Canada considers canning diesels, buying nukes

[CCIP]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/27/submarines-british-nuclear.html

So Canada is now considering canning its problem-plagued Victoria (ex-Upholder) class diesels which have seen practically no service since they were purchased from Britain. While no definite budget exists for a replacement and the focus at the moment seems to be on the surface fleet, there is word in both the government and the navy that they would like to have nukes (particularly due to Canada's obvious interest in Arctic operations, where diesels aren't so hot).

Thoughts? Will this ever happen? Would used British nukes be a good idea for Canada?

[Jimbuna]

The nuclear boat is without doubt the best option for Arctic operations but I'm wondering if they'd turn to the UK a second time after their experience with the diesel boats.

We currently have seven fleet boats in operation comprising six T class and one Astute.

There are seven Astute class planned and the second of the class HMS Ambush is due in 2012 replacing HMS Turbulent, so I think it is possible Canada could acquire T class boats if they wanted them phasing in over a period of time.

[Krauter]

Sweet! 'Bout time Canada's Maritime Force updated its subsurface fleet.

What do you think the chances are of us acquiring any LA class boats from the states? How close are they to phasing out those boats in favour of the Virginias?

[AVGWarhawk]

Time to start shopping. Kicking tires and test drives!

http://comixstuff.com/files/polaris.jpg

[Sailor Steve]

OH! This was about submarines. When I read the title I was thinking "Nuclear trucks? How does that work? Tractor-trailers only, or pickups as well? Maybe a Volkswagen?"

[TLAM Strike]

...so I think it is possible Canada could acquire T class boats if they wanted them phasing in over a period of time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMKkQx_dTC4

[soopaman2]

I am sure the USA would sell you a few.


One question...Why British nukes?
What you can take our free defense but you can't buy our subs? (via our majority stake in the UN, financially and militarily)

We got plenty, the only thing we export is military goods anymore, buy it darnit! Otherwise we will have to work for 7$ an hour and be happy we are getting that much.

Makes me want to defund the UN and see how the world truly fares then.

[JSLTIGER]

Depends how many they want. I'm sure that there are plenty of Los Angeles class submarines that are about to be or have been decommissioned that Canada could purchase from us if they can't get a hold of the T class boats.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

There are seven Astute class planned and the second of the class HMS Ambush is due in 2012 replacing HMS Turbulent, so I think it is possible Canada could acquire T class boats if they wanted them phasing in over a period of time.

After the sorry tale of those Upholders, I don't think the Canadians will be buying anything Brit for a long time...

[Jimbuna]

After the sorry tale of those Upholders, I don't think the Canadians will be buying anything Brit for a long time...

I suspect you may be right but Canada has maintained that 'special' relationship for a long time.

Time for a bidding war with the US......(Canada) "How much are each of you prepared to pay us for each boat we take"? :DL

[CaptainMattJ.]

you could but Dr Evil's Secret submarine lair. im sure the sharks with laser beams would come in handy

[Krauter]

I am sure the USA would sell you a few.


One question...Why British nukes?
What you can take our free defense but you can't buy our subs? (via our majority stake in the UN, financially and militarily)

We got plenty, the only thing we export is military goods anymore, buy it darnit! Otherwise we will have to work for 7$ an hour and be happy we are getting that much.

Makes me want to defund the UN and see how the world truly fares then.

Hmm well a few things spring to mind :shifty:..

-1. Canada is still a Commonwealth nation that shares close ties with the UK.
-2. Our CinC is still technically the Queen..

Also, what "free defence"? Last I saw the UK, France, Russia and China both hold similar powers as the US in the UN (veto power....)

[soopaman2]

Hmm well a few things spring to mind :shifty:..

-1. Canada is still a Commonwealth nation that shares close ties with the UK.
-2. Our CinC is still technically the Queen..

Also, what "free defence"? Last I saw the UK, France, Russia and China both hold similar powers as the US in the UN (veto power....)

Yes sir, veto power.

What about manpower, materiels and money? You know the US got 700 plus military bases worldwide? With the worst healthcare system in the world.

Funny really. We care more for Iraquis, and Libyans than our own people. Millions a day into a litter box while our own starves. Can save alot of money on the 700 billion military budget if we cut the UN off. Less manpower needed, less tanks. Close all our bases in Europe and Asia, turn a few aircraft carriers into reefs...It's someone elses turn now..:salute:

I want to emulate Woodrow Wilson pre WW1 and be pure isolationist.

Besides,I thought you guys liked us. Homer Simpson said it best when he told us that Canada was Americas hat.

I'm so cold without you guys!:wah:

[Krauter]

Yes sir, veto power.

What about manpower, materiels and money? You know the US got 700 plus military bases worldwide? With the worst healthcare system in the world.

Funny really. We care more for Iraquis, and Libyans than our own people. Millions a day into a litter box while our own starves. Can save alot of money on the 700 billion military budget if we cut the UN off. Less manpower needed, less tanks. Close all our bases in Europe and Asia, turn a few aircraft carriers into reefs...It's someone elses turn now..:salute:

I want to emulate Woodrow Wilson pre WW1 and be pure isolationist.

Besides,I thought you guys liked us. Homer Simpson said it best when he told us that Canada was Americas hat.

I'm so cold without you guys!:wah:

http://www.myfacewhen.net/uploads/954-not-sure-if-serious.jpg

[magicstix]

Sweet! 'Bout time Canada's Maritime Force updated its subsurface fleet.

What do you think the chances are of us acquiring any LA class boats from the states? How close are they to phasing out those boats in favour of the Virginias?

Highly unlikely. Even today the US keeps the signatures of LA class boats away from the Canadians during joint ops whenever possible. LAs are also very difficult to refuel since they weren't really designed for it.

Nukes in general though are usually very closely guarded national secrets (Akula sales to India not withstanding). If Canada wants a nuke, she'll probably have to design her own. It'll be a long time until the last LA class gets phased out, and it's almost certain we wouldn't give one to Canada before the last one was out of our fleet.

[Krauter]

Highly unlikely. Even today the US keeps the signatures of LA class boats away from the Canadians during joint ops whenever possible. LAs are also very difficult to refuel since they weren't really designed for it.

Nukes in general though are usually very closely guarded national secrets (Akula sales to India not withstanding). If Canada wants a nuke, she'll probably have to design her own. It'll be a long time until the last LA class gets phased out, and it's almost certain we wouldn't give one to Canada before the last one was out of our fleet.

Very good point. I think it's highly unlikely we receive any LA class boats, but it still doesn't mean I can't wish for it to happen :D

Also how are LA class not really designed to be refuelled....?

[CCIP]

Again, I could see the RN being more forthcoming with sharing nuke technology with Canada, due to the close historical ties. US less likely, and honestly I don't think designing and building from scratch will be within Canada's budget. That would be an extremely expensive undertaking.

[magicstix]

Very good point. I think it's highly unlikely we receive any LA class boats, but it still doesn't mean I can't wish for it to happen :D

Also how are LA class not really designed to be refuelled....?

You have to cut them open and remove the reactor to refuel them... Not exactly an easy or cheap task.

[TLAM Strike]

Again, I could see the RN being more forthcoming with sharing nuke technology with Canada, due to the close historical ties. US less likely, and honestly I don't think designing and building from scratch will be within Canada's budget. That would be an extremely expensive undertaking. Perhaps the RCN (yay we can call it that again!) could operate a licensed copy of a RN SSN. No designing necessary just buy the plans as is and maybe have some parts built in the UK and assembled in Canada.

Very good point. I think it's highly unlikely we receive any LA class boats, but it still doesn't mean I can't wish for it to happen :D

Also how are LA class not really designed to be refuelled....? IIRC the LA class does not have hard patches on their hull. To do a refueling means cutting the entire submarine in thirds and installing a new reactor compartment.

[CCIP]

Perhaps the RCN (yay we can call it that again!) could operate a licensed copy of a RN SSN. No designing necessary just buy the plans as is and maybe have some parts built in the UK and assembled in Canada.


So in other words, a Canadian Astute?

Still not a cheap undertaking! On the other hand the Astute, or perhaps even a somewhat simplified version of it, wouldn't be a bad deal. It's a relatively lean SSN design already, as far as I can gather.

Still, that's probably looking at a couple of billion per boat. For Canada, that's a lot.

2 or 3 boats is also probably not enough strategically. The arctic is one thing, but I suspect the RCN would also be looking at having some capability in the Pacific as well.

