Seriously are you just going to bring up every single question that has ever been asked and answered over and over again in new threads?..
You're going to get alot more out of these forums by actually reading than asking redundant questions.
Canada may buy Nuclear Subs!
- Thread starter JTF-2
- Start date
You're going to get alot more out of these forums by actually reading than asking redundant questions.
I doubt if Canada would ever join with a submarine project with Australia when they have closer defense relations with the United States and NATO. Furthermore, Canada uses its subs in a different manner than Australia. Australia desires a strike submarine more whereas Canada is more interested in using their submarines for ASW exercises with their frigate navy. Not that they won't ever use them for offensive operations.
Its why the title of this thread is off the mark. Diesel electric submarines running on batteries are more silent than nuclear propelled submarines. Don't try to fit every submarine into the same mode of operations.
This is true of many joint venture (defence industry & outside), I don't think there is enough thought given to the overall objectives and outcomes of the relative parties.
Regarding the use of defence spending for industrial support, there is a case for it but often Governments do not think this through. Just a few things to consider would be: strategic capability considered of national importance, the relative cost of the job creation, is this spinning the wheel to bring back capability lost, access to open market alternatives, volumes to sustain an industrial cycle and export potential.
The RAN sub programme ticks most of those boxes and probably a few more. I am not sure the RCN could say the same. The RN
Yep, this seems to be the trend everywhere, i.e.: take a deep breath and cruise on the quiet.My personal opinion is Canada doesn't need Nuclear (plus it would be hard to transit because of the all the "Nuclear free" zones Canada has).
I think a good Air Independent Propulsion Sub is the way to go......
Imagine a navy with a few dozen AIP type subs with 2x SLBM and a coupla torpedoes spread all over.. err, South China Sea, dig into the seabed and wait it out!
Not really a bright idea. You should think it through quite a bit more. An AIP sub with SLBM? An AIP sub (or SSP) is still reliant upon a diesel engine at some stage in its voyage so it either has to surface or snort and most importantly charge its batteries. This would make any SSBP vulnerable. You appear to forget or don't realise that SLBMs are strategic weapons of the highest level. Why would you want a sub with SLBMs in the South China Sea? Wouldn't it be more secure in the Pacific Ocean? I think you need to do some reading. Start with this: Full steam ahead for submarine propulsion - Naval Technology
Take a good look at the length of SLBMs and the hull diameter of your proposed submarine. The launch tubes won't fit.
Boomers are big for a reason.
Ngatimozart, copy message on the need for diesel motor to snort.
but SLBM can be short/mid range too, not just far-east to far-west(ICBM), as well as non-nuke, right?
These AIP subs can be great tactical delivery platform.
If subs' cover risk exposure in South China sea, -do- anywhere else around the globe, when it pops up for air.
My2Cents,
We'll have to design the boat around the 'dakka' then, and change our design philosophy a bit !
Actually I'm far more interested in the mystery surrounding the hull design, not the stealth but pressure resistance.
Any working carbon composite subs(full size/mini/micro) out there yet ?
but SLBM can be short/mid range too, not just far-east to far-west(ICBM), as well as non-nuke, right?
These AIP subs can be great tactical delivery platform.
If subs' cover risk exposure in South China sea, -do- anywhere else around the globe, when it pops up for air.
My2Cents,
We'll have to design the boat around the 'dakka' then, and change our design philosophy a bit !
Actually I'm far more interested in the mystery surrounding the hull design, not the stealth but pressure resistance.
Any working carbon composite subs(full size/mini/micro) out there yet ?
Himal:
The thing that a lot of people refuse to understand is that AIP systems are short ranged (10’s of miles) and very slow (typically <6 knots). You don’t cruise around using an AIP system, it is just a denser form of energy storage than conventional batteries. You cannot “-do {go?} - anywhere else around the globe, when it pops up for air.” The only sub that can do that is a nuke.
Columbian drug cartels are building narco-submarines out of fiberglass.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
What sort of sub-launched ballistic missiles are you talking about then? Are you referring to tactical scale ballistic missiles like the MGM-52 Lance SRBM?
