Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems

[StingrayOZ]

That statement is factually incorrect. See here for an overview of the Canadian nuclear industry: Canada 2019
...
Nuclear energy in Canada is undergoing a renaissance, and is quite healthy. In no way is it weaker than it was a decade ago. In fact, I would argue the exact opposite is the case.

As we are in a Canadian Navy thread I will keep my comments relevant to that, as I was basing my comments around this topic and should be viewed strictly as such.

1. Canada has no enrichment facilities, enrichment industry or enrichment experience or development this is a notable aspect of the CANDU design and a strong point in its limitation in terms of proliferation compared to many other technologies.
2. Canada has no experience with reactors based off enriched nuclear fuel
3. Every nuclear submarine operates on enriched nuclear fuel, with 99.9% of them operating on highly enriched fuel.

I don't really see how Canada's nuclear experience translate to SSN capability either in a hypothetical and impossible MOTS purchase or from an indigenous design and manufacture.

In addition to the IEAA link you provided, the world nuclear association has a broad summary on Canada and its nuclear industry which others can read and make their minds up. I don't find either particularly encouraging regarding the future of the Canadian nuclear industry and its relevance to submarines. I do not make this opinion based on just these two sources and encourage those to discuss more widely. While there are some positive future looking statements, I find tangible firm commitments hard to see, in the naval context.

Shrinking nuclear expertise and technology into submarines is a huge challenge. Adapting technology CANDU to this challenge is not possible. Nuclear subs and nuclear weapons have historically been intertwined, so choices made regarding CANDU as safe-ish non-proliferation source, is not appropriate to subs due to laws of physics.

While France might be willing to sell the basic design for the SSN, there is no historical precedent that they would sell the reactor technologies today. Australia's submarine program is a conventional interpretation (essentially a new sub base-lining the SSN) and Brazils design will use an indigenous reactor. If Brazil ever commissions its SSN, it will be the first non-nuclear weapon state to do so, also notes FAS understanding of French concerns regarding transferring nuclear technology to customer nations. All three programs are quite big, expensive, have significant risk, and are complex, I would struggle to see Canadians getting continued bi-partisan support over decades for such a project. Certainly the Canada class acquisition suggests it is impossible (SSN) and the Victoria class acquisition that even a conventional capability would seem to be a project of great difficulty in terms of commitment.

On Submarines and the Canadian ship building strategy, The Canadian Global Affairs Institute has a piece that covers some of this and quotes the Canadian Naval Review, who you think would be the most upbeat about the possibility.

The simple reason that submarines are not included in the shipbuilding strategy is that a small fleet of approximately four or even as many as eight submarines would detract from the goal of the strategy. There is no synergy gained by adding submarines to a coordinated approach for surface ship construction. Submarines are not included in the NSPS because it makes no military, economic or industrial sense to do so. The number of submarines cannot reasonably support continuous work, so adding them to the NSPS would promote the very “boom and bust” cycle that the strategy was intended to solve.44

It would seem that a conventional overseas build is the only realistic (or perhaps optimistic) option for Canada at this stage.

Politely putting on my moderator hat - conventional sub discussion is fine in context of the RCN. I request we put aside any Canadian SSN (and doubly Australian SSN) talk as it tends to quickly cause issues. If you wish to discuss real SSN's of specific navies that should occur in the relevant threads of those navies. If you wish you discuss nuclear technologies in general, there are more relevant/appropriate places to discuss that.

 

[Calculus]

As we are in a Canadian Navy thread I will keep my comments relevant to that, as I was basing my comments around this topic and should be viewed strictly as such.

1. Canada has no enrichment facilities, enrichment industry or enrichment experience or development this is a notable aspect of the CANDU design and a strong point in its limitation in terms of proliferation compared to many other technologies.
2. Canada has no experience with reactors based off enriched nuclear fuel

With regards to points 1 and 2 above, at least one Canadian reactor design (Slowpoke) uses highly enriched uranium (SLOWPOKE reactor - Wikipedia) using uranium enriched at Chalk River Labs, in Canada. You are correct that CANDU does not require enriched fuel, but other reactor designs do. BWXT corporation (Cambridge Ontario) has extensive capabilities with regards to uranium processing and enrichment. The world’s largest commercial uranium refinery is the CAMECO Blind River facility in Ontario (Blind River Refinery - Business - Cameco Fuel Services). There is another such facility in Port Hope Ontario (Port Hope Conversion Facility - Business - Cameco Fuel Services).

