Canada may buy Nuclear Subs!

[Todjaeger]

Exactly right, the RCN wanted to retain its sub capability and our cheap POS prime minister Chretien made the Victoria class the only option. Our pathetic national ship building program includes several billion dollars for totally useless Arctic patrol vessels which should be scraped in favour of 4 AIP/diesel electric subs (German). SSNs would be a better option but politically a buy is impossible and neither the US or UK would sell them to us anyway. When the Victoria class is retired Canada's submarine era will end.

IMO Canada would be better served partnering with Japan, Australia, or both for future RCN subs. The (non-nuclear) Euro subs tend to be smaller and have a lower electricity generation capacity, which imposes limits of patrol duration, and sensor/combat system fitout.

Japan and Australia both have deep-diving subs for operations in the Pacific, with sensor and combat system fitouts sufficiently capable to be on a more even keel against nuclear attack submarines. Yes, the pun was intended.

My impression (could be wrong, happy to be corrected) is that many/most of the conventional Euro sub designs are geared more towards denial of littoral waters around the home country, especially against enemy surface vessels.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Victoria class Attack submarine is a work in progress and from a pure research and scientific point, not to mention the experience we are gaining in the underwater game, it is a engineers dream.

Not to put too fine a point on it - but that statement is absolute twaddle

The canadians when they had the Oberons were right up there with the best when it came to conventional sub ops - they didn't need any additional experience to know what to buy and drive

as stated earlier by others, and mentioned within DT I attended a conf where the state of the Upholders/Vics was clearly articulated by ChiefN - and Canadian officers were present. That was 1999

they never got any better - and they were bought due to Govt inpetitude and the CN needing to basically buy anything to try and keep their hat in the ring

Your views on the Vics are completely and factually incorrect.

If you're going to make claims about platforms you need to do far better than this as its done nothing to cement your credibility on the subject matter.

Bear in mind that there are people in here who have worked on sub build programs or who are ex submariners.

 

[Bonza]

That was the deal, we buy Rafael and get plans for french nuclear subs, most likely to build here in Canada.

And just for the record I'm still waiting on a source for this statement, thanks. Until then I'm putting it down to a loud ringing of the BS meter.

 

[StobieWan]

IMO Canada would be better served partnering with Japan, Australia, or both for future RCN subs. The (non-nuclear) Euro subs tend to be smaller and have a lower electricity generation capacity, which imposes limits of patrol duration, and sensor/combat system fitout.

Japan and Australia both have deep-diving subs for operations in the Pacific, with sensor and combat system fitouts sufficiently capable to be on a more even keel against nuclear attack submarines. Yes, the pun was intended.

My impression (could be wrong, happy to be corrected) is that many/most of the conventional Euro sub designs are geared more towards denial of littoral waters around the home country, especially against enemy surface vessels.

-Cheers

That issue has been brought up many times with one recurrent poster/troll on Warships - Canada has a more similar set of requirements to Japan and Australia reference range and capability. As you say, in the main, the Euro subs are shorter legged although there are a couple of larger offerings that might fit the bill.

Soryu would be the one to go for if possible I'd expect.

Canada did talk about buying as many as 12 SSN's back in the 1990's but peace broke out and between that and the "no money to fund them" thing, the idea went away.

I'm sure if they wanted any, they could buy Virginias off the line - although ironically, the impetus to get SSN's originally was enforce to sovereignty of their territorial waters vis USN boats intruding all the time.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm sure if they wanted any, they could buy Virginias off the line - although ironically, the impetus to get SSN's originally was enforce to sovereignty of their territorial waters vis USN boats intruding all the time.

and that threat has reared its ugly head again as the russians are now making cross continental shelf claims on what the canadians regard as their arctic territory

 

[My2Cents]

The USN likely wants all production for the US only for the next decade at least. Furthermore I doubt the US wants its SSN technology going to Canada. Since the UK's Asute class uses US reactor technology under license this is not an option either. None of this matters since Canada's SSN ambitions ended in 1992 with the defeat on the Mulroney govt.

Given the slowdown in production over the last decade, Electric Boat would jump at the possibility of an order. It's not like there is a shortage of faciliteis to build them. The Canadians would probably need to get a different electronics fit, and anechoic tiles, but hull and plant shouldn’t be as restricted.

There would be some major integration issues, as demonstrated on other projects, if they could afford the hulls in the first place.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The Canadians would probably need to get a different electronics fit, and anechoic tiles, but hull and plant shouldn’t be as restricted.

The issue isn't so much around the tiles, its around the bonding process.

