Canada considers canning diesels, buying nukes

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.

Krauter · 10-29-11, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

magicstix · 10-28-11, 09:20 PM

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.

10-28-11, 09:27 PM

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.

10-28-11, 10:17 AM	#2
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,293 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	#3
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	#6
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, 07:10 AM	#9
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.

10-28-11, 09:20 PM	#14
magicstix Captain Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Nuclear submarine under the North Pole Posts: 482 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	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.

10-28-11, 09:27 PM	#15
Randomizer Stowaway Posts: n/a Downloads: Uploads:	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.