140
Good article by Dave Perry of CGAI on whether Canada can afford new subs for RCN (plus very costly CSCs) in addition to large sums that will be required for NORAD modernization (well beyond North Warning System )?



Mark
Ottawa
"the RCN should think long and hard about how new submarines can help keep Canada strong at home and secure in North America before focusing on how they can be engaged in foreign waters".....

I take this to mean that he's questioning the need for a 'blue water' navy and the focus should be a coastal defence force, like the Irish or the Icelandic. Seems to forget that we need to have the sea lanes open for us to survive, must assume that the good old Americans and the Brits will pick up our slack.

I also question his math. He says "Canadians should expect something on the order of 10$ budgeted to buy each new sub".....of which the initial purchase cost is 5$ billion per sub. Using the estimate of 4$ billion over the lifetime for a CSC, is the cost to buy/operate a sub really 2.5 times the cost of a CSC over the same timeframe?
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,485
Points
1,140
I also question his math. He says "Canadians should expect something on the order of 10$ budgeted to buy each new sub".....of which the initial purchase cost is 5$ billion per sub. Using the estimate of 4$ billion over the lifetime for a CSC, is the cost to buy/operate a sub really 2.5 times the cost of a CSC over the same timeframe?
Well if you bought 60 - the 688 LA Class SSN was 1.9B each in 2019 USD...
Overhauls running at 400-460M USD 2021 $

Virginia Class run 2.8 B current USD, however obvious buying 10-12 would have been more expensive.


I suspect he took his costing off the next gen USN SSN(X)
CBO: Navy's Next Nuclear Attack Submarine Could Cost $5.5B a Hull - USNI News
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
121
Points
710
Very interesting long piece at The Drive's "War Zone", lots in second part on various types of AIP:

The Truth About The Growing Diesel Submarine Threat From A Veteran Sub Hunter​


The proliferation of ever more capable diesel-electric submarines is a major problem the U.S. Navy doesn't appear ready to deal with.​


By Kevin Noonan November 2, 2021

Mark
Ottawa
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,019
Points
1,090
Well if you bought 60 - the 688 LA Class SSN was 1.9B each in 2019 USD...
Overhauls running at 400-460M USD 2021 $

Virginia Class run 2.8 B current USD, however obvious buying 10-12 would have been more expensive.
So he based his costing on a nuclear submarine that doesn’t even exist yet, but could cost $5.5B per hull. 🤦🏼‍♂️

Since we are already dealing with imaginary designs, it could also cost $10B per hull. I mean why not??

I swear, these defense experts are only experts in sounding unbelievably dumb. That thing better also fly for that price…
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,864
Points
1,260
I swear, these defense experts are only experts in sounding unbelievably dumb. That thing better also fly for that price…
CBO are not defense experts. From their website, they report on anything that Congress spends money on.

CBO is strictly nonpartisan; conducts objective, impartial analysis; and hires its employees solely on the basis of professional competence without regard to political affiliation. CBO does not make policy recommendations, and each report and cost estimate summarizes the methodology underlying the analysis. Learn more about CBO's commitment to objectivity and transparency.

 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,549
Points
1,140
Trudeau would not understand a "military or strategic threat" if it were heading towards him with full armour, gun and "tankety tankety" treads.

Mark
Ottawa
No news or updates on this. Not sure if it occurred off the record and behind the scenes in Rome or Glasgow. Clock is ticking if this is to occur during the timeframe that the French would like.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,019
Points
1,090
CBO are not defense experts. From their website, they report on anything that Congress spends money on.
I wasn’t referring to the CBO.

I was referring to the folks who are contacted by our Canadian media as ‘defence experts’ - a well known one being Mr. Staples.

I am somewhat familiar with Dave Perry’s work, but not familiar enough to have formed any sort of opinion on whether I agree with his general positions.

But saying we should expect to pay roughly $10B per sub, when a brand new nuclear powered Virginia-class for the USN costs a fraction of that?

It generates public controversy where there doesn’t necessarily need to be any. And it frustrates people who actually work in the professions that they comment about.


For example, he could have just as easily have said “until we look at what designs qualify for our needs, and what systems we will use - it’s far too early to be speculating on a cost.”


0.02
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,485
Points
1,140
I wasn’t referring to the CBO.

I was referring to the folks who are contacted by our Canadian media as ‘defence experts’ - a well known one being Mr. Staples.

I am somewhat familiar with Dave Perry’s work, but not familiar enough to have formed any sort of opinion on whether I agree with his general positions.

