Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 14,721
- Points
- 1,160
Lessons from Japan and South Koreas Sub builders. A very interesting talk. The Japanese seem to have the decommissioning and replacement thing worked out.
Replacing the Subs
- Thread starter Spencer100
- Start date
quadrapiper
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 750
- Points
- 1,040
Looks fairly permissive as far as nuclear-powered vessels.What Google AI says.
Canada and the United States have several agreements concerning nuclear weapons, primarily focused on cooperation and non-proliferation. While Canada does not possess its own nuclear weapons, it has a history of cooperation with the US on nuclear matters, including accepting nuclear weapons on Canadian soil temporarily. Canada is a non-nuclear weapon state party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has signed agreements with the US for cooperation on civil uses of atomic energy and for cooperation on mutual defense purposes.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
1. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT):Canada ratified the NPT in 1970, committing to not acquire nuclear weapons.
2. Cooperation on Civil Uses of Atomic Energy: The 1955 agreement between Canada and the US on the civil uses of atomic energy outlines provisions for transferring nuclear technology, material, and equipment, with restrictions on transfers to unauthorized persons or beyond territorial jurisdiction.
3. Cooperation on Mutual Defense Purposes: Another 1955 agreement focuses on the exchange of information and materials related to atomic energy for mutual defense. This includes developing defense plans and training personnel.
4. Defense Production Sharing Agreement (DPSA): Formalized in 1959, this agreement aims to integrate defense production between the two countries, removing barriers to reciprocal procurement.
5. NORAD Agreement: The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) agreement, updated in 2006, involves cooperation in aerospace warning, air sovereignty, and maritime warning for North America.
6. Canada's Stance on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)espite being a non-nuclear weapon state and a key player in global non-proliferation efforts, Canada has not signed the TPNW, which prohibits the development, testing, production, acquisition, possession, or use of nuclear weapons. Canada's position is that a step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament remains the most viable pathway
- Reaction score
- 5,101
- Points
- 1,160
Everybody seems to hang their hat on the 1959 Defence Production Sharing Agreement. Specifically, it looks like Article IV (emphasis added). While not an outright prohibition, it seem to give the US a veto:What Google AI says.
Canada and the United States have several agreements concerning nuclear weapons, primarily focused on cooperation and non-proliferation. While Canada does not possess its own nuclear weapons, it has a history of cooperation with the US on nuclear matters, including accepting nuclear weapons on Canadian soil temporarily. Canada is a non-nuclear weapon state party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has signed agreements with the US for cooperation on civil uses of atomic energy and for cooperation on mutual defense purposes.
Here's a more detailed breakdown:
1. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT):Canada ratified the NPT in 1970, committing to not acquire nuclear weapons.
2. Cooperation on Civil Uses of Atomic Energy: The 1955 agreement between Canada and the US on the civil uses of atomic energy outlines provisions for transferring nuclear technology, material, and equipment, with restrictions on transfers to unauthorized persons or beyond territorial jurisdiction.
3. Cooperation on Mutual Defense Purposes: Another 1955 agreement focuses on the exchange of information and materials related to atomic energy for mutual defense. This includes developing defense plans and training personnel.
4. Defense Production Sharing Agreement (DPSA): Formalized in 1959, this agreement aims to integrate defense production between the two countries, removing barriers to reciprocal procurement.
5. NORAD Agreement: The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) agreement, updated in 2006, involves cooperation in aerospace warning, air sovereignty, and maritime warning for North America.
6. Canada's Stance on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)
View Treaty - Canada.ca
Article IV
Transfer of Military Reactors and MaterialsThe Government of the United States, by amendment to this Agreement and subject to the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon between the Parties,
- may agree to transfer, or authorize any person to transfer, to the Government of Canada, military reactors and/or parts thereof for military applications; and
- may agree to transfer to the Government of Canada special nuclear material for research on, development of, production of, and use in military reactors for military applications.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 14,721
- Points
- 1,160
Canada can pull a DJT move and declare that article obsolete and void. But instead of announcing it to the word, just send a diplomatic note, stuffed into wads of other stuff. Then quietly negotiate the sale and announce to the world. At which point if the US, complains, we can publicly say "We are living up to our defense obligations and using this to help meet our spending requirements. Last week you were telling us we were not doing enough and now you complain when we do something. Doing the move well will put the US in a uncomfortable place of being contradicting themselves. If they try to punish us, it will invoke major anti-US sentiment in Western countries and raise Canada;s status,
rmc_wannabe
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 9,383
- Points
- 1,310
I think this was with the assumption that the U.S. would stay the only game in town IRT Western nuclear technology.Everybody seems to hang their hat on the 1959 Defence Production Sharing Agreement. Specifically, it looks like Article IV (emphasis added). While not an outright prohibition, it seem to give the US a veto:
View Treaty - Canada.ca
www.treaty-accord.gc.ca
Article IV
Transfer of Military Reactors and Materials
The Government of the United States, by amendment to this Agreement and subject to the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon between the Parties,
- may agree to transfer, or authorize any person to transfer, to the Government of Canada, military reactors and/or parts thereof for military applications; and
- may agree to transfer to the Government of Canada special nuclear material for research on, development of, production of, and use in military reactors for military applications.