[TLAM Strike]

So in other words, a Canadian Astute?

Still not a cheap undertaking! On the other hand the Astute, or perhaps even a somewhat simplified version of it, wouldn't be a bad deal. It's a relatively lean SSN design already, as far as I can gather.

Still, that's probably looking at a couple of billion per boat. For Canada, that's a lot.

2 or 3 boats is also probably not enough strategically. The arctic is one thing, but I suspect the RCN would also be looking at having some capability in the Pacific as well. Might be cheaper because with the RCN buying they would be building more. Economics of scale being as they are.

[magicstix]

It'd be a stretch for even the UK to share their latest boat with the Canadians. If they do get something from the UK, it'd be an older generation, like a Trafalgar class or a Swiftsure.

[Randomizer]

The government has debunked this report:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/28/pol-nuclear-submarines.htm (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/10/28/pol-nuclear-submarines.html)

I still have a copy of the 1985 Conservative White Paper that called for the acquisition of up to 12 nuclear powered attack subs. The French Rubais class SSN's were front runners when that project was cancelled, partially since France did not tie Canada's strategic options as would have acceptance of American nuclear propulsion technology. Always assuming the USA would be willing to share.

I had a good friend on the Nuclear Submarine Acquisition Project team, some of his behind the scenes observations in the wake of the termination of the program were, to say the least, interesting if unconfirmable.

Nothing new here and nothing to see either, regardless of their under ice capabilities it is highly unlikely (read virtually impossible) that Canada would ever acquire nuclear boats unless perhaps AMPS (where a low power reactor provides sufficiant electrical power for patrolling and air regeneration but not high transit speeds) gets revisited.

See page 24-25 here:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=SjfgOfV8Am0C&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=AMPS+submarine+propulsion&source=bl&ots=vFmVN34bql&sig=mXZZGwdOnN2c52smegyo4rTXcYo&hl=en&ei=gWKrToKTGdHOiALPm5SsCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=AMPS%20submarine%20propulsion&f=false

I would expect the Victoria SSk replacements to be conventional AIP should Canada decide to retain subs at all.

[Krauter]

You have to cut them open and remove the reactor to refuel them... Not exactly an easy or cheap task.

Ahh alright, how many times have the LA class boats been refuelled to date anyways :hmmm:

Also, what system do the Ohio's, Virginia's and Seawolf's use?

[Oberon]

One question, and no offence to our Canadian friends, but why?

Ok, the Upholders were dodgy to start with...but then again they had been sitting at a dock for about half a decade so that's to be expected, but they are still quite good boats, slap on an AIP and they'll be rivals for some of the gear coming out of Russia.

Ok, you've got the limited range problem, but why would you want to deploy that far? Plus, you've got the advantage that if the US ever needs one of their carriers sunk then you have the tools to do the job.

Diesel boats are going to make a comeback, I think one of the biggest mistakes of the RN was canning the Upholders (well...one of the biggest mistakes of the 1990s anyway) and even the USN has realised that by lacking a diesel sub force to train with they have become weak to diesel sub threats.

Keep the Upholders, once the kinks have been worked out, they'll be quite the asset.

[Jimbuna]

It'd be a stretch for even the UK to share their latest boat with the Canadians. If they do get something from the UK, it'd be an older generation, like a Trafalgar class or a Swiftsure.

As I stated in #2 :yep:

[Krauter]

One question, and no offence to our Canadian friends, but why?

Ok, the Upholders were dodgy to start with...but then again they had been sitting at a dock for about half a decade so that's to be expected, but they are still quite good boats, slap on an AIP and they'll be rivals for some of the gear coming out of Russia.

Ok, you've got the limited range problem, but why would you want to deploy that far? Plus, you've got the advantage that if the US ever needs one of their carriers sunk then you have the tools to do the job.

Diesel boats are going to make a comeback, I think one of the biggest mistakes of the RN was canning the Upholders (well...one of the biggest mistakes of the 1990s anyway) and even the USN has realised that by lacking a diesel sub force to train with they have become weak to diesel sub threats.

Keep the Upholders, once the kinks have been worked out, they'll be quite the asset.