If so, then the plan makes very little sense. Quite apart from the fact that basically all SLBM's are currently of the intercontinental class and therefore an entire new SLBM would need to be designed, a SLCM like the UGM-109 Tomahawk which has roughly the same weight, dimensions and conventional warhead size of the MGM-52 but has over 10x the range. Also how would the SLBM be launched, out the torpedoe tubes? Installing a VLS for SRBM could be done (roughly the same size as a Tomahawk cruise missile VLS) but in a smaller diesel-electric boat, that could be a tight fit, or require enlargement of the vessel.
Part of the interest in having sub-launched ballistic missiles with long range, is to keep the launch platform far from a hostile coast to minimize the threat of detection/engagement prior to launch. If the target is a location (bunker, depot, CP, etc) 50 miles/ 80 km inland, one does not want to make the launching sub get within 25 miles/ 40 km of the shore in order to be within range. Not when a cruise missile could be launched from 1,000 km away to strike the same target as effectively.
As for AIP, under specific operating conditions, they can be quite good for diesel-electric boats. From memory a German sub used an AIP system to make a 3 week transit from a North Sea port to the Med submerged the entire time, but it did so slowly. If the desire is to cross long distances, and/or do so quickly, then AIP is not of much use. Further, the fuel and machinery the AIP system uses becomes dead weight in such situations.
Another limitation is the amount of power generation currently possible from AIP systems. At present diesel-electric (non-AIP) systems can generate more power at a given point in time than AIP systems can. This is crucial because power generation (and storage/retrieval) dictates sensor and combat system fitout. If Canada was expecting to operate subs in the Baltic, Med or North Seas against surface vessels and other diesel-electric subs, and not have to transit across the Atlantic, then AIP might be a worthwhile addition. If instead Canada expects to continue operating subs in the North Atlantic, North Pacific and Arctic Oceans, and/or operate against nuclear-powered subs, then having AIP aboard would IMO be a hindrance.
-Cheers
JohnD, I was thinking the same thing, though it kinda kills the national-ego!
MY2Cents, was that a narco-super-fiber hull you're referring to?
In which case, do I need to 'snort' to gain sub-driver's license?
Tjaeger,
Yeah, should have specified my mission requirements.
Ok, 2 versions;
1. Anti-sub mission, i.e.: plenty plenty torpedoes, and;
2. Tactical, coupla Toamahawk type cruise missiles.
A few issues;
1. Seabed Treaty says nations can't permanently arm the seabed(any) with nuke or WMD type weapons, but it doesn't forbid arming the seabed per se!
What if I use it as a storage base for H2peroxide/LOX/regular fuel, i.e.: my subs 'breathe'/replenish underwater instead of surfacing.
2. If a nation sets up base in international no-man's land/seabed, does it become it's territory, plus 12 or 200 mile radius?
3. Observing F-35 and Euro-fighter/Rafale/Saab, the Euro folks aren't too interested in stealth(or to be more technically correct, LO), what gives?
My point?
What if noise itself is used as 'cover' for sub's in-battle operation?
During their maritime show, the Koreans showcased a marine eco-observation robot fish that could stay at sea for 2 years!
Now, turn that into a sucker fish, and it becomes a super sub-killer!
MY2Cents, was that a narco-super-fiber hull you're referring to?
In which case, do I need to 'snort' to gain sub-driver's license?
Tjaeger,
Yeah, should have specified my mission requirements.
Ok, 2 versions;
1. Anti-sub mission, i.e.: plenty plenty torpedoes, and;
2. Tactical, coupla Toamahawk type cruise missiles.
A few issues;
1. Seabed Treaty says nations can't permanently arm the seabed(any) with nuke or WMD type weapons, but it doesn't forbid arming the seabed per se!
What if I use it as a storage base for H2peroxide/LOX/regular fuel, i.e.: my subs 'breathe'/replenish underwater instead of surfacing.
2. If a nation sets up base in international no-man's land/seabed, does it become it's territory, plus 12 or 200 mile radius?
