Another interesting read on AIP from Canada's perspective, with a focus on enabling technologies for under-ice operations: https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/405/192/meredith.pdf
Yes, I have read that one as well. Cdr Ertel also wrote a Service Paper in 2017-2018 on future Canadian Submarines called:Another interesting read on AIP from Canada's perspective, with a focus on enabling technologies for under-ice operations: https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/405/192/meredith.pdf
Hello OPSSG.^^ David, 50% to 80% of your post contains either factual errors or is written in such a way that demonstrates a lack of complete understanding of submarine operations or the non trivial engineering work required in your proposal. This makes it hard to explain why you are wrong in drawing your conclusions.
If you continue down this path, you will be getting multiple source changes from other members soon. Read, think and then post (after some reflection), please. I am writing to let you know, as I have not given up on you.
You are absolutely correct. I am not a SME on nuclear subs let alone a new Hybrid design, however IMO this design may be feasible for Canada down the road. Most people don't understand the vastness of this country when trying to apply what requirements Canada needs in a modern submarine design (probably 12 of them as a minimum). We have three vast oceans here that need patrolling and protecting let alone our NATO and allied commitments world wide. With over 9,985,000 square kms, you could put over 13.5 thousand Singapore countries inside Canada and still not fill it up. If not a Hybrid design, then perhaps we could still collaborate with either Japan or France on a 'better" AIP/LIB design that might result in a Canadian new sub design that would give us prolonged under ice operations, with cruise and spurt speeds required in very harsh environments. The Soyus class or Barracuda 1A would be a good starting point to collaborate on with Canadian expertise. The last time Canada built submarines, was for the British during WW I. One thing is very clear though. New subs designs would have to be built here in Canada with foreign expertise. The Canadian public would not tolerate any vessel being built outside the country. Governments would fall because of it.Like you, some in this thread are so eager to share without the corresponding willingness to read (with understanding prior posts) or study in-depth the advantages and limitations of each sub-system, including the reason why some sub operators have elected not to install AIP systems.
For my attempt to post about submarines, see the effort made in the RSN capabilities thread. And by 2023 Singapore will operate 2 types of AIP submarines; with 2 Swedish built Archer class (with a 75 kW AIP plug) and 2 German built Invincible class (each with 2 HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells of 120 kW) submarines. Together with German, Israeli and indigenously-developed systems integrated into the combat suite, the 2,200 ton Type 218SG will have enhanced situational awareness and accelerated decision-making support systems, allowing submariners to rapidly orientate themselves, decide on the best course of action, and act. Once the first 2 Invincible class enters service, Singapore can retire the last 2 Challenger class boats, which had insufficient automation.
The last 2 Soyru class boats, namely, JS Ōryū and JS Tōryū (with LIB) do not have an AIP system. The Japanese have very reliable boats that the USN benchmark against. The Japanese have capability that you in Canada can only dream of — I suspect that they have no desire to transfer such capability to Canada. But so much of their build program is classified that it is hard for a layman reading press reports to understand their true capability. I am sure they will be willing to sell 4 submarines to Canada but why would Japan need or want to form a JV with Canada (to build submarines, when you only operate 4 old subs)?
I will let others who are more qualified explain, if they can be bothered.
Not sure I agree with that statement David. For one, the cost of building up a domestic capability is just as likely to bring down a government as an offshore build would be. For another, there are strategic and political points to be gained by getting our subs from another country that can't be discounted. And lastly, buying from an established line will ensure availability of parts and support at a better cost than an orphan bespoke Canadian sub program. Another equally important question is who would build these subs? NSS is built around the principal of "continuous build", such that when the last CSC is getting delivered, the follow-on design should be in the starting blocks at Irving already. Same story with the "non-combat" ships. Even if we add Davie as a third NSS yard, where is the capacity going to come from to build subs? It's a grand idea and all, but the cost of building such a specialized ship from scratch is, in my opinion, a waste of precious defence funding. Canada is a big country and definitely has some unique operational requirements, but there are conventional designs out there now from the German, Swedish, Japanese, and French builders that are big enough to satisfy most if not all of our requirements without having to reinvent the wheel. It would be good to collaborate with a designer to get what we think we need, including on the propulsion system, but designing from scratch makes so sense to me.One thing is very clear though. New subs designs would have to be built here in Canada with foreign expertise. The Canadian public would not tolerate any vessel being built outside the country. Governments would fall because of it.