Shrinking nuclear expertise and technology into submarines is a huge challenge. Adapting technology CANDU to this challenge is not possible.

Agreed. But then again, I never said CANDU was a good candidate for a submarine reactor. It's the various different SMRs that would be the best options for such an application.

It would seem that a conventional overseas build is the only realistic (or perhaps optimistic) option for Canada at this stage.

Agreed. There is no good financial business case to be made to pursue a built-in-Canada submarine program, or in the development of a submarine reactor in Canada. And with battery and fuel cell developments extended underwater transits will be possible, which should address the requirement for patrolling under the Arctic ice cap.

Politely putting on my moderator hat - conventional sub discussion is fine in context of the RCN. I request we put aside any Canadian SSN (and doubly Australian SSN) talk as it tends to quickly cause issues. If you wish to discuss real SSN's of specific navies that should occur in the relevant threads of those navies. If you wish you discuss nuclear technologies in general, there are more relevant/appropriate places to discuss that.

Totally agree. I was not in any way trying to start a debate on the use of nuclear power in Canadian subs. That's clearly fantasy stuff. I was simply responding to comments made by yourself about Canada's nuclear industry that I believe are incorrect.

Cheers.

 

[ngatimozart]

With regards to points 1 and 2 above, at least one Canadian reactor design (Slowpoke) uses highly enriched uranium (SLOWPOKE reactor - Wikipedia) using uranium enriched at Chalk River Labs, in Canada. You are correct that CANDU does not require enriched fuel, but other reactor designs do. BWXT corporation (Cambridge Ontario) has extensive capabilities with regards to uranium processing and enrichment. The world’s largest commercial uranium refinery is the CAMECO Blind River facility in Ontario (Blind River Refinery - Business - Cameco Fuel Services). There is another such facility in Port Hope Ontario (Port Hope Conversion Facility - Business - Cameco Fuel Services).


Agreed. But then again, I never said CANDU was a good candidate for a submarine reactor. It's the various different SMRs that would be the best options for such an application.


Agreed. There is no good financial business case to be made to pursue a built-in-Canada submarine program, or in the development of a submarine reactor in Canada. And with battery and fuel cell developments extended underwater transits will be possible, which should address the requirement for patrolling under the Arctic ice cap.


Totally agree. I was not in any way trying to start a debate on the use of nuclear power in Canadian subs. That's clearly fantasy stuff. I was simply responding to comments made by yourself about Canada's nuclear industry that I believe are incorrect.

Cheers.

@Calculus YOU HAVE BEEN ON HERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A REPUTABLE SOURCE.

A MODERATOR ASKED THAT THE DISCUSSION OF CANADIAN NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES CEASE ON THIS THREAD AND BE HELD IN MORE APPROPRIATE PLACES. YOU DECIDED TO CARRY ON . SUCH DISPLAYS OF BEHAVIOUR IN DEFIANCE OF A MODERATORS INSTRUCTIONS ARE UNACCEPTABLE. DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN. 5 WARNING POINTS FOR 3 MONTHS AWARDED.

 

[Calculus]

@Calculus YOU HAVE BEEN ON HERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A REPUTABLE SOURCE.

Fair:

SLOWPOKE Nuclear Reactors in Canada

SLOWPOKE-2 Facility at the Royal Military College of Canada History

www.rmc-cmr.ca

A MODERATOR ASKED THAT THE DISCUSSION OF CANADIAN NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES CEASE ON THIS THREAD AND BE HELD IN MORE APPROPRIATE PLACES. YOU DECIDED TO CARRY ON . SUCH DISPLAYS OF BEHAVIOUR IN DEFIANCE OF A MODERATORS INSTRUCTIONS ARE UNACCEPTABLE. DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN. 5 WARNING POINTS FOR 3 MONTHS AWARDED.