But saying we should expect to pay roughly $10B per sub, when a brand new nuclear powered Virginia-class for the USN costs a fraction of that?

It generates public controversy where there doesn’t necessarily need to be any. And it frustrates people who actually work in the professions that they comment about.


For example, he could have just as easily have said “until we look at what designs qualify for our needs, and what systems we will use - it’s far too early to be speculating on a cost.”


0.02
Offer the USN $420m USD for each LA SSN they are replacing with the Virginias - as long as they go through refit just prior -- so revenue neutral for the USN - and work out a mixed fleet crew transition system to train up.

Sell it as a super cheap option, that keeps ugly Nuclear stuff from going into the landfill -- win win win :cool:
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,019
Points
1,090
Offer the USN $420m USD for each LA SSN they are replacing with the Virginias - as long as they go through refit just prior -- so revenue neutral for the USN - and work out a mixed fleet crew transition system to train up.

Sell it as a super cheap option, that keeps ugly Nuclear stuff from going into the landfill -- win win win :cool:
KevinB,

I realize you probably have 0 interest. But can you run for office up here please? Like pretty please?

That idea is pure genius. Retrofitted & recently modernized LA class subs, cheaper than a new conventionally powered boat, that allows us to maintain sovereignty, AAANNNDDD prevents nuclear waste from going to landfills??

🤯❤️

Pure genius.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Legend
Mentor
Reaction score
3,864
Points
1,260
KevinB,

I realize you probably have 0 interest. But can you run for office up here please? Like pretty please?

That idea is pure genius. Retrofitted & recently modernized LA class subs, cheaper than a new conventionally powered boat, that allows us to maintain sovereignty, AAANNNDDD prevents nuclear waste from going to landfills??

🤯❤️

Pure genius.
I can see the attack ad already:

"We're buying old, used US nuclear submarines."
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
1,019
Points
1,090
It's a green power solution - you point to climate change - and the fact this is fresh refurb (unlike old decaying British Subs) - and then you say only Donald Trump wouldn't like this deal...
Could also say “This will create over 1000 new jobs across the country!”

Just be vague on which country…



Trust me. It’ll pass the apathy test.
 

Dale Denton

Full Member
Reaction score
125
Points
580
I can see the attack ad already:

"We're buying old, used US nuclear submarines."
Yup, unless their was much emphasis on the 'full refit' which would be vague.

Maybe strip out some VLS tubes out of the first one and use it as a AUKUS training ship, housing additional training crew, classrooms even. Fund a new AUKUS SSN training centre in Canada, the savings may shut up a hesitant USN/RN, due to the already strained SSN crew numbers. Hire out USN for the mixed crew training, add in some RAN and RN participation.


  • [In 2022] Two Los Angeles-class attack submarines will be recycled: Providence (SSN 719) and Oklahoma City (SSN 723). Source

It's a cheaper political win, less expensive than building a new fleet of SSNs for $60B+ or less effective and similarly expensive SSKs. People would say something if we divested a key strategic capability, and it would feed right into peoples heads (and the world) that we are increasingly pacifist. Coupled with the rest of the world building more Subs than ever, it would (and be) a huge step backwards for us.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Reaction score
7,485
Points
1,140
Yup, unless their was much emphasis on the 'full refit' which would be vague.

Maybe strip out some VLS tubes out of the first one and use it as a AUKUS training ship, housing additional training crew, classrooms even. Fund a new AUKUS SSN training centre in Canada, the savings may shut up a hesitant USN/RN, due to the already strained SSN crew numbers. Hire out USN for the mixed crew training, add in some RAN and RN participation.


  • [In 2022] Two Los Angeles-class attack submarines will be recycled: Providence (SSN 719) and Oklahoma City (SSN 723). Source

It's a cheaper political win, less expensive than building a new fleet of SSNs for $60B+ or less effective and similarly expensive SSKs. People would say something if we divested a key strategic capability, and it would feed right into peoples heads (and the world) that we are increasingly pacifist. Coupled with the rest of the world building more Subs than ever, it would (and be) a huge step backwards for us.
4 more in 2024
2 in 2025
3 in 2026

How many does Canada need?
The Providence is currently the oldest service SSN in the USN, and was commissioned in July 1985.
Which admittedly is older than the Vics - but they aren't at end of service life - she surfaced the North Pole July 1 2008 (Happy Canada Day)
They are just being replaced by newer models - with refit they could see 20+ more years of service.
 
Top