Replacing the Subs

[Eye In The Sky]

Here’s all I will say…

North American Aerospace Defense Command > About NORAD > NORAD History

 

[Spencer100]

No, they wouldn't. Because if we had nuclear subs, they wouldn't have free reign in the Arctic. They would have to inform us any time they sailed in Arctic waters. If you were not aware, our Arctic sovereignty is disputed by the United States, and nuclear subs would go a long way to asserting that sovereignty, which was the whole idea behind the subs. As John McGee put it: “The meaning for Canadians [was] simple. Either we take on a reasonable share of patrolling the Arctic or we shall be deemed, in terms of realpolitik, to have ceded sovereignty to the Americans.”

Just stop the anti US. It's just not true.

It's total BS.

 

[GR66]

Based on what the CDS told a fireside I was in this week that's pretty accurate. New subs will have to be one of the myrad conventional ones out there.

But the question is in my mind with the limited range/endurance of a conventional sub are they really worth the opportunity cost for Canada? With the generally limited speed of a conventional sub and the limited number of subs we'll realistically be looking at procuring, how much of our maritime domain could they cover?

How many P-8s, MQ-9B Sea Guardians, USVs/UUVs and CH-148's could you purchase for the cost of 4-10 x conventional subs? Or ASW capable Corvettes for that matter? Which combination would provide more ASW or general purpose capability for Canada for the same cost? At least with a nuclear sub you'd have a deployable offensive capability.

I'm definitely not anti-submarine, but realistically I see their real military usefulness for Canada in deployed operations - either blockading China or protecting US force deployments to Europe. Subs that are limited to operations within our own maritime domain due to their limited speed/range might not be the best value for our limited defence dollars.

 

[OldSolduer]

Plus cost: its been estimated that over the next 30+ years the Australian Nuc-submarine plan will cost between $268bn to $368bn! There is no way any Canadian government could justify that.

Yes - it would take away from the Dental program, and health care and CERB like stuff

 

[RDBZ]

Everything indicates the cancelation was politically motivated rather than issues with the design, as they decided they wanted nuclear subs after all.

One of the reported reasons for selection of the DCNS Shorten Barracuda was the relatively easy transition to nuclear propulsion later in the program. So something happened behind the scenes.

 

[Maxman1]

The French use low enriched uranium, which must be refueled after ten years. American subs use high enriched uranium that lasts the expected life of the sub. It seems Australia decided refueling after ten years, which requires a nuclear industry they don't have, wasn't worth the trouble compared to buying American subs.

 

[KevinB]

The French use low enriched uranium, which must be refueled after ten years. American subs use high enriched uranium that lasts the expected life of the sub. It seems Australia decided refueling after ten years, which requires a nuclear industry they don't have, wasn't worth the trouble compared to buying American subs.

I don’t think you understand that USN subs get reactor core replacements as well.

 

[stoker dave]

The timelines to bring on line 6-9 for these should easily provide enough runway to get the numbers need to crew them. I see alot of, 'we can't do that because of X' on here - I don't see alot of 'we can do this if we plan accordingly, pay accordingly', etc, etc'. The mindset needs to change in my humble opinion.

Two comments:

1. Your estimates for required staffing are about an order of magnitude too low. A single unit commercial nuclear power plant (I know, not directly comparable) employs about 500- 600 personnel. Staffing includes document management, QA/QC, oversight, training, security, radiation protection, waste management, environmental monitoring, emergency response, transportation of radioactive material, etc. Each of these requires highly specialized personnel.

2. The mindset for operation of a nuclear power plant is significantly different than the prevailing DND culture (I know, I am painting with a rather broad brush). Strict procedural compliance at all times is essential. There are not shortcuts. There are no workarounds. There is no way to operate other than that which is strictly specified in the documented procedures.

As others have said, nuclear powered submarines in Canada are a non-starter.

 

[dapaterson]

Look, don't bother NWOs with your "physics".

 

[dimsum]

Two comments:

1. Your estimates for required staffing are about an order of magnitude too low. A single unit commercial nuclear power plant (I know, not directly comparable) employs about 500- 600 personnel. Staffing includes document management, QA/QC, oversight, training, security, radiation protection, waste management, environmental monitoring, emergency response, transportation of radioactive material, etc. Each of these requires highly specialized personnel.

2. The mindset for operation of a nuclear power plant is significantly different than the prevailing DND culture (I know, I am painting with a rather broad brush). Strict procedural compliance at all times is essential. There are not shortcuts. There are no workarounds. There is no way to operate other than that which is strictly specified in the documented procedures.

As others have said, nuclear powered submarines in Canada are a non-starter.

I also see a perpetual revolving door of nuclear-trained submariners joining, getting qualified, and getting out to work for the powerplants.

If the AEC-to-NAV CANADA brain drain seems bad now, this would dwarf it.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Two comments:

1. Your estimates for required staffing are about an order of magnitude too low. A single unit commercial nuclear power plant (I know, not directly comparable) employs about 500- 600 personnel. Staffing includes document management, QA/QC, oversight, training, security, radiation protection, waste management, environmental monitoring, emergency response, transportation of radioactive material, etc. Each of these requires highly specialized personnel.

2. The mindset for operation of a nuclear power plant is significantly different than the prevailing DND culture (I know, I am painting with a rather broad brush). Strict procedural compliance at all times is essential. There are not shortcuts. There are no workarounds. There is no way to operate other than that which is strictly specified in the documented procedures.

As others have said, nuclear powered submarines in Canada are a non-starter.

Interesting that you say that.

On one hand we have Canada - a country that has nuclear power plants and nuclear research power plants in one form or another since 1944. In fact it runs the 2nd largest nuclear power plant in the world - The Bruce - in the most densely populated area of all of Canada, (in addition to 2 other large nuclear plants just a few mere dozen Km's east of the largest city in Canada). Nuclear power provides 60% of all electricity generated in Ontario and 15% of all electricity in all of Canada. Yet, sadly, people believe that we'll never have nuclear submarines in Canada.

On the other hand we have Australia - a country that doesn't have a single nuclear power plant in it producing electricity (there is a minor one that produces medical isotopes) and currently has no plans to build any nuclear power plants. It would rather burn its low cost coal. A country that has no nuclear experience, no nuclear scientists, no nuclear technicians, no nuclear training facilities or nuclear instructors. But in spite of this, its decided that nuclear submarines (that they don't need for under ice purposes) are the way forward for them in protecting their citizens from potential enemies and to still relevant to their allies.

I guess that Australians still believe in themselves and their ability to adapt, overcome shortfalls and move forward to a place of future strength whereas here in Canada we continue to doubt and second guess ourselves and settle for 4th prize and being someone else's 'Bitch'.

 

[Fabius]

Nuclear submarines are not impossible for Canada, politics, infrastructure, cost, personnel and cultures aside.
Australia is the case in point, it has always been more opposed to nuclear everything than Canada.
However it has obviously moved into a situation where it has decided that it must actively solve all the problems that would also confront a Canadian nuclear sub program.

Difference between us and them is they are focused on solving them as a state and a nation.

We are focused on maintaining the problems as justification for not expending political capital and Canadian dollars on soling them.

It is what it is.

 

[suffolkowner]

Interesting that you say that.

On one hand we have Canada - a country that has nuclear power plants and nuclear research power plants in one form or another since 1944. In fact it runs the 2nd largest nuclear power plant in the world - The Bruce - in the most densely populated area of all of Canada, (in addition to 2 other large nuclear plants just a few mere dozen Km's east of the largest city in Canada). Nuclear power provides 60% of all electricity generated in Ontario and 15% of all electricity in all of Canada. Yet, sadly, people believe that we'll never have nuclear submarines in Canada.

On the other hand we have Australia - a country that doesn't have a single nuclear power plant in it producing electricity (there is a minor one that produces medical isotopes) and currently has no plans to build any nuclear power plants. It would rather burn its low cost coal. A country that has no nuclear experience, no nuclear scientists, no nuclear technicians, no nuclear training facilities or nuclear instructors. But in spite of this, its decided that nuclear submarines (that they don't need for under ice purposes) are the way forward for them in protecting their citizens from potential enemies and to still relevant to their allies.

I guess that Australians still believe in themselves and their ability to adapt, overcome shortfalls and move forward to a place of future strength whereas here in Canada we continue to doubt and second guess ourselves and settle for 4th prize and being someone else's 'Bitch'.

If Australia can think they can do it we can surely do it. Do we want to? Should we want to? In an unlimited defence budget I can make the case for nuclear subs the lack of power and range limitations are compelling. Does it mean that SSK's are not viable anymore? But the defence budget is limited not just for us but Australia as well. Australia has already abandoned 2 submarine plans one with Japan and one with France. This plan is much more complex and lengthy with many bumps on the road

 

[Spencer100]

One of the reported reasons for selection of the DCNS Shorten Barracuda was the relatively easy transition to nuclear propulsion later in the program. So something happened behind the scenes.

French....the French happened......


LOL...just having fun

 

[DBNSG]

Nuclear submarines are not impossible for Canada, politics, infrastructure, cost, personnel and cultures aside.
Australia is the case in point, it has always been more opposed to nuclear everything than Canada.
However it has obviously moved into a situation where it has decided that it must actively solve all the problems that would also confront a Canadian nuclear sub program.

Difference between us and them is they are focused on solving them as a state and a nation.

We are focused on maintaining the problems as justification for not expending political capital and Canadian dollars on soling them.

It is what it is.

I would agree with especially the last sentence. We in Canada live in this schizophrenic world of justifying how we are NOT in any need to defend Canada because of our moral purity and not being American. All the while not too deep in our hearts and minds is the thought of Defending Canada being " thats what the Yanks do "

I wonder what Mr Biden will quietly ask for before the end of March

 

[Spencer100]

I would agree with especially the last sentence. We in Canada live in this schizophrenic world of justifying how we are NOT in any need to defend Canada because of our moral purity and not being American. All the while not too deep in our hearts and minds is the thought of Defending Canada being " thats what the Yanks do "

I wonder what Mr Biden will quietly ask for before the end of March

Biden ask for? Ice Cream......but his staffers and others ask for will be the interesting part. Than even more interesting will be the media spin on it. Always love the difference between the CBC and the US media accounts.

 

[Happy Guy]

The National Post published an article about submarine replacement :

Canadian government noncommittal on new submarines as allies push forward with nuclear fleet plans​

In brief the government is facing significant funding pressures; historically military major capital projects goes over budget adding to fiscal pressure. While the upper echelons of DND./CAF support the replacement of submarines, the current government remains non-committal presumably because of fiscal constraints.

IMO, the current government will not make a commitment to submarine replacement and they will leave the decision to the next government despite the pressing need to make a decision by this year or next year.

I'll say it again, it doesn't matter if the Liberals or the Conservatives form the next government. They both will be consumed to fulfilled the urgent political matter of the day which will most likely be balancing the budget - managing public debt, paying for the national daycare plan, the national dental plan and presumably the national pharmacare plan. I am not against these plans but I do worry how we will play for them.

Cheers

 

[Maxman1]

I don’t think you understand that USN subs get reactor core replacements as well.

I was referring specifically to the Virginia class, as that is what Australia selected, which has an expected service life of 33 years and uses the S9G reactor, which will last 33 years without refueling. And the future Columbia class will use a new reactor that will last its expected 42 year service life.

 

[KevinB]

I am not against these plans but I do worry how we will play for them.

Cheers

Clearly by learning Russian or Chinese…

 

[KevinB]

I was referring specifically to the Virginia class, as that is what Australia selected, which has an expected service life of 33 years and uses the S9G reactor, which will last 33 years without refueling. And the future Columbia class will use a new reactor that will last its expected 42 year service life.

They said the same thing when the Ohio’s and LA’s were launched.
Distrust and verify

The fuel rod life span are generally based on a fairly conservative power rate. Everyone else likes to go faster apparently.