Aust had the same problem with the US in that the US wasn't keen to share the bonding process which led to DSTO developing our own solution - which ironically had a higher bonding retention success rate than the US tech had. Japan has also gone through similar grief.

the ITARS issues would be around maintaining the tiles rather than the tiles themselves as we've all worked out what tiles suit our operations

 

[the road runner]

Aust had the same problem with the US in that the US wasn't keen to share the bonding process which led to DSTO developing our own solution - which ironically had a higher bonding retention success rate than the US tech had.

I read somewhere DSTO used the bonding process of what cat eye's are fixed to the roads with?

Are anechoic tiles old tech , or are they still very useful.
I was under the impression that there is newer tech available?

 

[RobWilliams]

Meh, they seem a relatively simple addition to the submarine and considering they still have operational uses (enhanced by the wonders of modern manufacturing) then they seem to be valid for a while yet.

They're pretty clever tiles really, not simply just a slab of rubber to dull internal machinery vibrations.

IIRC- from uni - fluid dynamics modelling around the hull comes into it as well, creating a turbulent boundary layer prevents a wake from forming etc, i'd imagine they play a part in stuff like that too so not just for damping vibrations

 

[John Fedup]

Given the slowdown in production over the last decade, Electric Boat would jump at the possibility of an order. It's not like there is a shortage of faciliteis to build them. The Canadians would probably need to get a different electronics fit, and anechoic tiles, but hull and plant shouldn’t be as restricted.

There would be some major integration issues, as demonstrated on other projects, if they could afford the hulls in the first place.

I believe Electric Boat is currently building as many subs as possible now and the USN wants all of them. Why expand capacity based on pie-in-the-sky fantasy orders from Canada or Australia. The Ohio class boomers need to be replaced so this would be a further strain on EB's production capability.

 

[John Fedup]

IMO Canada would be better served partnering with Japan, Australia, or both for future RCN subs. The (non-nuclear) Euro subs tend to be smaller and have a lower electricity generation capacity, which imposes limits of patrol duration, and sensor/combat system fitout.

Japan and Australia both have deep-diving subs for operations in the Pacific, with sensor and combat system fitouts sufficiently capable to be on a more even keel against nuclear attack submarines. Yes, the pun was intended.

My impression (could be wrong, happy to be corrected) is that many/most of the conventional Euro sub designs are geared more towards denial of littoral waters around the home country, especially against enemy surface vessels.



-Cheers

Canada would be best served by long range/endurance subs for Arctic patrol as they would likely have to be based on the east coast and the distance to the high Arctic islands is huge and there are no bases existing or planned at present. Nuclear is the best option for Canada whereas diesel/electric-AIP is still an option for Australia and Japan. A joint nuclear sub project between Canada and Australia with US/UK assistance makes sense hence CDN politicians will likely reject the idea.

 

[Volkodav]

The other option would be EB builds the section containing the reactor compartment and the customer nation builds the rest. EB would also provide assistance during consolidation of that section, set to work and light off.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The other option would be EB builds the section containing the reactor compartment and the customer nation builds the rest. EB would also provide assistance during consolidation of that section, set to work and light off.

Still adds significant risk and complexity and cost to a project. Then you have the question of who builds the rest of it (?). Cost would skyrocket, EB mass produces, its a production item for them, for everyone else its hand crafted prototype.

Another option would be to look at Nuclear AIP, which could be relatively low risk as using a conventional hull and technologies.

But given the advance in battery technology, I see less reasons for Canada (or Japan or Australia) to go nuclear than in the 70-80's. New submarines could have endurance of 50-400% greater than existing submarines in the hull volume. Other advantages might include (IMO) faster sprint speeds/acceleration (possibly faster than nuke), nuke class sensors and systems, higher availability. You would be approaching nuke levels of submerge time (if not range).

Not only that but local battery builds would underpin local Li battery production for electric cars and devices.

While setting up a nuclear industry would be fraught with difficulty and cost, a local advanced Lithium ion battery industry would no doubt be closer to viability. Not to mention of strategic importance. I can see a future where Li batteries are a strategic product and each continent would want its own reliable supply, as industry, transport and defence will be reliant on them.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are anechoic tiles old tech , or are they still very useful.
I was under the impression that there is newer tech available?

still very useful, and there are new and improved variants of the concept about

tiles just aren't about managing acoustic sig issues, they're also a contributor to performance

eg think of shark skin and the thousands upon thousands of mini reynolds effect numbers being generated....

 

[RobWilliams]

tiles just aren't about managing acoustic sig issues, they're also a contributor to performance

eg think of shark skin and the thousands upon thousands of mini reynolds effect numbers being generated....

