Agreed. A third JSS would probably "compensate" Seaspan for the loss of the Polar.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
IHFP
Member
It looks like we have some good hagglers, as they are shooting for 12 submarines with a sticker price of $60B. With a constant of $5B per ship it would appear that they want expensive ones too. According to this article the “Fast-Attack Program” amended by the RAN was about “$50B” so who knows this might result in a conversation with the French. EVEN if we were to get 2/3rd of that quantity we would still have four ships on each coast, and depending on geo politics that could become a 6/2 split perhaps. (Royal Canadian Navy pitches $60 billion submarine purchase | Drayton Valley Western Review)
I wonder if there is a way that we can progress air independent propulsion R&D to accommodate sub arctic ice travel? What Navy would want to put their Sailors in a breath holding competition with an SSN? (A Canadian Hybrid Submarine Design: A Case for the Slowpoke-2 Reactor – Canadian Naval Review) “Dare To Dream”.
Want to find a Canadian sub in the arctic? Look for a snort tube behind an ice breaker
I wonder if there is a way that we can progress air independent propulsion R&D to accommodate sub arctic ice travel? What Navy would want to put their Sailors in a breath holding competition with an SSN? (A Canadian Hybrid Submarine Design: A Case for the Slowpoke-2 Reactor – Canadian Naval Review) “Dare To Dream”.
Want to find a Canadian sub in the arctic? Look for a snort tube behind an ice breaker
Last edited:
Back in 2016 the Shortfin Barracuda was offered to both Canadian and Australian navies , only Australia was interested at first and the rest is history
I'm not sure Canada at the moment could join AUKUS because of tight production programs ,but France has its Barracuda submarine which it may be interested in exporting ,and meets the size of a submarine the Canadian navy has expressed interest in
.There may be some advantage in getting it off the shelf so to speak rather than setting up a whole manufacturing and support industry ,if the Slowpoke 2 reactor is feasible to be installed in the Barracuda it could reduce costs .
I'm not sure Canada at the moment could join AUKUS because of tight production programs ,but France has its Barracuda submarine which it may be interested in exporting ,and meets the size of a submarine the Canadian navy has expressed interest in
.There may be some advantage in getting it off the shelf so to speak rather than setting up a whole manufacturing and support industry ,if the Slowpoke 2 reactor is feasible to be installed in the Barracuda it could reduce costs .
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
David Dunlop’s slow poke reactor SSN is complete bovine excrement. All the baggage of nuclear with a minimal power output. The only viable SSN option is AUKUS and neither our government or the AUKUS partners are interested in our involvement. Our submarine capability will likely end with the Victoria class. Given our geography, a new SSK is a waste of money, better to invest something else if SSNs are off limits.It looks like we have some good hagglers, as they are shooting for 12 submarines with a sticker price of $60B. With a constant of $5B per ship it would appear that they want expensive ones too. According to this article the “Fast-Attack Program” amended by the RAN was about “$50B” so who knows this might result in a conversation with the French. EVEN if we were to get 2/3rd of that quantity we would still have four ships on each coast, and depending on geo politics that could become a 6/2 split perhaps. (Royal Canadian Navy pitches $60 billion submarine purchase | Drayton Valley Western Review)
I wonder if there is a way that we can progress air independent propulsion R&D to accommodate sub arctic ice travel? What Navy would want to put their Sailors in a breath holding competition with an SSN? (A Canadian Hybrid Submarine Design: A Case for the Slowpoke-2 Reactor – Canadian Naval Review) “Dare To Dream”.
Want to find a Canadian sub in the arctic? Look for a snort tube behind an ice breaker
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
If Canada was to run a SSK competition today, I suspect it would look very similar to Australia's, same base designs from the same places, France with the Shortfin Barracuda, Germany with the Type 216, Japan with the Taigei(evolved Soryu), and throw in the SAAB-Kockums Oceanic-ER.It looks like we have some good hagglers, as they are shooting for 12 submarines with a sticker price of $60B. With a constant of $5B per ship it would appear that they want expensive ones too. According to this article the “Fast-Attack Program” amended by the RAN was about “$50B” so who knows this might result in a conversation with the French. EVEN if we were to get 2/3rd of that quantity we would still have four ships on each coast, and depending on geo politics that could become a 6/2 split perhaps. (Royal Canadian Navy pitches $60 billion submarine purchase | Drayton Valley Western Review)
I wonder if there is a way that we can progress air independent propulsion R&D to accommodate sub arctic ice travel? What Navy would want to put their Sailors in a breath holding competition with an SSN? (A Canadian Hybrid Submarine Design: A Case for the Slowpoke-2 Reactor – Canadian Naval Review) “Dare To Dream”.
Want to find a Canadian sub in the arctic? Look for a snort tube behind an ice breaker
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yes and none of these are SSKs are suitable for extended under ice operations or long Arctic patrols out of Halifax assuming the government of the day gives a shit about sovereignty.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Possibly but IMO not likely. The French nuclear reactors and fuel cycles are different from those used by the USN and RN, which works for France given their setup and ability to periodically (
) refuel them. Canada would either need to invest in a similar sort of refueling setup, or send their subs back to France every decade or so to refuel.Also, Canada would run into issues using US-sourced with/aboard a French sub, not unlike certain issues Australia was looking at had they attempted to keep the DCN design for the Attack-class SSG whilst fitted with American weapons and combat system. Canada could potentially deep six any/all of the current sub kit and go solely for French kit but otherwise I just do not see the idea as being viable.
The author had, at one point, been a member here. However, the author also had the very bad habit of either asserting their opinion as a fact, or conflating their opinion as a fact. In fact, if one looks at the linked article about slowpoke reactors, has mentioned OTS (off the shelf) AIP subs being designed by France for Australia. This was wrong when the article was published back in 2020 and time has not improved things since then. For starters, an OTS design is something that has already been finished. If a new sub class is being designed, then by definition it cannot be OTS. The second issue (at least in the first paragraph of the article) had to due with assertions that AIP was being included in the design for the RAN. There was nothing in the public domain about the RAN having a requirement for AIP in the design of the Attack-class and indeed the RAN had trialed an AIP setup on a test rig using Stirling engines for a possible future addition to RAAN's the Collins-class SSG. The results of the testing seemed to indicate that AIP was not really worth adding to RAN subs and the AIP setup was crated up.It looks like we have some good hagglers, as they are shooting for 12 submarines with a sticker price of $60B. With a constant of $5B per ship it would appear that they want expensive ones too. According to this article the “Fast-Attack Program” amended by the RAN was about “$50B” so who knows this might result in a conversation with the French. EVEN if we were to get 2/3rd of that quantity we would still have four ships on each coast, and depending on geo politics that could become a 6/2 split perhaps. (Royal Canadian Navy pitches $60 billion submarine purchase | Drayton Valley Western Review)
I wonder if there is a way that we can progress air independent propulsion R&D to accommodate sub arctic ice travel? What Navy would want to put their Sailors in a breath holding competition with an SSN? (A Canadian Hybrid Submarine Design: A Case for the Slowpoke-2 Reactor – Canadian Naval Review) “Dare To Dream”.
Want to find a Canadian sub in the arctic? Look for a snort tube behind an ice breaker
Given some of the rather glaring factual deficiencies, I tend to ignore content from that author, because I cannot be bothered to spend the time to factcheck any claims that I do not already know are correct or incorrect.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Canada needs to make a decision now, either start a Submarine replacement program or get out of the Subs business now and put the money being spent on them elsewhere. The Victoria class are rapidly ageing orphans that are going to cost more and more as they get older. 40yo Subs have got a bad habit of staying sunk, as the Argentineans and Indonesians have found out in the last few years. It will get harder and harder to find Submariners to man old Subs with no replacement in sight.
IHFP
Member
So WITHOUT the SSN/SSK option on the table, what do think Canada’s naval defence priorities should be?
I don't want to become American, or go back to being British again.
Britain offers Canadian military help to defend the Arctic
Military History
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Probably lots of P-8s and mines unless the Canadian electorate wakes up which is unlikely IMHO. However even if this were to happen, the SSN supply is limited and team AUKUS may not want to have us involved.
I fundamentally disagree with the statement that SSKs are a waste of money, and most experts would agree with me. The article below demonstrates why SSNs are not necessarily required. An SSK can operate at choke points near the edge of the ice field, or even a few miles inside, and effectively deny access to our waters by doing so. A number of SSKs drifting or patrolling slowly would be exceptionably difficult for an enemy to detect. Advertising this capability would be a huge deterrent. Seeing the dramatic rising cost of the Australian SSN program, that expense alone makes that option a virtual no-go for Canada. But that doesn't mean that SSKs are a "waste of money".
The Under-Ice Environment as a Strategic Space – Vanguard
vanguardcanada.com
Hybrid submarines, an efficient alternative | FrontLine Magazine
Last edited:
Of eight Slowpoke-2 reactors built, five have been decommissioned. One Slowpoke-3 was built, but only ran 1987-89: now dismantled. Slowpoke-4 was never built. The operating Slowpoke-2s put out 20 KW. That might be a little low for a submarine . . . Slowpoke-3 & the proposed -4 were more, but if he means them he should be talking about them, not the little -2.
Not necessarily. Certainly Slowpoke 1 and 2 would have been a little under powered (though probably good enough for low speed patrolling at 4-6 knots), but there was a development path to a 2-10 MW version (see article below). The program was cancelled due to lack of commercial interest, but it was viable proven technology, and used LE uranium, making the infrastructure issue substantially less of a problem.
SLOWPOKE Nuclear Reactors in Canada
SLOWPOKE-2 Facility at the Royal Military College of Canada History
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Forget Slowpoke, an dead end from AECL, just like Maple. Factory built small modular reactors might be an option but the cost for modifying them for submarines would be cost prohibitive. Long range SSKs, maybe less expensive but not enough given their actual cost compared to a SSN. The bang for buck wrt the Attack class versus going SSN explains Australia’s course change regarding subs.Not necessarily. Certainly Slowpoke 1 and 2 would have been a little under powered (though probably good enough for low speed patrolling at 4-6 knots), but there was a development path to a 2-10 MW version (see article below). The program was cancelled due to lack of commercial interest, but it was viable proven technology, and used LE uranium, making the infrastructure issue substantially less of a problem.
SLOWPOKE Nuclear Reactors in Canada
SLOWPOKE-2 Facility at the Royal Military College of Canada Historywww.rmc-cmr.ca
Not disagreeing with you at all. Just pointing out that there exists technology that would allow for an extended duration, slow speed submarine capability, without going the full-blown and expensive SSN route. There was also AMPS (see link below) , which was specifically designed for submarine use. All Canada really needs is a power source that would allow for extended undersea patrols, potentially under the ice caps, without the need to surface regularly for battery top up. We don't need a sub capable of long-duration high-speed submerged transits. Would it be nice to have. Of course, but the cost is so prohibitive it is highly unlikely it would ever get government approval, especially where an AIP equipped SSK can do 95% of the mission. If we needed to sprint away from danger at full speed, that's where the batteries would allow us that capability. The point of my post was that if the government was really serious about patrolling below the ice cap, there are Canadian technologies that could be developed to support that need. The current regime is quite supportive of Made in Canada solutions, and supports them through this program: Innovation for Defence Excellence and Security (IDEaS)
AMPS: The AMPS 1000: An advanced reactor design for marine propulsi..|INIS
The idea of using small reactors to power small (relative to SSNs) submarines is not new, and is being explored by a number of different countries. Here is a great article on some options, and some of the technical issues related to such a power source:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Will read the pdf later and comment. As this is potentially applicable to the RCN I will respond here unless the Mods prefer otherwise.
IHFP
Member
I appreciate your contributions to the conversation, and would like to encourage you by saying this is not just a discussion about propulsion methods. Propulsion is potentially an important solution for the navy to defend Canadian sovereignty. The subject is perhaps the Canadian Navy, and defending sovreignty should fit nicely.
Something that is starting to grate on my nerves is the soft power games that it would appear Canadian representatives are engaged in. It almost feels like our representatives are more interested in doing the bare minimum to ride the NATO article Four and Five band wagon than to take responsibility for the problem our military was primarily tasked to take care of. Defend Canada. Canada at crossroads on submarines as cost, need butt heads and allies press ahead | The Star Yes we have obligations to our alliances and yes we have humanitarian missions that are very important. But Canada can’t take care of Canadian interests if Canadian sovereignty is compromised. Canadian Territorial Waters are Canada’s responsibility. How can Canada be responsible to Canadians, and the international community if we let Putin’s and Xi’s nuclear submarines drift about our territory with impunity?
Maybe I’m way off base, but I would like to hear from Canadian military experts how leaving the arctic undefended to a large degree fits in with the “Strong Secure, Engaged : Canada’s defence policy.”.
Last edited: