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....?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The government has debunked this report:

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

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=Sjfg...ulsion&f=false

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

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?

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.

As I stated in #2 :yep:

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.

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.

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:

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.