I'm respectfully asking for a review on this decision. I was simply replying to a previous post, to address some inaccuracies.

 

[Barnold]

With all due respect to the moderating staff, I was drafting a response to StingrayOZ's post myself when Calculus' reply came up, saying much of what I intended to express, so I feel obligated to admit that I figured that, given the volume of material expressed before the donning of the proverbial moderator's hat, others might be afforded a little latitude to write a civil response.

(Wasn't going to link to Wikipedia, though. Even I know better than that)

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

Hi there. I have searched all threads and the one that somewhat comes close is; Missiles & WMDs to post this subject. I think the problem here is that there is no "Thread" where members can have realistic conversations on this subject. Perhaps a new thread needs to be created under Navy & Maritime. Call it: Propulsion Systems For Modern Submarines. This could alleviate all this nonsense on the RCN Thread. Can I create this myself or does the Webmaster have to do it? Just a suggestion. Cheers!

 

[ngatimozart]

Hi there. I have searched all threads and the one that somewhat comes close is; Missiles & WMDs to post this subject. I think the problem here is that there is no "Thread" where members can have realistic conversations on this subject. Perhaps a new thread needs to be created under Navy & Maritime. Call it: Propulsion Systems For Modern Submarines. This could alleviate all this nonsense on the RCN Thread. Can I create this myself or does the Webmaster have to do it? Just a suggestion. Cheers!

@DAVID DUNLOP Done and moved to the appropriate forum.

 

[Calculus]

Interesting article on the complexities of designing a new type of submarine battery, from the perspective of Attack class, but relevant to all submarine development programs: The Attack-class submarine battery debate: science fiction or engineering? | The Strategist

 

[Delta204]

This is an interesting topic going forward and I'll be curious to see how many models will be going lithium-ion in the future. Author doesn't spend much time on the current Japanese tech which is unfortunate. Japanese seem to be the most advanced in this area from my understanding; would be interesting to know how long their patrols are or expect to be with their upcoming lithium-ion battery subs (likely not public info). Definitely trade-off's with different configurations; but if the Japanese envision their subs going up against Chinese SSN's in the future it is telling that they have so heavily invested in lithium-ion IMO.

Interesting article on the complexities of designing a new type of submarine battery, from the perspective of Attack class, but relevant to all submarine development programs: The Attack-class submarine battery debate: science fiction or engineering? | The Strategist

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

Interesting article on the complexities of designing a new type of submarine battery, from the perspective of Attack class, but relevant to all submarine development programs: The Attack-class submarine battery debate: science fiction or engineering? | The Strategist

Excelllent article by The Strategist on the future of submarine batteries. It might be good to keep an eye on the UK Nickle-Zinc experiment as this could be a promising power usage for whatever submarine Canada may decide on "down the road".

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

This is an interesting topic going forward and I'll be curious to see how many models will be going lithium-ion in the future. Author doesn't spend much time on the current Japanese tech which is unfortunate. Japanese seem to be the most advanced in this area from my understanding; would be interesting to know how long their patrols are or expect to be with their upcoming lithium-ion battery subs (likely not public info). Definitely trade-off's with different configurations; but if the Japanese envision their subs going up against Chinese SSN's in the future it is telling that they have so heavily invested in lithium-ion IMO.

You are right Delta204. The author doesn't seem to be too keen on the Japanese LIBs. The Japanese though are working on improving these batteries every day and hopefully they will come up, with one that is safer too. Another one to keep an eye on.

 

[StingrayOZ]

This is an interesting topic going forward and I'll be curious to see how many models will be going lithium-ion in the future. Author doesn't spend much time on the current Japanese tech which is unfortunate. Japanese seem to be the most advanced in this area from my understanding; would be interesting to know how long their patrols are or expect to be with their upcoming lithium-ion battery subs (likely not public info). Definitely trade-off's with different configurations; but if the Japanese envision their subs going up against Chinese SSN's in the future it is telling that they have so heavily invested in lithium-ion IMO.

