• 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

KevinB said:
We are selling Virgina class boats to Australia as part of their AUKUS program.
We have a bunch of LA class boats that still have major lifespans left and are ready to retire them for the Virginia class.
Given that we have ports for maintenance of SSN’s near the boarder on both coasts, it would be fairly easy for training of the RCN, as well as early maintenance.

The plan down here is to double SSN production in the next few years, which would provide a potential source for hulls, and the planned AUKUS boats are smaller than the VA class so less manning issues.

My point is that if Australia a country with really no domestic experience with nuclear power can do it, it shouldn’t be an issue for Canada given the history and geographical proximity to us down here to go Nuke.
Click to expand...
on this website, you are probably preaching to the choir but... There is no will in Ottawa to invest in anything that might hurt someone else so every procurement is an uphill battle. Introducing uranium into the equation brings up images of Hiroshima in spite of the fact that we have been using nuclear power for decades. But even that programme was basically stopped until very recently in Ontario
 
Here's a question -

Does the covert nature of submarines make them more or less appealing to the current government?

Cyber defence seems to be top of mind - that is not in the public domain.
CSE?
JTF2?

Navy and Air Force deployments generally don't get any press unless Public Affairs wants there to be press.

The Army generally is hard to hide. But training foreigners in third countries or even in Canadian bases is a low profile activity.

The subs would be plausibly deniable asset that could both benefit our allies militarily and need never be ascribed to the Canadian government publicly. Unlike a frigate or a brigade.
 
KevinB said:
We are selling Virgina class boats to Australia as part of their AUKUS program.
We have a bunch of LA class boats that still have major lifespans left and are ready to retire them for the Virginia class.
Given that we have ports for maintenance of SSN’s near the boarder on both coasts, it would be fairly easy for training of the RCN, as well as early maintenance.

The plan down here is to double SSN production in the next few years, which would provide a potential source for hulls, and the planned AUKUS boats are smaller than the VA class so less manning issues.

My point is that if Australia a country with really no domestic experience with nuclear power can do it, it shouldn’t be an issue for Canada given the history and geographical proximity to us down here to go Nuke.
Click to expand...
Australia and Canada are in a bit of different boats, the political realities of both nations aren't exactly a 1:1 comparison. Australia is going to be a major asset for the US and its allies in a Pacific conflict with China, meaning they will be on the frontline and want their force to be equipped to handle such a thing. In exchange for selling a few current/future Virginia's to Australia, the US is going to reap a significant amount of foreign investment into their submarine shipbuilding facilities alongside get access to new infrastructure to operate from in Australia, alongside a very powerful force of close allies in the region.

For Canada I have a bit of a harder time seeing what the US has to benefit compared to the effort required. Australia has the motivation required to put a program like this through and get results, Canada is infamously wishy washy about large and potentially controversial programs like this. Is the US going to bet on Canadian success by further straining their submarine numbers for the chance to get some additional infrastructure in Canada to potentially utilize? Would they be comfortable giving Canada an under ice capable SSN force when our claims do not agree in the Arctic?

These SSN production increases are going to be absorbed into what the USN and Australia wants, readying for conflict in the Pacific. I have my doubts that there is much slack for Canada in the foreseeable future. If these LA class boats were really worthwhile to continue operating and had major lifespan left, why did Australia not go through this avenue as a interim solution? Many of these boats which remain are either an important part of the USN SSN fleet itself as it stands now or they are looking to be decommissioned within the coming few years. I very much question how much of a good idea it is to tie ourselves to somebodies well used SSN's for all the money and effort required.

Australia has the domestic and foreign political support to pull this procurement off, even then it is incredibly ambitious and risky. They have this support because they have a very important reason, being directly in China's sights now and in the future. Canada lacks all three of these requirements Australia has.
 
Kirkhill said:
Here's a question -

Does the covert nature of submarines make them more or less appealing to the current government?

Cyber defence seems to be top of mind - that is not in the public domain.
CSE?
JTF2?

Navy and Air Force deployments generally don't get any press unless Public Affairs wants there to be press.

The Army generally is hard to hide. But training foreigners in third countries or even in Canadian bases is a low profile activity.

The subs would be plausibly deniable asset that could both benefit our allies militarily and need never be ascribed to the Canadian government publicly. Unlike a frigate or a brigade.
Click to expand...
I think it is less of being appealing or not to this current government and more being appealing to Canadian governments in general, chiefly due to cost. Submarines are incredibly costly and complex pieces of equipment compared to surface vessels, which are themselves very expensive and complex equipment as far as military equipment goes. There is very minimal margin of error for submarine operation, mistakes are usually dearly paid for. This is similar for submarine upkeep and maintenance, you can get away with cutting corners on a surface ship to a point but with a submarine, no dice.

