At the end of their life, it costs hundreds of millions of dollars to decommission a nuclear facility. Those costs would also apply to nuclear powered submarines. The decommissioning process can last for decades.
Seaspan has expressed interest in building the new submarines, Irving declined as they have too much work and Davie has refused to comment.Decent article - states all the reasons we've already discussed as to why we can't (shouldn't) build subs here in Canada.
Canada’s next submarine fleet likely to be foreign built as Navy faces timeline crunch, say defence experts
Canada faces a tight deadline to replace its aging fleet of submarines before it risks losing the crucial naval capability.
Canada’s next submarine fleet likely to be foreign built as Navy faces timeline crunch, say defence experts
Canada faces a tight deadline to replace its aging fleet of submarines before it risks losing the crucial naval capability.www.hilltimes.com
As much as I am a fan of domestic industrial capacity, I am a hard no on building subs here. The learning curve and capital investment is to steep and for no long term benefit as we will not be selling them internationally or making enough to see a benefit. Spend the money to improve our ability to maintain them domestically and focus on becoming exceptional on sensors and weapon systems.
I agree but nevertheless Seaspan says they have capacity and a trained workforce. Hopefully politics don't take priority over common sense.
You might be on to something though, given our domestic production and export of LAV type vehicles...maybe we should have good ships/boats built to the point where we could try exporting to friendly(ish) nations. We used to do that with aircraft - CF104's, CF100's, CF86's and various transport aircraft back in day and even now to a point. However that would mean these shipyards would have to be able to produce the end products in good working order in a more timely fashion than we're accustomed to for Canadian Forces procurement...
I am kind of a fan of Seaspan, but I call baloney on that.
Capacity, sure. But when was the last time Seaspan (or any Canadian company) built subs?
I think we all know that but I can see them coming up with a plan to muddy the waters on this procurement under the NSS going into an election cycle.
That was, I believe, precisely the aim given by the PM Harper to the 'tiger team' of DMs who devised the National Shipbuilding Strategy: to have a Canadian shipbuilding industry that could meet most Canadian requirements and would be internationally competitive.
I wouldn't say they committed to building. I would say maintaining...
Prior to the P-8 vs “Bombardier paper airplane” debacle, I’d agree.In Canada....
Submarine building (as I am sure you know better than I) is not like building anything else on earth. I think incredible precision is needed and expertise which Canada may not possess.
Not counting commercial (1990's), WWI and WWII
We have neighbors on the same continent who build very good subs.
I dont ever see that happening. Could be wrong and maybe we end up with 6 AUKUS subs but even so we will need something in the interim. Or we're back to manning/leasing some from the US. There is a limited supply available on that unless the US starts building 4 a yr
They are going full-out just to keep their sub force going. Then AUKUS.
Roger that. SO what are the logical alternatives? As a fan of subs I think we need a sub force BUT only if it suits us. Off the shelf would be best I think.
Actually untrue. The USN are just not requiring more, Congress forced another Virginia on the USN this year — the USN doesn’t like the idea of buying more Virginia’s then giving the Aussies a cut rate deal on them prior to AUKUS boats being built.
Right now BAE plans on building those in the UK, and GD Electric Boat to continue with VA boats here.
You’d be surprised. EB has some claims they have the ability to pump 4 a year if there is a paying customer.