The Japanese aren't exactly boastful regarding their submarines. However, they are very happy with the lithium battery technology and are rolling it out replacing the Stirling cycle AIP in all future builds and may even refit it to older subs. Given the CONOP's of the Japanese, lithium batteries suit them very well. The Japanese submarines were built with specific AIP areas with bulkheads, which have been most likely repurposed for lithium battery use.

While Lithium batteries have risk, Liquid oxygen (and hydrogen) also has a terrible risk, nuclear has its own risks, and lead acid batteries also have their own risks (gaseous hydrogen for one), and if any sea water gets into a submarine and makes contact with wiring or batteries, you will create chlorine gas from the salt in the water, as well as hydrogen and oxygen gas in a explosive combination. Essentially everything is risky in a submarine, you have to actively manage all risk from everything.

With regards to points 1 and 2 above, at least one Canadian reactor design (Slowpoke) uses highly enriched uranium (SLOWPOKE reactor - Wikipedia) using uranium enriched at Chalk River Labs, in Canada. You are correct that CANDU does not require enriched fuel, but other reactor designs do. BWXT corporation (Cambridge Ontario) has extensive capabilities with regards to uranium processing and enrichment.

BWXT has no enrichment capability, it can and does however take HEU and downmix or downblending with unenriched uranium to make LEU.

Canada does have tremendous refinement capability, in extracting uranium from its ore, but no enrichment capability, in enriching U235 from its natural 0.7% to <20% for LEU or 85%+ HEU . Even where Canada experimented with Highly Enrich Uranium and operated its medical and research reactors with HEU, it was supplied from elsewhere, almost always by the US. When ACR was cancelled, any planned enrichment facilities were also cancelled.

Highly enriched uranium in Canada - Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission

The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is an independent federal government agency that regulates the use of nuclear energy and material to protect health, safety, security and the environment and to respect Canada&rsquo:s international commitments on the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

nuclearsafety.gc.ca

Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is produced in the U.S. and is used in Canada as a source fuel in a number of nuclear research reactors.

Australia mostly sourced its HEU used in its reactors from the UK weapon line. We now source our LEU from Argentina. Highlighting the problem with HEU and proliferation (specifically South Africa's proliferation based off using its HEU fuel from its medical and research reactors). Australia's and Canada's history in this regard goes all the way back to before the Manhattan project.

The most promising of Canada's potential for enrichment is actually with an Australian company Silex, who pioneered laser enrichment. Although for a variety of reasons the plant will most likely need to be in the US. Australia's nuclear lobbists are already unrealistically very excited about the possibilities.

 

[ngatimozart]

I'll leave it for more qualified Aussie navy Def Pros to comment, but as a general rule the sub service is not called the silent service for nothing. Unfortunately the ASPI currently is not of the same quality that it was in 2015 and earlier.

One very important point to remember when comparing Aussie submarine requirements and operations with other nations, is that Aussie subs have to sail ~2,000 nm transits just to get from Fleet Base West, where they are based, (just below Perth, WA) to Fleet Base East in Sydney, NSW. Then they have another 3,000 nm + transit to their patrol area. If they go around the top end it's just as long.

The JMSDF subs don't have anywhere the same transit distances from the Japanese mainland and none of the Euro navies who operate SSKs, routinely have anything like the same transit distances to patrol areas as well. So just bear this in mind when you're comparing the Aussies with other navies subs.

 

[StobieWan]

I'll leave it for more qualified Aussie navy Def Pros to comment, but as a general rule the sub service is not called the silent service for nothing. Unfortunately the ASPI currently is not of the same quality that it was in 2015 and earlier.

One very important point to remember when comparing Aussie submarine requirements and operations with other nations, is that Aussie subs have to sail ~2,000 nm transits just to get from Fleet Base West, where they are based, (just below Perth, WA) to Fleet Base East in Sydney, NSW. Then they have another 3,000 nm + transit to their patrol area. If they go around the top end it's just as long.

The JMSDF subs don't have anywhere the same transit distances from the Japanese mainland and none of the Euro navies who operate SSKs, routinely have anything like the same transit distances to patrol areas as well. So just bear this in mind when you're comparing the Aussies with other navies subs.