3. Observing F-35 and Euro-fighter/Rafale/Saab, the Euro folks aren't too interested in stealth(or to be more technically correct, LO), what gives?
My point?
What if noise itself is used as 'cover' for sub's in-battle operation?
During their maritime show, the Koreans showcased a marine eco-observation robot fish that could stay at sea for 2 years!
Now, turn that into a sucker fish, and it becomes a super sub-killer!
Agreed! I was only saying an AIP would be more beneficial (and more likely to be accepted by the Canadian public) than the Nuc option......
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Yes, but depending on just how the RCN plans on utilizing any future subs, adding AIP in with a conventional diesel-electric system could very well degrade the sub's performance when compared to having the sub designed as a non-AIP diesel-electric sub.Agreed! I was only saying an AIP would be more beneficial (and more likely to be accepted by the Canadian public) than the Nuc option......
A prime example of this dilemma would be the RAN's Collins-class SSG. IIRC the RAN did get a Stirling engine as a test rig for an AIP system, and at one point had considered having a hull plug inserted to add space for the AIP. At present, that engine is sitting in a crate somewhere because the AIP system was found to be out performed by the sub's regular diesel-electric engines and batteries.
Many people seem to be under the false impression that an AIP system is automatically better than having 'just' a diesel-electric system. This in fact is not the case, because the conops of the end user will dictate what performance requirements the sub needs to meet. These performance requirements will then determine which systems are needed, and if the service outputs of an AIP system do not meet requirements, then the sub is better off without it.
-Cheers
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
There is a very large difference between SLBM's and SLCM's. A regular diesel-electric sub can be fitted to launch SLCM's with the appropriate torpedoe tubes and weapons stations. The ability to launch SLBM's from a sub is a capability which needs to built into the design from the very beginning due to the size requirements.
For point 1, you appear to have forgotten (or ignored) the implications inherent in underwater replenishment of a sub. The pressure underwater is greater than when a sub is surfaced, so whatever link is used to relay the fuel, food, whatever, needs to be strong enough to not be impacted by the water pressure. Given that the link would need to be connected underwater to the sub, the potential for the sub's hull to become damaged (and thus suffer a catastrophic hull breach) would be great. As for having something happen on the sea floor, that would generally need to be done on the continental shelf if there was to be a link to a sub, since the ocean floor in most areas is likely deeper than the max dive depth of standard naval (non-research) subs.A few issues;
1. Seabed Treaty says nations can't permanently arm the seabed(any) with nuke or WMD type weapons, but it doesn't forbid arming the seabed per se!
What if I use it as a storage base for H2peroxide/LOX/regular fuel, i.e.: my subs 'breathe'/replenish underwater instead of surfacing.
2. If a nation sets up base in international no-man's land/seabed, does it become it's territory, plus 12 or 200 mile radius?
3. Observing F-35 and Euro-fighter/Rafale/Saab, the Euro folks aren't too interested in stealth(or to be more technically correct, LO), what gives?
My point?
What if noise itself is used as 'cover' for sub's in-battle operation?
During their maritime show, the Koreans showcased a marine eco-observation robot fish that could stay at sea for 2 years!
Now, turn that into a sucker fish, and it becomes a super sub-killer!
For point 2, see the last line above.
For point 3, this is OT since it is not about subs and/or Canada. To answer it briefly though, the three Euro designs (Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen) were all the resign of initial design requirements from the last decade of the Cold War. At the time of their respective programme's inceptions, LO was not a requirement. As the designs were going through (or if they had already started production) the Cold War ended, advances were made in LO, but the complete redesigns required to incorporate the LO develops were not done. This is likely a combination of lack of interest in LO, a desire not to further delay the programme, and to keep the programme costs down.
Lastly, what are you on about using 'noise' as cover for a sub battle?
Noise is how subs are detected? What/where is this noise coming from that is supposed to provide cover? If you are talking about having a sub fitted with some sort of decoy which could be released to generate noise away from a sub as a decoy/distraction, these already exist and are oddly enough called 'noise-makers'. If you are talking about something else making noise underwater, an explanation is needed because it does not make sense.