It's interesting really, initially the idea seemed a bit counter intuitive (creating a turbulent rather than laminar boundary layer) but when put in context into submarine operations then it makes perfect sense.

 

[John Fedup]

Still adds significant risk and complexity and cost to a project. Then you have the question of who builds the rest of it (?). Cost would skyrocket, EB mass produces, its a production item for them, for everyone else its hand crafted prototype.

Another option would be to look at Nuclear AIP, which could be relatively low risk as using a conventional hull and technologies.

But given the advance in battery technology, I see less reasons for Canada (or Japan or Australia) to go nuclear than in the 70-80's. New submarines could have endurance of 50-400% greater than existing submarines in the hull volume. Other advantages might include (IMO) faster sprint speeds/acceleration (possibly faster than nuke), nuke class sensors and systems, higher availability. You would be approaching nuke levels of submerge time (if not range).

Not only that but local battery builds would underpin local Li battery production for electric cars and devices.

While setting up a nuclear industry would be fraught with difficulty and cost, a local advanced Lithium ion battery industry would no doubt be closer to viability. Not to mention of strategic importance. I can see a future where Li batteries are a strategic product and each continent would want its own reliable supply, as industry, transport and defence will be reliant on them.

Yes, the cost of building a nuke sub in Canada or Australia would be more expensive. Canada has a nuclear industry and Australia has sub building experience so neither has a cost advantage. Australia can patrol its entire coastline and still be within a reasonable range of a safe port. Canadian subs would be based on both coasts but the Arctic patrol subs would have to be based on the east coast and then have to head on up to the high Arctic and then over to the CDN western Arctic boundary and then return back to Halifax. There is no support or safe port for this patrol so nuclear has an advantage and then there is the longer underwater endurance which is an advantage when operating under ice.

Despite this and the fact that an AIP/diesel electric costs almost as much as an Astute or Virginia nuke, nuclear subs will never be bought after the Victorias are retired and there is minimal chance that Canada will get new conventional subs either. Instead, Canada will waste its scarce defence dollars on totally useless surface Arctic patrol vessels.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Despite this and the fact that an AIP/diesel electric costs almost as much as an Astute or Virginia nuke, nuclear subs will never be bought after the Victorias are retired and there is minimal chance that Canada will get new conventional subs either.

The next generation of conventional subs will most likely have submerged range in the thousands of kms, so they will be able to do significantly more in a polar patrol that conventionals were able to before (although not a as fast, nor as long as a nuclear submarine).

But I think your right, I think Canada may get out of the sub business. With current subs coming up to 25 yo and no real prospect of replacement appearing.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It's interesting really, initially the idea seemed a bit counter intuitive (creating a turbulent rather than laminar boundary layer) but when put in context into submarine operations then it makes perfect sense.

As a really really rough analogy, it's a bit of the plasma shield/boundary layer thinking....

 

[My2Cents]

But given the advance in battery technology, I see less reasons for Canada (or Japan or Australia) to go nuclear than in the 70-80's. New submarines could have endurance of 50-400% greater than existing submarines in the hull volume. Other advantages might include (IMO) faster sprint speeds/acceleration (possibly faster than nuke), nuke class sensors and systems, higher availability. You would be approaching nuke levels of submerge time (if not range).

At 4 knots. Good endurance, but it takes you forever to get to the patrol zone, and by the time you get there it is already time to head home again.

The next generation of conventional subs will most likely have submerged range in the thousands of kms, so they will be able to do significantly more in a polar patrol that conventionals were able to before (although not a as fast, nor as long as a nuclear submarine).

Without snorkeling? That is going to require something entire new for an AIP, or a huge supply of LOX for current AIP designs.

 

[StobieWan]

Yup, this line of question came up on another forum where a complete poltroon continues to insist AIP subs are just about as capable as SSN's.

As far as I understand the subject (and I post purely so folk who know better than I can correct and further educate me)

AIP engines have a relatively low output compared to diesels currently in use and can't give enough power to charge the batteries very rapidly. Effectively an AIP sprints on battery power which runs down very rapidly at which point you're trickle charging via AIP and on a hiding to nothing in terms of staying in the fight.

AIP uses about 7 times as much oxidiser by weight to burn diesel, and any tanks allocated to oxidiser therefore rob quite a bit of space from range. If you're after long range, better to snort and charge - the Collins class specified pretty hefty diesels instead of the AIP end of things to ram as many amps into those batteries in as short a time as possible to cut down on indiscretion rates vs giving patrol range.

AIP can let you scoot around at low speeds for a decent time, assuming you're already where you need to fight. It's not, as far as I can understand it, something that fits in with under ice ops at anything more than a few knots, or which would allow you to go climb into someone else's back yard at range.