Pick a nuc, any nuc
 

EDIT: Scenario changed from Canada to Brazil... for hopefully a little more hypothetical realism....hopefully...

So hypothetical scenario:

So your Brazil and you've recently made the fortunate discoveyr of an huge oil reserve under you provinces that surpasses even the Middle East and thus am about to become a booming world economic power..likely to produce trillions of dollars of GNP per year. So that being the case you decide you need to beef up your navy to "world power" levels and decide you need some subs that can reach across the globe, i.e., you need to by some nuc subs.

Question is:

Which nuc do you chose to buy? And why? (ignoring the fact that countries might not sell you their boats).

You could go with the:
1. Akula: Tried and true design. Plenty of volume and firepower, as quiet as most nucs and can operate on a crew of less then 80 men.
2. Virginia: State of the art modern technology from end to end.... can problably meet all your requirements... but hits your wallet hard with a price tag of $2.1 billion a piece.
3. Seawolf: Screw the virginia and the price tag, your going for the cream a la cream at whatever the cost.
4. The Astute: Britains latest creation with top of the line tech, and quieting... probably on par with the Virginia, but with a slightly (if very slightly) cheaper price tag.
5. The French Barracude class. While everyone else is just now warming to the nuclear-electirc idea, the French have been doing it for years. Their pint size, bare-bones nucs are geared to give bang for your buck and the French Barracuda class slated to come online near 2012.
6. The Chinese Han: Loud, noisey, almost louder than that rock concert you let your daughter go to last week. Still, the Chinese will probably cut you an absolutely bargain in exchange for some of the black gold.
7. Something else that I haven't thought of...


.... so which one do you go with as the next world power.... Super Canada!

What about that new german sub that's non-nuclear and yet has much of the qualities of nuclear?
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi...Y&modele=jdc_1
"The fuel cell plant, which produces electrical energy from oxygen and hydrogen, allows the submarine to cruise under water for weeks without surfacing, whereas submarines powered by the traditional diesel-electric engine have to reload their batteries on surface every two days."

Sounds like a cool alternative.:up:

I knew someone would mention that.

Nah, not going to cut it. You (as the new Canadian prime minister of awesomeness) will need something that can reach across the world and back with no problems getting there in a hurry. Even if an AIP diesel can stay submerged, they aren't going to have the type of range and transit times you'll need.

You need a global sub, one that can get from the east coast of Canada around the tip of Africa and up the african east coast and all the way back without thinking twice about it. Or that can go from the west coast of Canada across the pacific to the phillipines (a 14000 mile round trip iirc) without it taking a month to get there and without worrying about fuel.

Gotta be a nuc :yep:

LA boat, with the earlier members of the class going out of commission, you could snap them up for a cheaper price than the Seawolf and Virginia. While Flt 1 models may not have TLAM/TASM ability, the Flt 2 and 3 do (IIRC). Though you'd probably really want a Flt 3 for under-ice ops. Weapons protocols won't be a problem because the Canucks have had Mk 48s and TASMs for almost as long as the US.
Other than that? Astute :yep:

Go electric and one can really pick nuke :D

Nothing out there can compare to the Seawolf class.

Yep, but Seawolf is kind of useless in coastal waters. And remember it still has a noisy steam engine, not a quiet electric one :D

This is not hypothetical. We are already the largest exporter of oil to the US (and supply power to much of the North Eastern US as well as Quebec via a hydroelectric dam that we are about to duplicate furter upstream, and on a larger scale), and the extraction of crude from the Alberta Tar sands are projected to, along with domestic oil reserves - offshore and otherwise - is projected within the next decade to exceed at least that of Saudi Arabia.

We are also, despite our small population relative to other members, a member of the G-8 and the one with the consistently strongest economy.

Quote:

So that being the case you decide you need to beef up your navy to "world power" levels and decide you need some subs that can reach across the globe, i.e., you need to by some nuc subs.

We have had the technology and capability to build nuclear weapons, just like France and the U.K., for decades now but like Germany have chosen not to. At the conclusion of WWII we had the 4th largest military in the world, so we've been there as well. We demobilized it, however, to focus on building multi-lateral agreements and peace-keeping missions because we do not, and never have had, any kind of colonial or imperial ambitions. That was true 50 years ago and its just as true today.

Interesting hypothetical, and I don't mean to spoil it, but Canada isn't really the best choice for it.

Aw why you have to go and blow holes in my scenario :(...I couldn't think of anything else to setup the hypothetical purchases... :lol: :oops: ... hmm... I probably should have setup a Chinese scenario instead...

