Replacing the Subs

[calculus]

The AUKUS program is reputed to now cost $368Billion for 8 boats, and is threatening other programs in the Australian defence long-term reequipment plan. A number of air and land programs have already been cut, or reduced, and they are looking for even more savings, now potentially in the Hunter class. Lunacy. Canada would do well to stay away from this mess and stay focused on conventional boats. Had Australia stayed the course with the Barracudas, they would have seen the first of those 12 large, modern, ultra long range boats in the water by 2030. Now, they will be lucky if they get the first of 8 AUKUS boats by "early 2040s". Yes, nuclear is awesome, but not at any cost. The Aussies have bit off more than they can chew, IMHO, and as a result, their entire ship building plan is in shambles. We simply cannot afford such a massive distraction.

Some interesting reading

Navy firepower boost: Review wants more destroyers, fewer frigates

Three heavily armed air warfare destroyers would be added to the national fleet under a plan being considered by the federal government

www.smh.com.au

What is the Aukus submarine deal and what does it mean? – the key facts

The four-phase plan has made nuclear arms control experts nervous … here’s why

www.theguardian.com

AUKUS Submarine Agreement: Historic but Not Yet Smooth Sailing

This week, the United States, Britain, and Australia announced the path forward for AUKUS, the trilateral defense partnership between the three nations. This commentary explores the details of the arrangement and the challenges in implementing AUKUS Pillar 1.

www.csis.org

 

[Happy Guy]

The AUKUS program is reputed to now cost $368Billion for 8 boats, and is threatening other programs in the Australian defence long-term reequipment plan. A number of air and land programs have already been cut, or reduced, and they are looking for even more savings, now potentially in the Hunter class. Lunacy. Canada would do well to stay away from this mess and stay focused on conventional boats. Had Australia stayed the course with the Barracudas, they would have seen the first of those 12 large, modern, ultra long range boats in the water by 2030. Now, they will be lucky if they get the first of 8 AUKUS boats by "early 2040s". Yes, nuclear is awesome, but not at any cost. The Aussies have bit off more than they can chew, IMHO, and as a result, their entire ship building plan is in shambles. We simply cannot afford such a massive distraction.

Some interesting reading

Navy firepower boost: Review wants more destroyers, fewer frigates

Three heavily armed air warfare destroyers would be added to the national fleet under a plan being considered by the federal government

www.smh.com.au

What is the Aukus submarine deal and what does it mean? – the key facts

The four-phase plan has made nuclear arms control experts nervous … here’s why

www.theguardian.com

AUKUS Submarine Agreement: Historic but Not Yet Smooth Sailing

This week, the United States, Britain, and Australia announced the path forward for AUKUS, the trilateral defense partnership between the three nations. This commentary explores the details of the arrangement and the challenges in implementing AUKUS Pillar 1.

www.csis.org

I believe that the $368B cost includes the entire life cycle of the submarine which starts now, 2023 until the mid 2050s (2055) this gives a range of 32 years or roughly $11,500,000,000.00/yr.

To Canada and I would imagine the same for Australia this is a huge amount of money. The Australian gov't would need to substantially grow their economy and at the same time find savings within their overall budget to fund this. I'm guessing but I believe that the other Services, primarily the Army would find constricting budgets for the future.

I don't think that any of the current Canadian political parties, after seeing the figures, would even agree to procure nuclear submarines. There would need to be massive cuts in every federal gov't department to afford this.

 

[KevinB]

I believe that the $368B cost includes the entire life cycle of the submarine which starts now, 2023 until the mid 2050s (2055) this gives a range of 32 years or roughly $11,500,000,000.00/yr.

To Canada and I would imagine the same for Australia this is a huge amount of money. The Australian gov't would need to substantially grow their economy and at the same time find savings within their overall budget to fund this. I'm guessing but I believe that the other Services, primarily the Army would find constricting budgets for the future.

I don't think that any of the current Canadian political parties, after seeing the figures, would even agree to procure nuclear submarines. There would need to be massive cuts in every federal gov't department to afford this.

Well based on that, if the price works out of ~12B a year, that’s would allow Canada to make its 2% commitment, if you just added 8 SSN to the budget on top of what you currently have.

 

[Happy Guy]

Well based on that, if the price works out of ~12B a year, that’s would allow Canada to make its 2% commitment, if you just added 8 SSN to the budget on top of what you currently have.

You know as well as I do that the LPC and CPC will never do that. They would prefer to try to balance the books, after the mess that they (LPC) made, than to take National Security/Defence seriously.

if the LPC and NDP successfully pass Pharmacare, the next gov't (probably CPC) will be so busy trying to balance the books in order to afford all the recent social programs that came into being. This means that the Defence budget will be cut even more or frozen in the next decade or more.