You make some great points Calculus, but have you taken a look at the Australian experience with the French building their 4000 Tonne Barracuda Blk 1A class AIP in Australia. Something like that could be built here in Canada as well. All three of our major shipyards could be involved in the bidding process. Don't know how the Japanese would react though. They could also be involved with their LIB expertise. I hear nothing from the government on a "continuous build" for the NSS of any vessel and who is to say that Irving will win a future contract to build follow-on ships or submarines. The Japanese and French are about the only countries capable of building the kind of submarine Canada will need, especially in the Arctic no matter what propulsion systems may be selected. The others are just not capable or have large enough sub designs required. Cheers!Not sure I agree with that statement David. For one, the cost of building up a domestic capability is just as likely to bring down a government as an offshore build would be. For another, there are strategic and political points to be gained by getting our subs from another country that can't be discounted. And lastly, buying from an established line will ensure availability of parts and support at a better cost than an orphan bespoke Canadian sub program. Another equally important question is who would build these subs? NSS is built around the principal of "continuous build", such that when the last CSC is getting delivered, the follow-on design should be in the starting blocks at Irving already. Same story with the "non-combat" ships. Even if we add Davie as a third NSS yard, where is the capacity going to come from to build subs? It's a grand idea and all, but the cost of building such a specialized ship from scratch is, in my opinion, a waste of precious defence funding. Canada is a big country and definitely has some unique operational requirements, but there are designs out there now from the German, Swedish, Japanese, and French builders that are big enough to satisfy most if not all of our requirements without having to reinvent the wheel. It would be good to collaborate with a designer to get what we think we need, including on the propulsion system, but designing from scratch makes so sense to me.
This is a matter of debate more suited to the RCN thread, so I will only respond this one time here in this thread, but the NSS was absolutely designed to support a continuous build strategy, specifically to eliminate the "boom and bust" cycle.I hear nothing from the government on a "continuous build" for the NSS of any vessel and who is to say that Irving will win a future contract to build follow-on ships or submarines.
@OPSSG, thanks for posting those links above in the RSN capabilities thread. Very interesting reading. The complexities of a submarine are a source of endless fascination.^^ David, 50% to 80% of your post contains either factual errors or is written in such a way that demonstrates a lack of complete understanding of submarine operations or the non trivial engineering work required in your proposal. This makes it hard to explain why you are wrong in drawing your conclusions.
Like you, some in this thread are so eager to share without the corresponding willingness to read (with understanding prior posts) or study in-depth the advantages and limitations of each sub-system, including the reason why some sub operators have elected not to install AIP systems.
For my attempt to post about submarines, see the effort made in the RSN capabilities thread. And by 2023 Singapore will operate 2 types of AIP submarines; with 2 Swedish built Archer class (with a 75 kW AIP plug) and 2 German built Invincible class (each with 2 HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells of 120 kW) submarines. Together with German, Israeli and indigenously-developed systems integrated into the combat suite, the 2,200 ton Type 218SG will have enhanced situational awareness and accelerated decision-making support systems, allowing submariners to rapidly orientate themselves, decide on the best course of action, and act. Once the first 2 Invincible class enters service, Singapore can retire the last 2 Challenger class boats, which had insufficient automation.
The last 2 Soyru class boats, namely, JS Ōryū and JS Tōryū (with LIB) do not have an AIP system. The Japanese have very reliable boats that the USN benchmark against. The Japanese have capability that you in Canada can only dream of — I suspect that they have no desire to transfer such capability to Canada. But so much of their build program is classified that it is hard for a layman reading press reports to understand their true capability. I am sure they will be willing to sell 4 submarines to Canada but why would Japan need or want to form a JV with Canada (to build submarines, when you only operate 4 old subs)?
I will let others who are more qualified explain, if they can be bothered.
If you continue down this path, you will be getting multiple source changes from other members soon. Read, think and then post (after some reflection), please. I am writing to let you know, as I have not given up on you.
Hi Calculus. Only brought it up in response to your last post #354 on this Thread as it related to submarine propulsion systems and submarines in general. Yes, I have a copy of that PSPC statement but do not necessarily agree with all it's content. Construction of large vessels (more than 1,000 tonnes of displacement) could apply to submarines as well. Don't forget this statement was released over 10 yrs ago and out-dated. There are now 3 companies including Davies under the NSS umbrella.This is a matter of debate more suited to the RCN thread, so I will only respond this one time here in this thread, but the NSS was absolutely designed to support a continuous build strategy, specifically to eliminate the "boom and bust" cycle.
About the National Shipbuilding Strategy - Canada.ca
Helping restore our shipyards, rebuild our marine industry and create sustainable jobswww.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca
2. Yes, it took me 4 to 5 years to just understand the basic terms with the guidance of multiple Australian and European members who took time to explain to me the different national requirements, required capability, likely tasking, and their CONOPS behind submarine operations.Very interesting reading. The complexities of a submarine are a source of endless fascination.
9. I stand corrected but your Canadian view neglects the view from Japan. I am informed by other members of DT that Japan does have existing defense technology transfer (DTT) policies to promote (or hinder) international joint development or production that is guided by what their three principles policy. For a Canadian to claim that Japan has the desire to transfer submarine technology to Canada, you must show me proof that a DTT agreement between the parties has been signed. By way of background, I note that:I will have to respectfully disagree with you on your statement about Japan having no desire to transfer their submarine tech to Canada.
11. I did not know that. Thank you for taking the trouble to explain.It was widely reported when PM Abe visited Canada last year that on the table for discussion were closer defence industrial ties, and that both the aircraft and ship industries were part of those discussions. The first tangible output from this new openness was the recent approval by the GoC of the purchase, by Mitsubishi, of Bombardier's Regional Aircraft operations, a deal which was finalized June 1st of this year. (Bombardier and MHI close CRJ Series sale, MHI RJ Aviation begins operations - Wings Magazine). Discussions on submarine tech were understood to have taken place between the defence attaches of both countries, though the depth of those discussions was not revealed.
Reading comprehension and a basic grasp of engineering reality seems to be an areas of weakness for DAVID DUNLOP. The Mod Team had hoped to solve this elegantly by asking him to pause for 24 hours before replying, to enable him to reflect and improve the quality of his posts.Our tolerance is being challenged by your refusal to read the threads you post in. Less nonsensical posts from you, please. Spend at least 24 hours reading on the subject before replying (i.e. no same day rely by you on any post in this thread for the next 7 days).
Your advocacy for nuclear propulsion in Canadian submarines lack — why and how. Why is the slow poke reactor better? And more importantly, how will going nuclear be better at Canada’s set tasking and CONOPS (when compared to the Victoria class submarines)?
If you don’t have a relevant link to support your view, don’t be surprised if it is deleted without ceremony.
12. The German Navy already operates six Type 212 submarines, while Norway intends to acquire four units to replace the Ula-class submarines that were commissioned between 1989-1992. A contract is expected in the first half of 2020. Concurrently TKMS is building the third of 4 submarines for Egypt.Further to David's post...
It certainly looks like the fuel cell is still seeing steady development, and the issues of power density and longevity seen in the earlier versions look to be mostly conquered. Much promise to be had here, but the key enabling technology of an AIP system still seems very much to be the battery, and as of today, the LIB in particular.
13. In Post 1 of 3, I discussed relevant Italian and Japanese efforts. Now we move on to the Walrus SSK replacement programme. This is the most important Dutch procurement programme still in the bidding process. I am watching this program closely due to its future relevance to Canada to replace its existing submarines. The Dutch government wants to make sure that potential suppliers take into account as much involvement of local industry as possible. At the award of the B-letter, three shipyards (or combinations of those) are still in the running to build new Dutch submarines.Given there is no reason to assume that the Japanese or Koreans value the lives of their submariners any less than other nations do, I think we can assume that they have overcome the explosive potential of LIBs, either through mitigation strategies such as active (or passive) cooling and cell isolation, or through the use of new technology such as the solid-state LIB chemistry.
Either way, I think it is a good bet that LIBs are now very much a “good enough” solution, and will likely be part of a future Canadian AIP submarine, either as the main source of power, with fuel cells providing top-up to the LIBs, or as a secondary source of add-on power for higher speeds. As time marches on, both fuel cell and LIB technology will only get better, in terms of power density, safety, and longevity, so a Canadian submarine program maturing in the 2030s has a very real chance of delivering a submarine with substantially improved underwater performance, and perhaps even the ability to conduct sovereignty patrols beneath the ice cap. I think the holy grail for Canada would be a technology that can deliver sustained submerged speeds around 10 knots, for 3-4 weeks. Fuel cell + LIB + diesel may be that technology. So, as time marches on, the argument for nuclear gets harder to justify.