-Cheers
Those are the ones.
No, you don't need to 'snort', you just need to know where to look. The things are one way only, then they scuttle them.
Of course it may need a bit of an overhaul before it is operational again. And the operational depth is limited to something like 50 ft.
A few problems:
- How do you build and replenish it without being spotted?
- How will you defend it if discovered, or even find out that it has been? An acoustic or magnetic mine planted next to it would totally ruin your day.
- At what depth would you place it. Most continental shelf waters are regularly fished, which makes discovery much more likely. Place it deeper and you cannot use divers to make the hookups, which makes thing exponentially more difficult.
- Both have their problems unless you have an extensive set of thrusters because you have to hold position while hooked up.. Take a look at the Deep Submergence Rescue Vehicle designs to see what is needed. The alternative would be some kind of a cradle you park the sub in to hold it in position, but that is likely to damage the hull coating.
Is it a wet hookup with umbilical’s or a dry hookup through a airlock?- For a dry connection you have to use mated airlocks on the base and sub and pass refueling lines through the small opening. Most of these liquids are all the type of thing you don’t want to transfer without adequate ventilation. You won’t have it.
- For a wet hookup you use umbilicals and a diver or ROV to make connects to ports in the sub’s hull. A major problem is eliminating all sources of contamination, especially in HOOH and cryogenic lines. You will probably also have to purge and dry the lines before replenishing, so you will need double lines to circulate fluids and additional storage for spent/contaminated fluids.
- LOX and LH2 are cryogenic liquids. You need a refrigeration system to store these for long periods, and you don’t want to know what the hoses will look like for a subsea connection. One of the big problems is additional buoyancy when ice forms on the outside. Another is that they aren’t very flexible.
- After completing the refueling you have to purge the refueling system.
There are several cases like this. Russia, for example, has laid claimed a large part of the arctic. Ultimately it probably depends on what you can defend against all comers.
No wonder those narco-guys aren't successful - 50' only, they'd probably be spotted from the moon!
They need a seabed crawler.
Seabed bases would obviously have to be way way below open water diving range.
We use ROV, which use is well proven in the O&G industry.
Two type of bases, i.e.: manned vs unmanned.
In a manned base, if gets infiltrated, obviously the chiefs would have do something about such slips. And just like the terra firma counterpart, it doesn't necessarily have to hidden/invisible, just no unauthorised access, that's all.
And in the umanned version, I guess an approach similar to how O&G owners manage their deep sea assets should be fine.
As for LOX/engine fuel;
One way woud be to use skid mounted unit complete with storage tank/pumping unit and other auxiliary system, dropped to ocean floor at designated points, much like air-drop operations. Client sub comes in, hooks on, loads up and moves on.
Seabed based nuke weapon is Not allowed, but I could set up powerplant right?
Hence, I could generate oxygen and convert to LOX and store same, yes?
The challenge to pull this off could lie in making modular pressure vessels capable withstanding the crazy pressures deep down at seabed.
Incidentally DARPA is planning to 'store' UAVs in canisters dumped in seabed at various 'safe' location, to be activated when comsats get knocked out/comm. network gets broken. So I guess those folks must be working on something similar already.
The US has plenty of ocean to set up such bases - in her own territorial waters, i.e.: GOM/east/west seaboard, intruders get sunk, period.
They need a seabed crawler.
Seabed bases would obviously have to be way way below open water diving range.
We use ROV, which use is well proven in the O&G industry.
Two type of bases, i.e.: manned vs unmanned.
In a manned base, if gets infiltrated, obviously the chiefs would have do something about such slips. And just like the terra firma counterpart, it doesn't necessarily have to hidden/invisible, just no unauthorised access, that's all.
And in the umanned version, I guess an approach similar to how O&G owners manage their deep sea assets should be fine.
