Canada considers canning diesels, buying nukes

Jimbuna · 10-28-11, 06:24 AM

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 · 10-28-11, 10:05 AM

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 · 10-28-11, 10:17 AM

Time to start shopping. Kicking tires and test drives!

Sailor Steve · 10-28-11, 11:02 AM

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?"

magicstix · 10-28-11, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

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 · 10-28-11, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magicstix

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

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

CCIP · 10-28-11, 08:39 PM

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 · 10-28-11, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krauter

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

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.

Krauter · 10-29-11, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magicstix

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

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

Oberon · 10-29-11, 07:10 AM

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.

TLAM Strike · 10-28-11, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krauter

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

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 · 10-28-11, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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 · 10-28-11, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CCIP

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.

Skybird · 10-29-11, 06:32 PM

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.

TLAM Strike · 10-28-11, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimbuna

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

10-28-11, 06:24 AM	#1
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,615 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	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. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

10-28-11, 10:17 AM	#3
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,274 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	Time to start shopping. Kicking tires and test drives! __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

10-28-11, 11:02 AM	#4
Sailor Steve Eternal Patrol Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: High in the mountains of Utah Posts: 50,369 Downloads: 745 Uploads: 249	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?" __________________ “Never do anything you can't take back.” —Rocky Russo

10-28-11, 08:39 PM	#7
CCIP Navy Seal Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Waterloo, Canada Posts: 8,700 Downloads: 29 Uploads: 2	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. __________________ There are only forty people in the world and five of them are hamburgers. -Don Van Vliet (aka Captain Beefheart)

10-29-11, 06:32 PM	#14
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,650 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	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. __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert. Last edited by Skybird; 10-29-11 at 06:49 PM.

10-29-11, 07:10 AM	#10
Oberon Lucky Jack Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 25,976 Downloads: 61 Uploads: 20	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.