You mean nuclear electric like the French subs? Interesting choice, especially with the developement of the next generation nuke-electric systems in the coming years, it will probably become the standard in the coming decades:yep:

The Seawolf can be considered as quiet as a Virginia. It has a natural circulaiton mode to its reactor (just like the VA) so that it doesn't have to turn on its coolant pumps until it reaches 20knots (about 20-30% ship power). That's pretty quiet in and of itself. And it slated to be backfitted with the Virginia advanced spying equipment so it will be as good in coast waters, though a few feet wider so it wouldn't be able to go as shallow.

A lot of people are choosing the Astute, but not mentioning why. Why the Astute class over the others. Just how much do those subs cost anyway? I think I remember reading 1.8 billion apiece, but can't be sure.

EDIT2: OK. Found a link that states that each Astute is 1.2 BILLION pounds apiece about the cost of a Virginia. (2 billion dollars)

That being the case. With the cost of an Astute = to a VA, is an Astute the better deal?.....

Don't know what Drebbel meant but I think he meant a completely electric boat, since also a nuclear-electric power plant has a steam engine. It has synchronous electric generators instead of the reduction gear but the steam turbines are still there.

Slightly OT: it is often stated that the Virginia is able to perform missions in a littoral environment. But isn't it a little too long to be a good littoral boat? I mean it can eventually go in a coastal environment but then would not be able to manouver that much due to its length. Plus it has a pumpjet which is a machine with high dynamic inertia compared to an unshrouded propeller, so it has higher response times to changes of speed. Is it sufficient to have good sensors to qualify a boat as coastal?

You forgot the Seawolfs ability to do 15 to 20 knots without cavitating too!

If a sub, any sub, is deep enough it can do 50kts without cavitating. ;)

P.S. I chose the Akula. It's cheaper than its counterparts and it looks really cool :D

The 15 to 20 knots was supposed to be shallow.

The Akula - I am convinced Russia Builds things for form, and the US builds things for function. THe Akula does look good. So does the MiG-29. Maybe its Russia's big plan in that if it looks cool and sleek, maybe it functions through phycological demorilization! I think I just figured it out!

-S

:lol: :lol: Come on, give them some credit. I'm sure the akula has it's functions. Plenty of weapons, fast boat, the improved and II's are as quiet as most of the subs built at that time, great looking boat, with a price tag of less than half of the Virginia's, what more do you ask for?

I never said it wasn't capable, just that I am convinced the designers in Russia have an eye for good looks too!

Actually Littoral missions are exactly what the VA was intended for. Spying off coastlines and SoF insertions. But its not going to be doing somersaults while its in shallow water no.

So from the looks of this poll...:-? ...

I can't believe that the Astute beat out the Virginia... BAE couldn't even complete their project without Electric Boats help...
And most people went ahead and shelled out the 3billioin dollar apiece for the SW over the VA as well...
Akulas still reign supreme as the best back for buck (as far as nukes go), and that was my choice as well.

Scandium put his finger on it.:up:

We, the Canauckians, don't need some world record running sub that can put deadly firepower outside the port of our worst enemy within a day. Actually right now the place we need seapower more than anywhere else, ironically, is within our own borders (sea borders :roll:). Our northern passage through our arctic waters is an important route that shipping can take and is also right now being violated constantly by many nationalities without our consent. See the recent report of an American Nuclear sub that stationed itself without any real purpose inside Canadian waters. How's that for a slap in the face? No I think my original idea of that one that the Germans have got is better for us given our realistic Naval and political needs. We need to guard our borders and if anything have a recognizable presense in our less than recognized" waters. There is a precedent in international law that says if a sea lane is used for a certain period of time by other nationalities and is not policed by the nation which claims right over said area it becomes international waters and the entitled nation loses all rights to it (including whatever might be sitting underneath the sea bed). So that's the biggest threat to Canada's sovereignty. Oh and our good buddies the USA are doing their best to try and rob us of our entitled borders, once again. It's not 1812 but it still bugs the hell out of me.:damn:

I'll take a modern U-boat anyday. maybe we should call the first one the HMCS Kretschmer.:rotfl:

PS> Oh and its nice to seea thread where I can pull my weight as a Canuck. Arguing about the US can be rather tiresome.

I know for fact akulas dive below 600 meters and go faster than 33knots which is deeper and faster than the 688 and 688i it houses more weapons than them two submarines and also the virginia its capible of launching more weapons at once than any other submarine on earth.

Its cheap reliable and easy to maintain.