As for LOX/engine fuel;
One way woud be to use skid mounted unit complete with storage tank/pumping unit and other auxiliary system, dropped to ocean floor at designated points, much like air-drop operations. Client sub comes in, hooks on, loads up and moves on.
Seabed based nuke weapon is Not allowed, but I could set up powerplant right?
Hence, I could generate oxygen and convert to LOX and store same, yes?
The challenge to pull this off could lie in making modular pressure vessels capable withstanding the crazy pressures deep down at seabed.
Incidentally DARPA is planning to 'store' UAVs in canisters dumped in seabed at various 'safe' location, to be activated when comsats get knocked out/comm. network gets broken. So I guess those folks must be working on something similar already.
The US has plenty of ocean to set up such bases - in her own territorial waters, i.e.: GOM/east/west seaboard, intruders get sunk, period.
Ref. Point 1;
Yep, that would be a heavy duty engineering challenge, and as you have pointed out, would be pointless to have bases deeper than sub's diving capability.
This idea is based on development in the O&G industry, i.e.: deeper wells/subsea processing and such, and all activities associated with it.
Point 3
I wanted to highlight Philosophy of Operation in the design of those fighters, which still holds true for Sweden's air power needs, i.e.: most bases along the fringes of her borders and defence philosophy is - defend, not first strike.
As for using 'noise' to one's advantage, think plenty of Unmanned subs mixed in with manned/regular subs, basically a low-tech number game - and no stealth required. These could ping all day long without fear. The pressure would be on the opponent sub's need to stay 1)quiet, 2)out of 'sight'.
The moment any one of these gets torpedoed, they lose, cover blown!
And for them to fulfill their mission objective they need to move, we ping and torpedoe.
Victoria Class
Hi,
I was involved in the trials in putting the Victoria Class submarines back to sea in Canadian hands - recently at that. What many don't know is that these submarines while perhaps good in stealth design were never properly trialed in UK hands, as the UK knew they were going to nuclear only boats. Canada has invested a great deal of manpower and treasure to make these boats work, and in obtaining parts without offending BAE (to put it mildly) is another story.
I worked with a former Aussie Collins sub guru during my time on the Victoria class, and I don't feel they were much better than the Victoria class; however, the sub for Canada would've likely been or be a version of the German submarine that the Israeli's have with AIP, so Canada could protect it's Arctic sovereignty.
The Victoria class, if it ever works half decently is because of all the money and time that Canadian engineers and technicians have sunk into them.
This is my professional opinion and of those that have worked on them - not to mention the crews that work like dogs on them!
Nuclear boats have never been acceptable to the Canadian public or politicians - it would be political suicide! The Americans never wanted us to have nuke boats, as they would not have the control of the Arctic that they do now. I believe the UK reactors are of US design and ITAR restrictions, but I'm not sure about the French? I firmly believe a German design for Canada and built in Canada with Berlin's hand is the way to go.
Jon
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Hi,
I was involved in the trials in putting the Victoria Class submarines back to sea in Canadian hands - recently at that. What many don't know is that these submarines while perhaps good in stealth design were never properly trialed in UK hands, as the UK knew they were going to nuclear only boats. Canada has invested a great deal of manpower and treasure to make these boats work, and in obtaining parts without offending BAE (to put it mildly) is another story.
I worked with a former Aussie Collins sub guru during my time on the Victoria class, and I don't feel they were much better than the Victoria class; however, the sub for Canada would've likely been or be a version of the German submarine that the Israeli's have with AIP, so Canada could protect it's Arctic sovereignty.
The Victoria class, if it ever works half decently is because of all the money and time that Canadian engineers and technicians have sunk into them.
This is my professional opinion and of those that have worked on them - not to mention the crews that work like dogs on them!
Nuclear boats have never been acceptable to the Canadian public or politicians - it would be political suicide! The Americans never wanted us to have nuke boats, as they would not have the control of the Arctic that they do now. I believe the UK reactors are of US design and ITAR restrictions, but I'm not sure about the French? I firmly believe a German design for Canada and built in Canada with Berlin's hand is the way to go.
Jon
Halifax, Nova Scotia