The LPC and NDP may just as well bankrupt the gov't without looking at the fiscal future.

 

[calculus]

Latest Japanese sub launch, with improvements over previous subs in class. The Japanese spirit of continuous improvement on clear display. I would have to think these, or the follow-on 29SS class, would be high on the RCN's list of potential replacements.

Japan Launches Fourth Taigei-Class Submarine for JMSDF - Naval News

Japan’s Kawasaki Heavy Industries (KHI) has launched the fourth Taigei-class diesel-electric attack submarine "Raigei" ｢らいげい｣ for the JMSDF.

www.navalnews.com

Taking a Closer Look at Japan's Futuristic Attack Submarine

The sleek underwater warship will ensure the country is defended by the best non-nuclear submarines around.

www.popularmechanics.com

 

[Rainbow1910]

Latest Japanese sub launch, with improvements over previous subs in class. The Japanese spirit of continuous improvement on clear display. I would have to think these, or the follow-on 29SS class, would be high on the RCN's list of potential replacements.

The concern that holds back my complete support of a Japanese bid is their utter inexperience in the export market. This procurement is going to be a hard sell regardless, I think Canada needs to very heavily manage risk and Japan is a risky partner in that aspect. I am also a bit skeptical of their ability to build boats for both Canada and themselves, but that is less of a concern compared to the former. Their boats themselves seem excellent, Japan itself is where I have questions.

 

[Kirkhill]

An interesting piece detailing the legislative changes necessary to make the AUKUS project work.

ITAR is in there of course.
But the Aussies are also investing 3 BUSD directly into US infrastructure next year to make this work.
One problem - getting enough Aussie sailors up to speed in time.

The article is current because it specifically references Speaker Johnson who was just elected today.

As Albanese visits Biden, Navy tells lawmakers 4 AUKUS legislative proposals are 'critical' - Breaking Defense

President Joe Biden and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will only hold general discussions about AUKUS today, administration officials told reporters.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The concern that holds back my complete support of a Japanese bid is their utter inexperience in the export market. This procurement is going to be a hard sell regardless, I think Canada needs to very heavily manage risk and Japan is a risky partner in that aspect. I am also a bit skeptical of their ability to build boats for both Canada and themselves, but that is less of a concern compared to the former. Their boats themselves seem excellent, Japan itself is where I have questions.

I do agree with you, i think South Korea is much better poised to deal with Canada and are used to being flexible. Which they will need to be dealing with Canada.

 

[dimsum]

An interesting piece detailing the legislative changes necessary to make the AUKUS project work.

ITAR is in there of course.
But the Aussies are also investing 3 BUSD directly into US infrastructure next year to make this work.
One problem - getting enough Aussie sailors up to speed in time.

The article is current because it specifically references Speaker Johnson who was just elected today.

As Albanese visits Biden, Navy tells lawmakers 4 AUKUS legislative proposals are 'critical' - Breaking Defense

President Joe Biden and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese will only hold general discussions about AUKUS today, administration officials told reporters.

breakingdefense.com

Problem is getting enough Aussie sailors, period.

 

[calculus]

More details on the Batch 2 of the KSS 3 Korean subs. Pretty big boat. The space for the vertical launch system has some interesting potential, assuming we wouldn't be using it for its specified application, which I think is a valid assumption. Watch the video at the bottom. Specific mention of below the ice operations, and Hanwa's lithium-ion battery solution. It seems pretty impressive.

Discover Korean Jang Bogo III KSS III Batch II submarine design by Han

Hanwha Ocean showcased the Jang Bogo III (KSS-III) Batch II submarine at the prestigious ADEX 2023 exhibition, taking place from 17 to 22 October at the Se

www.navyrecognition.com

 

[KevinB]

More details on the Batch 2 of the KSS 3 Korean subs. Pretty big boat. The space for the vertical launch system has some interesting potential, assuming we wouldn't be using it for its specified application, which I think is a valid assumption. Watch the video at the bottom. Specific mention of below the ice operations, and Hanwa's lithium-ion battery solution. It seems pretty impressive.

Discover Korean Jang Bogo III KSS III Batch II submarine design by Han

Hanwha Ocean showcased the Jang Bogo III (KSS-III) Batch II submarine at the prestigious ADEX 2023 exhibition, taking place from 17 to 22 October at the Se

www.navyrecognition.com

I didn't hear anting about under ice operations in the video - they just talked about long endurance and Canada's coast line, plus a slew of time about the safety features of their LI Battery system, and bonus points in Canada of mentioning Crew Gender requirements twice

 

[calculus]

I didn't hear anting about under ice operations in the video - they just talked about long endurance and Canada's coast line, plus a slew of time about the safety features of their LI Battery system, and bonus points in Canada of mentioning Crew Gender requirements twice

Yes, you are correct. I listened to it again. At around 05:13 there was mention of "arctic", so I made a little leap of logic there, perhaps, but still, why mention it.... It's a big boat, so it may be possible for limited under-ice operations (near the edge of the ice sheet), and still have the mass and buoyancy to break through some ice in the event of an emergency... The Li-ON batteries appear to offer some quite revolutionary capabilities for a conventional sub - the 20 days submerged figure stands out, as well as the ability to generate oxygen.