The geopolitical shift from 1959 to 2025 is enormous.
Everybody seems to hang their hat on the 1959 Defence Production Sharing Agreement. Specifically, it looks like Article IV (emphasis added). While not an outright prohibition, it seem to give the US a veto:
View Treaty - Canada.ca
Article IV
Transfer of Military Reactors and Materials
The Government of the United States, by amendment to this Agreement and subject to the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon between the Parties,
- may agree to transfer, or authorize any person to transfer, to the Government of Canada, military reactors and/or parts thereof for military applications; and
- may agree to transfer to the Government of Canada special nuclear material for research on, development of, production of, and use in military reactors for military applications.
That is a bilateral treaty for US technology only. I read the 'authorize another person' part to mean the US can give Westinghouse or GE, etc permission to transfer nuclear technology that the corporations own, rather than technology or hardware that is owned by the State.
It would apply to British nuclear submarine reactors as the RR PWR series was developed with technology transfered to Rolls Royce by Westinghouse under the US-UK Mutual Defence Treaty.
As far as I can tell, it would not prevent Canada from buying French reactors or developing our own. But I'm definitely not a lawyer or treaty expert.
quadrapiper
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 750
- Points
- 1,040
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,361
- Points
- 1,010
More precisely, the 1959 treaty" "authorize any person to transfer" part would, by necessity, have to involve a person that can only transfer technology that it, itself acquired from the US under restrictions as to transfer. Any party that does not itself have restrictions on transfer from the US cannot possibly be affected by that provision, nor would Canada in such circumstances. So this is not a treaty that create a "veto".
In any event, we know how the current White House doesn't care about respecting any treaty the US made, even ones negotiated by Trump during his first mandate, so why should we feel bound by this? Moreover, like any treaty, its not eternal and we can decide to abrogate it in accordance with its terms (or as seen in the current US, just state we don't recognise it anymore and be done with it).
In any event, we know how the current White House doesn't care about respecting any treaty the US made, even ones negotiated by Trump during his first mandate, so why should we feel bound by this? Moreover, like any treaty, its not eternal and we can decide to abrogate it in accordance with its terms (or as seen in the current US, just state we don't recognise it anymore and be done with it).
Genetk44
Member
- Reaction score
- 95
- Points
- 460
While I believe nuclear powered subs are ideal for Canada, especially as far as the Arctic is concerned I just don’t see it happening….especially due to cost, the various treaties and agreements notwithstanding. On top of all that the US certainly doesn’t want us having the potential ability to possibly hinder their operations in the Arctic or NW passage should the circumstances ever arise. The US military and government just will not accept it. My opinion only.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 14,721
- Points
- 1,160
I don't see it happening either, mainly due to domestic political reason and no politician is likley to burn up their political capital on it. If we did however, I see the French option as the most likley to succeed.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,361
- Points
- 1,010
The future of submarine propulsion?
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 27,291
- Points
- 1,260
I think you would find if you wanted to buy 6-12 SSN’s down here, you would be the next best friend again.
The main reason for our issue with the NWP and Canadian Arctic is possession is 9/10 the law, and armed possession the other 10th.
Now it would require deconflicting the boomer AO’s to ensure a RCN SSN didn’t run into one.
But the main issue we have with the North is being able to ensure it’s a friendly vessel and no Russians (or Chinese) in the area.
- Reaction score
- 5,101
- Points
- 1,160
Is there any to indicate there is something approaching a breakthrough in fusion reactions? The big barriers are positive output (generating more energy than it took to create it) and sustainability. I think Germany just set a new record of sustainment for 22 minutes or something.
I think fusion is like batteries; we've been told the 'next big thing' is just around the corner - for about 3 decades.
- Reaction score
- 2,620
- Points
- 1,090
batteries are here now though, fusion remains elusive other than that big ball in the sky
- Reaction score
- 5,101
- Points
- 1,160
I was thinking more of Li-ion batteries in EVs, mass storage, etc. We've be told that concerns about range, charge time, and safety will be solved by the next-big-battery-breakthrough, at it's just around the corner.
- Reaction score
- 2,620
- Points
- 1,090
BYD is running solid state battery trials right now with a 1500km range
The ideal nuke propulsion for a Canadian sub would be a "nuclear battery". A small reactor of about 3 to 5 MWe (electric) with low maintenance, few moving parts ("primary circuit" based on convection, not pumps), and replaceable after 8-10 years. In line with Westinghouse's eVinci being soon in trial in Saskatchewan (... or was it in Manitoba?).
Of course, it should be developed for naval, military application. Would not allow high speeds, roughly 20-21 knots, but quite enough to patrol the Arctic and with the capability to cross any Ocean without resupply.
Two other advantages: low crew requiremets for operation and lower noise than traditional nuke boats.
Of course, it should be developed for naval, military application. Would not allow high speeds, roughly 20-21 knots, but quite enough to patrol the Arctic and with the capability to cross any Ocean without resupply.
Two other advantages: low crew requiremets for operation and lower noise than traditional nuke boats.
Similar threads
