DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
I was refering to the Victoria class under-ice capabilities and not that they have AIP capabilities. Sorry for the confusion.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
Git_Kraken
Active Member
AIP is like hypersonics. Publically it sounds amazing and revolutionary. The actual science shows that it doesn't match the glossy brochure. I agree with pretty much everything said above. Its an excellent point in considering that AIP efficiency as it currently exists requires a cost/benefit analysis that may be too much for a large patrol sub. As well, advances in battery/energy storage technology may well provide the improved underwater endurance needed, for the same space and weight it would cost for an AIP.
I would be wary of any AIP that uses a different fuel. Fuel cells for example are just exchanging one fuel source for another. You are trading total endurance for underwater endurance. For some that tyradeoff may be acceptable. The Germans for example want to be invisible as soon as they leave the wall. They need to skulk around in the Danish Strait, Baltic, North Sea and the Med. The range isn't an issue for them.
Canadian CONOPS like you stated are similar to the Australian ones. The deployments I can recall for Victoria Class were RIMPAC (Hawaii), Mediterranean, Korean Peninsula, and Japan. Likely there were some Caribbean deployments as well. Those are some significant distances from Esquimalt and Halifax.
Last edited:
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
Agree with much you have said Git Kraken. The actual science of LIB Technology is in its baby stages, however, IMO, if any country can figure this out in the future for reliability and endurance for an AIP Submarine, it will be the Japanese. For where European subs have to operate, their CONOPS serve them well, however Canadian CONOPS dictate a much longer range for our future submarines dictated by our vast operating areas in our three oceans and our commitments to our NATO allies world-wide.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
A opinion piece on the failure of multiple Canadian governments to seriously address submarine procurement
www.theglobeandmail.com
Opinion: Canada cannot claim Arctic sovereignty unless we find the political will to replace our submarines
For decades, federal governments have passed the buck or taken the easy way out of hard decisions about naval infrastructure. Only Canadians can force them to change
www.theglobeandmail.com
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Rant on….Another bleak assessment of Canada’s failed defence efforts. One interesting note from the the article is the reference that the Pearson government realized Arctic sovereignty needed nuclear submarines. The early 1960s saw rise of the Canadian nuclear industry and good old Lester should have supported AECL with research dollars for the development of a naval reactor that could have resulted in a homegrown sub industry. Instead Canada got a new flag (puke), official bilingualism, the unification of the armed forces, and senior (worst PM ever) as Pearson’s successor. Junior will likely grab the worst title from his old man before he leaves office….rant off.
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
Here is an Opinion piece written today (23 July 2021) for the Globe and Mail by independent researcher Alexander Howlett on Canada's Arctic Sovereignty and replacing our Victoria class submarines. An interesting read.
www.theglobeandmail.com
Opinion: Canada cannot claim Arctic sovereignty unless we find the political will to replace our submarines
For decades, federal governments have passed the buck or taken the easy way out of hard decisions about naval infrastructure. Only Canadians can force them to change
www.theglobeandmail.com
HaroldBloggins
Member
When I first got in some of my supervisors were sent to the US and Britain for nuclear engineering courses and placed on US and British submarines to gain experience. We all know why politically nuclear submarines are not attainable in Canada despite their capability in regards to the Arctic.
At least Canada has stood up and started the procurement process, late yes but at least they have done so. I believe we'll get something new, more than likely in 15 to 20 years, offshore built. I have my opinion on what they will buy, how many and so do everyone else here. Regardless its going to be expensive, controversial and a political nightmare.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
@HaroldBloggins ….agree on the timeframe and source, the political BS, and whining. The question of numbers is the biggest variable. I am guessing low unless the geopolitical situation really deteriorates or the RCN is willing to sacrifice 3 CSC ships.
HaroldBloggins
Member
The people that I deal with is thinking 6 so not to have any operation gaps and to account for unexcepted incidents. The crews are going to be reduced as well or at least that's the intent through automation and really available crew will be a major deciding factor on any purchase we make.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Well six would be a 50% increase so that’s a positive. With three oceans and some international patrol responsibilities for the RCN eight would be even better.
HaroldBloggins
Member
Weill 12 would be better as well but like I said there is personnel issues and resources. We've never had that submarines in the history of the Canadian submarine service so small is more politically acceptable in my view and having 6 is achievable and sellable.
HaroldBloggins
Member
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
To be honest HaroldBloggins, the main reason why Canada did not acquire the British Trafalgar class Nucs at the time was not that it was politically unattainable by the Mulroney government. The Brits had no problem with the sale, but the US would not let their nuclear technology go "off Island". The US government nuclear policy at the time dictated their nuclear technology would not be shared by any other government but the British, and as far as I know, that policy is still in effect. In My Opinion (IMO) I believe we have 5 options here in Canada. Nuclear subs-Astute/Virginia class (That will never happen!); The French AIP Barracuda Block 1A class (A good possibility); The Japanese LIB AIP Soryu 29SS class (Another great option); Perhaps even the German Type 216 long range AIP sub (another good option) or scrap the submarine service entirely (The Canadian people would never stand for that!). Let’s just let the process find its way for the RCN, and leave the politics out of it (for now).
Do you have reputable reliable source for this? I believe that the RR PWR 1 nuclear power plant technology in the Trafalgar class is British, not American.
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
Below is a link to an article outlining the last attempt by Canada to get Nuclear subs.
It implies the technology was American. However, Reagan did agree to the transfer (though DOE and DOD disagreed), but the cold war ended and the money was spent elsewhere. In the end, the submarines were nixed because of cost, nothing more.
1987 - Submarine Acquisition Project (globalsecurity.org)
Also, though Wiki is generally frowned upon, it appears all of the British Nuclear technology was made possible by transfers from the USA. As such, I assume the USA has the right to restrict the transfer of that technology.
1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement - Wikipedia
Last edited:
HaroldBloggins
Member
I think your wrong, there was all kind of opposition to us acquiring that capability politically through the opposition, internally and public opinion. The fact that the technology was being withheld from us is a easy out as well. It was just the wrong time to want nuclear submarines. Even to this day politically this will not be attainable and the backlash from the public formidable in my opinion.
"The proposed nuclear attack submarines were not received well by some politicians. As early as 1985, Ministers Joe Clark and Michael Wilson were against the project, Clark because Canadian nuclear submarines would upset the balance of power with the Warsaw Pact and Wilson because of the cost. The Treasury Board objected to the program, claiming that the project was run poorly with project costs not developed accurately, especially those tied to infrastructure needs. Members of the opposition focused on the estimated C$8 billion cost of the project, pointing out the steadily increasing size of the federal deficit and debt. The announcement came slightly more than a year after the Chernobyl disaster, prompting fears of similar nuclear incidents even though no submarine accidents involving reactors had occurred in the then three decades of NATO nuclear submarine use"
"The Conservative government sought re-election 1988, winning in November. However, public opinion had turned against the program and Prime Minister Brian Mulroney placed the submarines behind other costly government priorities. Government support of the project was seen to be flagging when Perrin Beatty was moved to another Cabinet position and replaced by Bill McKnight as Minister of Defence. Due to internal as well as external opposition to the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines, a rising federal debt, and with the lessening of tensions between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the submarines were officially cancelled as part of the federal budget released in April 1989."
Canada-class submarine - Wikipedia
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Interesting thing about the $8 billion cost. That is the likely the current cost for 6-8 SSKs but $8 billion today isn’t the same as it was in 1985 nor will today’s 8 billion be the same in 2040. Funding opposition will be just as intense in the future, even more so if CSC costs fall off the rails.
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
Sorry about that ngatimozart. Black Jack Shellac has already done this for me, quite specifically. I guess both myself and HaroldBloggins are kinda both correct. I guess..... Do you have any reliable source that states the Trafalgar class nuclear power plant technology was totally a British design and not bought by them through the US
?HaroldBloggins
Member
The RR PWR1 and 2 that is is on the Astute class is a British design however the technology came from the US in 58.Sorry about that ngatimozart. Black Jack Shellac has already done this for me, quite specifically. I guess both myself and HaroldBloggins are kinda both correct. I guess..... Do you have any reliable source that states the Trafalgar class nuclear power plant technology was totally a British design and not bought by them through the US
Rolls-Royce PWR - Wikipedia
Like others I did some very quick research. Yes the RR PWR 1 is a purely British design, but some of the IP is US. The reference supplied by @HaroldBloggins is clear enough on that.Sorry about that ngatimozart. Black Jack Shellac has already done this for me, quite specifically. I guess both myself and HaroldBloggins are kinda both correct. I guess..... Do you have any reliable source that states the Trafalgar class nuclear power plant technology was totally a British design and not bought by them through the US
Why I pulled you up is your repeated habit of shooting from the lip without providing the required sources. You have been here long enough to know the rules, you have already been banned for flouting the rules after numerous warnings. The Moderators have grown intolerant of your continued lack of observance of the rules, you're already on a final warning, so there is nothing between you and a permanent ban except the pleasure of the Moderators.