Replacing the Subs

[PuckChaser]

The problem is the RCN can't broadcast the Subs actual sailing and maintenance schedule because it's a secret.  You can imagine how COVID-19 has played havoc on everyone's schedule though.

That's no different than any other operational deployment, dates are supposed to be secret. The reality is that CBC picked up CHICOUTIMI's departure about 2 weeks-ish after it happened, and a DND news release points out the day it returned as well as the length of its deployment (197 days). CanadianDefenseReview has an article with specific years that each sub is entering EDWP...

http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/Featured_content?blog/125

 

[Underway]

There used to be a AMD(Fin-CS) report that had the operating costs for all equipment on the DWAN that broke down the personnel, maintenance, and operating expenses. Don't think it's been updated in a few years, but that might have the total spend. That info is all public, as it's just line items in various budgets. They included cost per sea day, which was just a cumulative total of the # of sea days for each class, averaged out over the whole fleet. Also had the cost of aircraft and army vehicles there as well.

It used to be called the Cost Cofactors Manual.  I'm sure it has a new name now.  But it doesn't cost out the maintenance correctly.  It gives cost per day of operation of the ship and usually the average sailing days.  It doesn't take into account (that I know of) docking work periods etc...

Can't see subs being cheaper to operate overall though; they might have slightly smaller crews then some ships, and use less fuel per day, but the maintenance costs alone completely dwarf a surface ship by a multiple (5? 10?).

I have no numbers to share but that is definitely the perception.  I'm not the first MSE/CSE to complain about how much staffing, effort and money goes into the Subs while "my ship" is neglected.  Its much more money per unit because of the SUBSAFE program.  Essentially Air Safety but for submarines.

 

[NavyShooter]

Canada would never divest itself of a crucial capability like submarines. 

In the same way that we'd never divest:

Air Defence capability
Tracked Artillery
Tanks (only we had to bring them back for a war...)
etc...

Subs are a line item in the budget that are subject to the vagaries of our nation's focus on defence...or lack thereof.

Subs are a huge capability - and will be easily changed to a capability gap with the stroke of a pen.

 

[Dana381]

Are you sure the Americans will allow this?

Why the H3ll would we ever sign a treaty that allows the U.S. to block us buying SSN's from someone else? :brickwall:

Does anyone know when this treaty expires? I guess if we do decide to get SSN's we need to build the reactors here in Canada.

Everyone is pointing out that the Vic's spent zero days at sea in 2019 but they never mention just how much they were at sea in 2018. I don't have the time right now to find it but someone posted the subs 2018 deployments upthread and it was a lot.

 

[PuckChaser]

Just renegotiate it or threaten to pull out. Worked for NAFTA.

 

[Underway]

Why the H3ll would we ever sign a treaty that allows the U.S. to block us buying SSN's from someone else? :brickwall:

For a lot of reasons.  There's nothing stopping Canada from walking away from the agreement at any time.  I recommend we announce it via twitter at 3am.

 

[dapaterson]

For a lot of reasons.  There's nothing stopping Canada from walking away from the agreement at any time.  I recommend we announce it via twitter at 3am.

I'm old school.  I say we put the plans to walk away on display.

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Considering all 4 subs had 0 sea days last year, you must have spent the whole year terrified. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632

Strong, Secure, Engaged even has that replacement boats aren't coming until 2040. Comd RCN says in the article we can operate the boats into the 2030s... whether that's early, middle or late will determine how many years we'll be completely without a viable submarine capability (just like last year).

The article even says we've spent $750M CAD in 2 years on maintenance, repairs and upkeep, and a quick look at Wikipedia's cited news articles shows an absolutely terrible number of sea days we've gotten out of the Upholders for the money we're dropping on them. SP has a point, we're flushing money down the drain to keep lemons barely at sea. Either we start a replacement project now and hope to drag out their life with existing contracts until we have the first new hull in the water, or cut our losses to retire them now and just begrudgingly accept that the Government of Canada does not value a submarine force as much as the people who are advising on naval tactics.

Even the Germans with 6 subs and strong sub building industry had all 6 of their subs out of action in 2017, for much of the same reasons as well https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/10/20/all-of-germanys-submarines-are-currently-down/

 

[daftandbarmy]

Even the Germans with 6 subs and strong sub building industry had all 6 of their subs out of action in 2017, for much of the same reasons as well https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/10/20/all-of-germanys-submarines-are-currently-down/

And the opposition knows that having all subs out of the water doesn't mean that you have no sub capability.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Why the H3ll would we ever sign a treaty that allows the U.S. to block us buying SSN's from someone else? :brickwall:

Does anyone know when this treaty expires? I guess if we do decide to get SSN's we need to build the reactors here in Canada.

Does anyone know the name of this treaty? The Wikipedia article references a book which does not provide a further reference.

Edit: it’s not this treaty: 1958 US Arms Control Export Act

 

[Uzlu]

Does anyone know the name of this treaty?

It might be this.

This might prevent submarine nuclear reactors from the United Kingdom or France from being acquired by Canada without permission from the United States:

Detailed procedures shall be jointly established to effectuate the foregoing provisions, and all situations not specifically covered shall be settled by mutual agreement governed by the basic principle of equivalent benefits to both Parties.

 

[Underway]

It might be this.

This might prevent submarine nuclear reactors from the United Kingdom or France from being acquired by Canada without permission from the United States:

This may have been superseded with the ITAR rules.  As an example the US needed to give Australia permission to sell us their F-18's even though we already have the same vintage models in stock.

However, there is always French nuclear tech.  Developed separately from the US/British models.  And wholly owned by the French.  And they'll sell weapons to anyone.

 

[Good2Golf]

However, there is always French nuclear tech.  Developed separately from the US/British models.  And wholly owned by the French.  And they'll sell weapons to anyone.

As opposed to Canada, which only sells nuclear power to countries that promise not to use the technology to support nuclear weapons programs.  Countries such* as....well, you know...Pakistan and India. #peacefulCANDU

*edit - spelling

 

[dapaterson]

As opposed to Canada, which only sells nuclear power to countries that promise not to use the technology to support nuclear weapons programs.  Countries suck as....well, you know...Pakistan and India. #peacefulCANDU

Are you suggesting Canadian nuclear technology is only used by untrustworthy actors?

 

[MarkOttawa]

Are you suggesting Canadian nuclear technology is only used by untrustworthy actors?

It is also quite possible that South Korea will choose to develop nuclear weapons in the not too distant future as they realize they cannot rely on the US (maybe even under another president):
http://www.candu.org/Pages/KHNP.aspx

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Navy_Pete]

As opposed to Canada, which only sells nuclear power to countries that promise not to use the technology to support nuclear weapons programs.  Countries such* as....well, you know...Pakistan and India. #peacefulCANDU

*edit - spelling

The whole point of CANDU reactors is that they can run on natural uranium, whereas for a weapons program you need enriched uranium. You can read the history on wikipedia, but most of the reactors are in Canada, with South Korea, Romania and Argentina as other countries that have them without a nuclear weapons program. We stopped selling to India after they detonated a nuclear bomb, but they already had the technology and know how so they keep building CANDU derivatives.

It's old tech, but was something they came up with that they could use to make electricity without having access to the then classified enrichment equipment. That has been OBE with improvements in enrichment methods, but the heavy water reactors are something you can do without risking having enriched uranium floating around, but also doesn't need the same kind of massive scale of machining either. If you already have a nuclear weapons program, that may not be an issue for you, but it was meant to be a less complicated way to make power without having atom bomb proliferation.

 

[Spencer100]

I don't think any one has mentioned South Korea's new sub's

The South Korea arms manufacturing is moving up on the world.  Looking to build a 5/6 gen fighter etc.

They have the worlds most efficient ship building industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosan_Ahn_Changho-class_submarine

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/06/rok-navys-1st-3000-tons-kss-iii-submarine-dosan-ahn-chang-ho-started-sea-trials/

This sub looks to have about everything Canada would need.  I bet priced the best too.

As an aside the The Sejong the Great class DDG look to beasts.

 

[Uzlu]

I don't think any one has mentioned South Korea's new sub's

https://army.ca/forums/threads/130772/post-1577846.html#msg1577846

 

[MarkOttawa]

The whole point of CAND

U reactors is that they can run on natural uranium, whereas for a weapons program you need enriched uranium.

Actually, from a nuclear weapons development standpoint, the beauty of CANDU is that is produces plutonium, the other bomb material, without the need to enrich uranium to run a reactor--p. 2 PDF here:

...
First, at a CANDU 6 plant it is comparatively easy to divert spent fuel in order to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons...

http://www.joint-project.org/upload/file/Risks_associated_with_CANDU_reactors.pdf

This natural uranium fueled (heavy water moderation), Canadian supplied research reactor led to this:

...CIRUS reactor provided the plutonium for India's 1974 "peaceful nuclear explosions."..
https://www.nti.org/learn/facilities/832/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I don't think any one has mentioned South Korea's new sub's

The South Korea arms manufacturing is moving up on the world.  Looking to build a 5/6 gen fighter etc.

They have the worlds most efficient ship building industry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosan_Ahn_Changho-class_submarine

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2019/06/rok-navys-1st-3000-tons-kss-iii-submarine-dosan-ahn-chang-ho-started-sea-trials/

This sub looks to have about everything Canada would need.  I bet priced the best too.

As an aside the The Sejong the Great class DDG look to beasts.

The timeframe works for us as well, as they near the end of production we can tap in to it and start replacing our subs, where we have gotten benefits from the latest upgrade and they are beyond economical repair. Plus the Canadian mods (weapons systems most likely) can be incorporated at the building phase and we would benefit from their learning curve and any upgrades they do. The same applies to both the Japanese and planned Aussie sub

I found this interesting:

The Sōryū class is relatively young: the first sub was launched in 2009, and in many navies it’s difficult to imagine work already proceeding on a replacement. Japan however typically keeps its submarines in service for just twenty years, a relatively short time for modern warships. So it’s not exactly surprising that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, one of Japan’s top submarine builders, has already unveiled the country’s next-generation submarine design, designated 29SS. The sub due in the late-2020s. (The designation “29SS” is derived from the 29th year of the reign of Emperor Akihito, otherwise known to everyone else as 2017, and SS is the international shorthand for non-nuclear attack submarine.)

from https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a28184939/29ss-japan-submarine/