Status on Victoria-class Submarines?

[Eye In The Sky]

Does "could be used" mean "no one else is doing this now" or "yet"...and if so, the question is 'why not'?

If we aren't willing to pay for things like AIP, or even new(er) classes of SSKs...doesn't that indicate the GoC wouldn't venture into the SSn world either?

* I think there are other than US/UK nuc boats in the arctic...

 

[Czech_pivo]

There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them. Two questions, how did the Brit sub get to the exercise location, did it go through Canadian waters to do so and the second question, is a nation truly sovereign if it can’t go to parts of its territory at anytime, in any manner, when others can and most likely do? 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them. Two questions, how did the Brit sub get to the exercise location, did it go through Canadian waters to do so and the second question, is a nation truly sovereign if it can’t go to parts of its territory at anytime, in any manner, when others can and most likely do?

Well, if you look at a world map (or better, a globe), you'll see this great big open expanse of water North of the UK called the North Sea, with it's upper portion called the Greenland Basin: It's huge and leads straight into the Arctic ocean without having to detour South of Greenland and then negotiate pretty shallow and narrow passages on top of that. Hint: that's where the UK subs went through.

 

[PuckChaser]

There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them. Two questions, how did the Brit sub get to the exercise location, did it go through Canadian waters to do so and the second question, is a nation truly sovereign if it can’t go to parts of its territory at anytime, in any manner, when others can and most likely do?

It took us 20 years to get these ones operational. We'll be talking about Fusion reactor powered subs by the time the CAF looks at a replacement.

 

[Uzlu]

Does "could be used" mean "no one else is doing this now" or "yet"...and if so, the question is 'why not'?

If I am not mistaken, all nuclear-powered attack submarines in use today use high-powered pressurized-water reactors.  Why not use low-powered reactors?  If you are an admiral, why would you replace your submarines that can maintain a constant, say, 25 to 35 knots with submarines that are much slower?

If we aren't willing to pay for things like AIP, or even new(er) classes of SSKs...doesn't that indicate the GoC wouldn't venture into the SSn world either?

Correct.  The problem is probably more political than technical.  Trying to find a Canadian politician with backbone is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

* I think there are other than US/UK nuc boats in the arctic...

Putin probably agrees with you.

There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them.

Maybe there is a reason.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine#American_opposition

 

[Eye In The Sky]

There is no reason why our next class of subs after the Victoria’s are clapped out that we can’t join with ththe US or Brits or French for that matter and jointly buy nuclear subs with them.

If you want to ignore "reality in all of history to this point in time", there sure, there is no reason.

Live in reality man.  There is no government that is going to cut all the social program funding, or raise taxes, to get us kit like the Virgina's or Astute's.  The US went to Virgina's and Improved LAs mainly because they couldn't afford the number of Seawolf hulls they thought they could or wanted.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We could buy nuke subs without the refueling facilities, but you be dependent on the host country providing access to their. You would lose some control over them. I suspect both France and UK would be happy to sell us Nuke attack subs (UK based on the Astute class) and provide refueling as required. It would still require modifying our sub support units with some specialized gear I suspect. Just image the bluehairs in Esquimalt and Victoria if a Nuke boat was stationed there  8)

 

[Underway]

If I am not mistaken, all nuclear-powered attack submarines in use today use high-powered pressurized-water reactors.  Why not use low-powered reactors?

Few reasons. 

1) SLOWPOKE reactors and other low-powered reactors are excellent for research purposes (or were) but are terrible for power generation from an efficiency point of view.  Just compare output to size to requirements for submarines.  They can also only provide heat which then needs a stirling engine to convert that heat into power.  The efficiency losses are significant and a stirling engine is relatively noisy.  At best they can provide the equivalent of trickle recharge power to a submarine.  The space that a reactor would take up would be better putting more (modern) batteries for longer submerged durations.

2) The only AIP system that is reliable for under ice purposes is an nuclear reactor.  This is because it has power to spare, which can then be used for O2 production should a submarine be unable to surface, and also to deal with fires underwater.  No nation who is not suicidal operates non-nuclear AIP under ice.  Unless there is a some new energy source nuclear is and always will be the only option for under ice operations.  It just isn't even close to meeting submarine safety requirements otherwise.

3)The SLOWPOKE reactor idea is an old unproven idea.  There have been no trials, minimal research and no attempts at proving that this might work.  It would take a decade or more of research before the technology is even considered for installation.  And we have no history of submarine design.  If you think CSC is expensive, then try this project out.

 

[STONEY]

During later part of the eighties there were in fact two separate Canadian companies conducting studies/research into AMPS  for both Canadian and Dutch Navy Slowpoke types of power for submarines that went on for several years. I have copies of  Canada's Navy Annual from that period that includes photo's of engineering mock-ups supplied by one of the companys in a advert for there product. What ever happened to all this effort I don't know if it was because of funding cuts or it was impractical .  They claimed it would provide a speed of 6-8 kts limited only by the endurance of the crew which was given as 28 days at the time for a 2000 ton boat.

Cheers

 

[Eye In The Sky]

This was forwarded to me yesterday, a short video on Dynamic Manta 2018 . 

* who are we paying to make these things and can we make sure they have grade 12 or use a spellchecker? 

** too bad they tainted the LRP part with those west coast guys  ;D

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The speaking is terrible, can they not find people who speak normally and don't sound like robots? Some good footage though.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm pretty sure they were reading from a "PAO approved" script. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

https://twitter.com/MARPAC_FMARP/status/976210323341389824/photo/1

HMCS Chicoutimi is returning home tomorrow after six months away patrolling in the Asia-Pacific. Chicoutimi visited Hawaii, Guam, and Japan during a historic deployment.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

CBC Video Link - Inside A Top Secret Canadian Submarine

Published on Feb 6, 2018

CBC News has gotten an exclusive look inside a top-secret Canadian submarine — so secret, we can't even tell you exactly where the submarine was when we got inside. The HMCS Chicoutimi is deep in the Pacific Ocean, within a few days' sail of the Korean Peninsula. Its task: to monitor supplies going into North Korea.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Could these be from Nucs surfacing...

http://www.newsweek.com/arctic-ocean-nasas-operation-icebridge-mysterious-ice-holes-896488

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Not the best photo, and not much info on it that I could find (time of day, slant angle, etc) but my quick thoughts are, the holes and area immediately around them appear sunken/depressed, not raised.  I could be wrong, but the 'hole' part seems lower than the outer surrounding areas.  The areas around the darker, what appears to be lower 'holes' aren't close to the shape of a sub hull.  If it 'was' from fairweather/sails punching thru, nothing else appears to have disturbed the ice at all;  part of the reason for doing this is to demonstrate the ability to launch telephone poles - hard to do if only the sail is thru.  :2c:

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Could these be from Nucs surfacing...

http://www.newsweek.com/arctic-ocean-nasas-operation-icebridge-mysterious-ice-holes-896488

I am no expert, but they look an awful lot like seal blow holes. They keep them open all winter so they can breath while hunting.

 

[Czech_pivo]

They look to be very big to be blow holes for seals, don’t they?

 

[Czech_pivo]

https://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&channel=iphone_bm&biw=1024&bih=666&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=qzLdWvmRCoG4jwSI2qyADg&q=seal+blow+holes+in+the+ice&oq=seal+blow+holes+in+the+ice&gs_l=mobile-gws-img.3...49389.52302..52570...0....219.1298.6j4j1..........1..mobile-gws-wiz-img.OItTkHHreu4%3D#imgrc=gAR2FBk7Ch3kNM:&isa=y

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Well there's no scale with the picture.  I look out windows and operate EO/IR cameras (and have in the Arctic) and judging distance and size can be difficult with zero references.  If there was a skidoo, or a person, or anything for scale, that would help.

Here's some pics of US and UK boats punching holes in ice.  https://army.ca/forums/threads/126514/post-1529056.html#msg1529056