I think the main issue with keeping the Upholders/Victoria class is the repair bills, added on to maintenance on top of modernization. As stated in the linked article, Parliament is debating whether it's more economical to just buy new boats (hardly I think as you have to consider maintenance, training, logistics, etc). But still I think it'd be nice for Canada to join the ranks of nuclear submariners.

[CaptainHaplo]

I say let Canada dearm the Upholders and put em on the market. I've got $7.38 to bid!

Seriously - Canada isn't going to be keen to go UK - not after the sodomization they suffered with the Upholders. There is no way that the UL will be willing to let an Astute (or its plans) go either. A swiftsure maybe, trafalgar really doubtful.

US boats? Virginia class isn't going to get sold - nor is the plans for it. 688I? Again - not happening. Even a flight 2 688 is doubtful. They may get one of the original 688's, but that leaves the fueling issues along with the fact your buying a sub that is mediocre at best given todays standards.

Its important to remember WHY Canada went with the Upholders. Why it looks at diesels to start with. It doesn't have the surface navy to project power in "blue water" - its navy is primarily a brown water force. Its sub needs are defensive in nature. A nuke doesn't fit that strategy.

I can definitely see Canada looking at the real "class" of the market in export Deisels - the Type 214. No way they get the 212, but the 214 fits their tactical and strategic needs perfectly.

[Oberon]

Oh, I don't deny it would be nice for Canada to join the nuke club, but they should have both types of boats running side by side, but like Haplo says, it's not really compatible with the RCNs current setup...although to be fair, with the RNs current setup one could say the same thing... :damn:
The Type 214s are good...but the Greek navy would disagree that you would be more likely to get them in better shape than the Upholders arrived in, the Papanikolis was in a bit of a state when the Greeks looked at her in 2006/7, and then of course, the Greek economy imploded further and now they're not going to get her anyway. So Canada could pick up a good deal on an unwanted Type 214 to use whilst fixing up the Upholders...but I still think that a fully kitted out and upgraded Upholder (with AIP) would knock the socks off anything except perhaps the 212...but then again I have a slight bias being British. :03:

[CaptainHaplo]

So Canada could pick up a good deal on an unwanted Type 214 to use whilst fixing up the Upholders...but I still think that a fully kitted out and upgraded Upholder (with AIP) would knock the socks off anything except perhaps the 212...but then again I have a slight bias being British. :03:

Oh I do thing the U class was the one to beat if it had not been for the fact that they were basically falling apart. However, what would a total refit cost for one of the U class boats? Would it be cheaper than a new sub?

As mariners are notoriously suspicious - would this overcome the natural hesitancy of the Canadian sub sailor to view the boat and class as surmounting its history?

This one part has the greatest unspoken role in the issue of the U class.

[Karle94]

To those of you that think the US won`t share technology. Keep in mind that British nukes uses American techology. The first British nuclear sub, the HMS Dreadnought had the reactor that the Skipjack used. At that time the most sophisticated piece of technology in existense. Everything from there are developed from what the Americans gave the British.

[CaptainHaplo]

Our relationship with the UK is one thing - our relationship with our northern neighbors is entirely different.

While we share some things with them - nuke tech on subs isn't going to be one in the forseeable future.

[Krauter]

Its important to remember WHY Canada went with the Upholders. Why it looks at diesels to start with. It doesn't have the surface navy to project power in "blue water" - its navy is primarily a brown water force. Its sub needs are defensive in nature. A nuke doesn't fit that strategy.


It is also important to remember when Canada went with the Upholders. In this day and age, the Canadian government is increasingly looking northwards for operations under the ice, something diesels are not very geared towards.

[magicstix]

To those of you that think the US won`t share technology. Keep in mind that British nukes uses American techology. The first British nuclear sub, the HMS Dreadnought had the reactor that the Skipjack used. At that time the most sophisticated piece of technology in existense. Everything from there are developed from what the Americans gave the British.

Sharing reactor designs with the *only* country we've ever shared nuclear weapons designs with is one thing, giving an entire SSN to Canada is something else entirely.

Even our full-up SSN designs aren't shared with the UK. To be honest, I'm even surprised we're sharing our sonar processing systems with the Aussies.

[Madox58]

Yep. First thing I see if We share with those Savages Up North?
They will over run us with... with... Well, I come up empty!!
:hmmm:
Seems they are pretty good neighbors unlike the neighbor to the South!
:yep:
Sure We get some illegal people from Canada.
But I can not recall seeing them doing yard work or picking crops.
:hmmm:

I also don't remember them DEMANDING We give them free Citizenship just because they crossed the border illegally.