Exactly so. The AU subs were built around an advance speed of 8-10 knots vs the industry average of about 5 knots. The RAN has long been accustomed to long range patrols and there are rumours of some Oberon's getting as far as Murmasnk.

 

[ASSAIL]

I'll leave it for more qualified Aussie navy Def Pros to comment, but as a general rule the sub service is not called the silent service for nothing. Unfortunately the ASPI currently is not of the same quality that it was in 2015 and earlier.

ASPI May no longer speak with the previous authority but the referred article was penned by Paul Greenfield, a 33 year veteran submarine engineer, “he knows boats”!

 

[aussienscale]

Exactly so. The AU subs were built around an advance speed of 8-10 knots vs the industry average of about 5 knots. The RAN has long been accustomed to long range patrols and there are rumours of some Oberon's getting as far as Murmasnk.

There is a book available that mentions that among other things we did that had some new to Government horrified that little ol Straya could do such things

 

[aussienscale]

I'll leave it for more qualified Aussie navy Def Pros to comment, but as a general rule the sub service is not called the silent service for nothing. Unfortunately the ASPI currently is not of the same quality that it was in 2015 and earlier.

One very important point to remember when comparing Aussie submarine requirements and operations with other nations, is that Aussie subs have to sail ~2,000 nm transits just to get from Fleet Base West, where they are based, (just below Perth, WA) to Fleet Base East in Sydney, NSW. Then they have another 3,000 nm + transit to their patrol area. If they go around the top end it's just as long.

The JMSDF subs don't have anywhere the same transit distances from the Japanese mainland and none of the Euro navies who operate SSKs, routinely have anything like the same transit distances to patrol areas as well. So just bear this in mind when you're comparing the Aussies with other navies subs.

There are several factors that do not get taken into account in such discussion and articles, because they do not know (silent service)

The submarines generation capacity, hotel load, charge capacity, etc etc etc and the list goes on and on ! People get caught up in Sub A v Sub B with no understanding of the actual differences between them.

Would be my left one that a Collins would out perform a Soryu with new batteries in charge time and battery capacity, and the Attacks will leave them for dead

People need to look a little more out of the box, a sub is not a sub, easy to do the whole car salesman piece and talk about the flashy bits, but capability is key, what Australia does with its subs is very unique for many reasons, not just distance, to any other service in the world, and that goes for nuclear subs too BTW!

Cheers

 

[Boagrius]

The only thing that concerns me about the Attack class are those raised by gf in the first pages of this thread. Posts like:

we have one sub on its second generation, based on what was regarded as the most acoustically perfect hull made and which earned the nickname "nuke killer" in its baseline guise - as against two untested and unbuilt proposals.

we have one sub where we know that we will have less grief and no resistance from our principle partner to assist in integrating the preferred combat system into it and who has no problems with that build partner - as opposed to one country where we know that IP firewalls will have to be constructed and where integration is not as smoothly guaranteed.

this notion that there is a magical viable french solution is an exercise in faith and wishful thinking more than engineering realities and absolutes.

...are difficult to dismiss from a poster who I have always understood to be one of the most knowledgeable and respected on the forum with respect to this subject. Nevertheless, the choice has been made by better minds than my own, so I do hope the subs deliver - the capability is too important for them not to.

 

[aussienscale]

The only thing that concerns me about the Attack class are those raised by gf in the first pages of this thread. Posts like:

...are difficult to dismiss from a poster who I have always understood to be one of the most knowledgeable and respected on the forum with respect to this subject. Nevertheless, the choice has been made by better minds than my own, so I do hope the subs deliver - the capability is too important for them not to.

Absolutely, Gary is another who has forgotten more about Submarines than most of us know, he has worked on projects around the world. But also, and not to take away from him, a lot has changed and transpired since then !

Knowing from my previous experience, seeing what was said and written about certain things, knowing what I knew at the time and what has since come to light, I have a certain faith in the decision that has been made Time will tell.

Cheers

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

An interesting read by Cdr Coffin in 2012 at the Canadian Forces college on replacement subs for Canada:

A Submarine Replacement Project For Canada - Canadian ...
www.cfc.forces.gc.ca › papers › csc › csc38 › mds › coffen