 

[KevinB]

Yes, you are correct. I listened to it again. At around 05:13 there was mention of "arctic", so I made a little leap of logic there, perhaps, but still, why mention it.... It's a big boat, so it may be possible for limited under-ice operations (near the edge of the ice sheet), and still have the mass and buoyancy to break through some ice in the event of an emergency... The Li-ON batteries appear to offer some quite revolutionary capabilities for a conventional sub - the 20 days submerged figure stands out, as well as the ability to generate oxygen.

Big boat for a non Nuke, but not a big boat by SSN standards though. The older 688 LA’s are over 2x and the 774 VA’s almost 3x.
Even the smaller AUKUS boats are planned to be over 2x the mass of that.

To sort of misquote Jeremy Clarkson’s Speed and Power routine, the AIP boats don’t got it. I don’t see a real through ice capability there simply due to the size and power needed to do that safely.

I suspect that periphery ice pack operations would be the limit of what one would want to conduct with those.

It does look like a nice boat, but I remained convinced that IF Canada is to acquire new manned submarines, that Nuclear power is the only reasonable option.

Honestly if given the choice, I’d pink slip the Army PRes entirely, and half the Army Regular Force to acquire SSN’s.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Yes, you are correct. I listened to it again. At around 05:13 there was mention of "arctic", so I made a little leap of logic there, perhaps, but still, why mention it.... It's a big boat, so it may be possible for limited under-ice operations (near the edge of the ice sheet), and still have the mass and buoyancy to break through some ice in the event of an emergency... The Li-ON batteries appear to offer some quite revolutionary capabilities for a conventional sub - the 20 days submerged figure stands out, as well as the ability to generate oxygen.

This 20 day submerged figure is less impressive to me as there is no qualifying facts attached to it. I'm assuming its 20 days either sitting entirely still or cruising at a very low speed.

 

[Good2Golf]

This 20 day submerged figure is less impressive to me as there is no qualifying facts attached to it. I'm assuming its 20 days either sitting entirely still or cruising at a very low speed.

Haven’t heard whether it’s Stirling-based or something else, so hard to know where the H2O-split hydrogen and oxygen are being used. Li-ion does make a notable increase in stored energy/unit volume, so I’m assuming it would at least be some reasonable low patrol speed, vice sitting on the bottom for three weeks.

 

[KevinB]

I will say I did like their battery configuration. They seem to have put about as much risk mitigation into it as possible.

 

[calculus]

Haven’t heard whether it’s Stirling-based or something else, so hard to know where the H2O-split hydrogen and oxygen are being used. Li-ion does make a notable increase in stored energy/unit volume, so I’m assuming it would at least be some reasonable low patrol speed, vice sitting on the bottom for three weeks.

It's hard to find detailed specs, but Wikipedia suggests it's a combination fuel cell and Li-ON system.

Here is an interesting interview with a senior Hanwha exec, specifically around Canadian requirements, and how KSS III would fit: A Proven Underwater Solution for Canada – Vanguard

Here is the Wikipedia entry: KSS-III submarine - Wikipedia

 

[KevinB]

The video in the article that @calculus posted discussed a Fuel Cell as the AIP oxygen generation method, with the Li-Ion battery banks as the submerged propulsion power source.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't even bother dreaming of nuke boats for Canada, but the KS-III with VLS would be a significant jump in capability for Canada, paticuliarly if we bought 6 or more, which would mean 1 operational sub, one in workup/training and another in refit per coast. New subs would likley entice more people into the trade and help retention.

 

[KevinB]

I don't even bother dreaming of nuke boats for Canada, but the KS-III with VLS would be a significant jump in capability for Canada, paticuliarly if we bought 6 or more, which would mean 1 operational sub, one in workup/training and another in refit per coast. New subs would likley entice more people into the trade and help retention.

When you look at the range requirements for Canada the only viable option is nuclear.


It’s 5,200 Nautical Miles to Taiwan from Victoria, 4,000 to Japan, 5,200 to South Korea and 7,000 to Australia as let’s face it Subs are a Pacific Pivot item.
None of those distances are something that a non nuclear boat is going to do submerged.

That isn’t even considering patrolling the Canadian Arctic waters.

Since Canada doesn’t seem to want to go Nuclear, perhaps it’s best to putting the Submarine Question to bed, and have the RCN focus on the surface combatant and supply aspect.