Submarines are and have proven very useful tools for Canada when we can actually operate them for any reasonable amount of time. Their covert attributes make them deadly anti-shipping platforms and unrivaled surveillance vessels.

The lack of former investment into submarines throughout the existence of the RCN has hindered our procurements as we lack a sufficient foundation to build from. We have founded and disbanded the submarine arm of the Navy multiple different times throughout our history, usually always being second hand boats from Britain or America or war spoils from Germany. Eventually Canada will have to either decide to properly invest or stop wasting resources with these half hearted measures. I hope the CPSP is the former rather than the latter.
 
Rainbow1910 said:
With the amount of good options available on the market, I don't see any major upside in considering a design with such a lineage of issues except for holding the threat of competition over other partners heads. Having to lengthen the hull by 10m and add 100t to the overall displacement to fix the issues does not bode well in my mind for Navantia being a worthwhile partner. I have heard horror stories about them working with the Australians on the Hobart class destroyers, I would rather avoid those if possible.

I would rank A26 higher but I am skeptical of a design which foundered so long being built by a nation which hasn't built a submarine in house since the 1990's (Gotland) and hasn't assisted building submarines abroad since the early 2000's (Collins). If Sweden does win in the Netherlands, are they going to have enough production bandwidth to accommodate Canada's potentially 4, 6, 8 or even 12 boat order within a reasonable timeframe? They already have a pair of their own subs being built which the first was just laid down in 2022, the Dutch will be ahead of us taking up major work in Swedish yards/supply chains.

The Germans might have similar issues with space for Canadian submarine orders considering the orders on the books for Norway, Israel and themselves although they actually have maintained expertise in continuous production while having larger/more capable shipyards.

As you said, I think the Asian nations have the advantage in yard space and continuous build programs ongoing albeit the German's are the gold standard in conventional submarine building and export, hard to really count them out.
Click to expand...
Building subs is not easy. Naval Group couldnt get the reactor into the sub designed around that very reactor. I dont think the French option will be very Scorpene like but its the one with info on it. If the Dutch go for the U212CD it makes a strong case to consider but I find myself fan boying Korean stuff right now and you are probably right on yard capacity with TKMS and SAAB whereas South Korea has Daewoo/Hanwha and Hyundai producing and both have partnered up with Babcock Canada. Perhaps if we buy 6 subs they will throw in some tanks, SPH, MLRS.
 
KevinB said:
Honestly I don’t think we care or factor in RCN subs for anything at this point.
Click to expand...
1 operational sub is a "nice to have" as it will likley be quieter than the nukes. Now if we could field 2-3 KS-III in the Pacific, then the USN would be very happy.
 
Colin Parkinson said:
1 operational sub is a "nice to have" as it will likley be quieter than the nukes. Now if we could field 2-3 KS-III in the Pacific, then the USN would be very happy.
Click to expand...
Rumor has it the VA Nuke boats are quieter than DE boats now. Even the pump is quieter than the batteries (I’m not a sonar guy, but sadly I know some). Noise Nerd is a polite term to describe the bizarre fascination they have.
 
KevinB said:
He said Nation though, not a bunch of Freeloaders that make Canada look aggressively postured.
Click to expand...
In New Zealand’s defence, they have the size, population and economy similar to British Columbia. The last figures I saw showed them spending slightly more % of GDP on defence than Canada (1.4% vs. 1.3%). Imagine the independent Dominion of British Columbia trying to field an all singing, all dancing military, plus having all the other infrastructure of an independent state.

Canada is a wealthy G7 country, no matter that Canadians are extremely provincial in their outlook and think that we are a poor nation. We have no excuse for our poor defence spending.
 
RangerRay said:
In New Zealand’s defence, they have the size, population and economy similar to British Columbia. The last figures I saw showed them spending slightly more % of GDP on defence than Canada (1.4% vs. 1.3%). Imagine the independent Dominion of British Columbia trying to field an all singing, all dancing military, plus having all the other infrastructure of an independent state.

Canada is a wealthy G7 country, no matter that Canadians are extremely provincial in their outlook and think that we are a poor nation. We have no excuse for our poor defence spending.
Click to expand...
Both points, direct hits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Oldgateboatdriver
    • Like
Type 31 for Canada?
Replies
18
Views
3K
FJAG
FJAG
Edward Campbell
    • Like
    • Insightful
The Next Canadian Government
18 19 20
Replies
394
Views
24K
Colin Parkinson
Colin Parkinson
Edward Campbell
    • Wow
    • Like
    • Sad
PAK National Arrested in QC Plotting Attack in NYC
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Haggis
Haggis
Kirkhill
    • Insightful
    • Like
Analysis of US Wishlists 2025
Replies
0
Views
4K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
    • Like
Canadian, Eh?
Replies
0
Views
2K
Kirkhill
Kirkhill
Back
Top