[Jimbuna]

Reading these responses leads me to believe the only country if any to sell the Canadians a nuke may well be the UK...and an old one at that.

I also think the eventual outcome will be the reality that they are too expensive, especially during these times of economic austerity.

[TLAM Strike]

Our relationship with the UK is one thing - our relationship with our northern neighbors is entirely different. There was a time when American nuclear weapons armed Canadian interceptors and anti-submarine aircraft. :03:

Its important to remember WHY Canada went with the Upholders. Why it looks at diesels to start with. It doesn't have the surface navy to project power in "blue water" - its navy is primarily a brown water force. Its sub needs are defensive in nature. A nuke doesn't fit that strategy. Canada doesn't have a blue water navy? They have two Protecteur class AORs, three destroyers and twelve frigates. Their navy routinely operates with USN CSGs. :know:

[Randomizer]

Reading these responses leads me to believe the only country if any to sell the Canadians a nuke may well be the UK...and an old one at that.

I also think the eventual outcome will be the reality that they are too expensive, especially during these times of economic austerity.

The existence of US reactor technology in the Trafalgar's was the reason the French Rubis class was the front-runner in the 1985 nuclear submarine acquisition project.

The US State Department does not want Canada to have under ice operational capabilities since they claim the Northwest Passage as an international waterway and RCN nuke boats would allow the exercise of Canadian sovereignty throughout the Arctic archipelago year-round. This isn't whacko paranoia, the issues were public knowledge and debated openly in Parliament (and Congress IIRC) during the latter parts of the Reagan presidency until Canada terminated the SSN project. There is no reason to think that the US position has softened over time, quite the opposite probably.

The French boats came with less technological baggage but the Navy would have preferred modified Trafalgar's, at least according to the scuttlebutt at the time.

[Skybird]

In 2009, I think, I read news that Brazil was to buy a nuclear sub. From France.

The French have 6 Rubis, but plan to decommision them in favour of their new nuclear submarine class, the Barracuda, which should enter service by 2017.

I imagine the French are eager to sell their boats to Canada, too.

And that is better than if they sell them to Egypt, Libya or Saudi Arabia to buy these regime's sympathies. :88)

[Skybird]

Canada doesn't have a blue water navy? They have two Protecteur class AORs, three destroyers and twelve frigates. Their navy routinely operates with USN CSGs. :know:
Focus of their navy is trying to comply with the need of defending that hell of a coast of theirs, with all those islands and fjords. So I think its fair to say they may have a navy that can set a small - a very small! - ammount of units into far away blue water operations, but their focus still is surveillance of their northern island labyrinth, and extenidng operations to under the Northern ice now.

This: http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/marpac/1/1-w_eng.asp?category=24&title=20
does not give me the impression of a navy with a focus on far away blue water operations. To me it looks very very much like coastal defence as a focus. Also, the size of their supply fleet (one Protecteur for the Pacific coast, says the link) also speaks volumes.

[TLAM Strike]

Focus of their navy is trying to comply with the need of defending that hell of a coast of theirs, with all those islands and fjords. So I think its fair to say they may have a navy that can set a small - a very small! - ammount of units into far away blue water operations, but their focus still is surveillance of their northern island labyrinth, and extenidng operations to under the Northern ice now.

This: http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/marpac/1/1-w_eng.asp?category=24&title=20
does not give me the impression of a navy with a focus on far away blue water operations. To me it looks very very much like coastal defence as a focus. Also, the size of their supply fleet (one Protecteur for the Pacific coast, says the link) also speaks volumes.
They have 12 Kingston class and 8 Orca class patrol boats for coastal duties. But a lot of their coast is iced over most of the year. The Arctic patrols are done by the Canadian Coast Guard's six icebreakers.

The Halifax class frigates are specifically designed for operations in the North Atlantic (mainly convoy duty), hence the bear trap helo retreating system.

[Krauter]

There was a time when American nuclear weapons armed Canadian interceptors and anti-submarine aircraft. :03:



Aye but the US also armed the French, the Dutch and most of NATO also if I'm not mistaken :hmmm: