• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Replacing the Subs

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,591
Points
1,060
tomahawk6 said:
Does the RCN have an under ice capability ?

Well, because ice floats I'm assuming that a 'Dark and Dirty' counts as an 'under ice' capability. :)
 

tomahawk6

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
61
Points
530
So even diesel boats can cruise under the ice like nuke boats ? Necessary if a country has a claim in the arctic.
 

RDBZ

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
CBH99 said:
In regards to the FREMM, yes.  They offered a fixed price contract for X number of ships, delivered on or before schedule.  But, as you pointed out, it came with technical conditions that weren't going to be acceptable.

That being said however, they did offer full technology and IP transfer with the Rafale offer - including 'assembled' in Canada. 


If the IP issues were sorted out, the French can offer some pretty impressive naval options at some pretty competitive timelines.

The ADF would be no less concerned about IP issues as they relate to through life support of the boats than Canada would be. Also, the Attack class will be fitted with the AN/BYG-1 combat system (as are the Collins), so the whole issue of IP seems to have been addressed satisfactorily for all parties.
 

Sub_Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
tomahawk6 said:
So even diesel boats can cruise under the ice like nuke boats ? Necessary if a country has a claim in the arctic.

I am not convinced that you can get a diesel submarine to operate effectively under the ice, even with AIP.  I don't mean ducking under the ice for a short stint, I mean a full patrol under the ice.

If a nation could patrol under the ice with a diesel boat, they would be doing it.

To do this right we need a small SSN.  Which won't happen and it is why the USN runs the show up there.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
208
Points
560
Under what conditions could there ever be a joint US/CDN run nuc powered sub force, with no nuc tactical's on it, just a hunter/killer role.  Berthed in Canada, 'USS' designated, with a mixed crew, jointly paid for.  Any practicality to this?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
815
Points
1,010
tomahawk6 said:
So even diesel boats can cruise under the ice like nuke boats ? Necessary if a country has a claim in the arctic.

I don't believe its a ability issue, its a safety issue.  Its about oxygen production and clean air.  In a fire situation a diesel sub would be screwed.  Nuke boats have plenty of power to create clean air and multiple redundant systems.  Diesel boats really need to surface in a fire to get fresh air.  They don't have the power to produce it when dived.  Can a AIP go under ice?  Yes, but it comes at a cost of high risk assumed by the boat.  When AIP is good enough that it can provide air scrubbing/O2 production at a high rate then the sub fleet in Canada might take the risk under ice.
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
I'll preface this by saying I know nothing...

Could we chop up a Virginia Class to a smaller size?

We don't need as many VLS, and debatable if we need the SOF SDVs and associated launching gear.

The US has significant exp in building, designing, and operating SNNs (clearly), they're close to home, pre-existing global infrastructure and training platforms/programs.

Tack on a big IRB condition to a contract that any of the different US shipyards building them designate a partner/apprentice yard in Canada to learn how to do some of the basic maintenance.

Or - jump on to the RNs Astute SNN replacement project, although those will be coming online in 2040 and the Victorias would be decommissioned by then. Could send RCN crews to US/RN ships to build knowledge on SNNs...for about 10yrs. I know the RN is having a big issue with manning their sub fleet, not unpossible since we did this with RN ships in WW2.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,806
Points
940
If you went nuke, buy into an existing program and pay to use their refuelling facilities and waste storage. The French would be most happy if we did, as would the Brits. It would give us a bit more freedom to push our sovereignty, as the US may not always agree with our claims. 
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
380
LoboCanada said:
Could we chop up a Virginia Class to a smaller size?

We don't need as many VLS, and debatable if we need the SOF SDVs and associated launching gear.

The US has significant exp in building, designing, and operating SNNs (clearly), they're close to home, pre-existing global infrastructure and training platforms/programs.

Tack on a big IRB condition to a contract that any of the different US shipyards building them designate a partner/apprentice yard in Canada to learn how to do some of the basic maintenance.

Or - jump on to the RNs Astute SNN replacement project, although those will be coming online in 2040 and the Victorias would be decommissioned by then. Could send RCN crews to US/RN ships to build knowledge on SNNs...for about 10yrs. I know the RN is having a big issue with manning their sub fleet, not unpossible since we did this with RN ships in WW2.
The United States does not want Canada to be operating submarines in the Arctic.  So I doubt very much they will sell any nuclear-powered attack submarines to Canada.  They will also probably do everything they can to prevent the Brits and the French from selling their nuclear-powered attack submarines to Canada.  The United States gave the United Kingdom an S5W reactor. 

British reactors, therefore, may have incorporated some American technology—another reason the Americans may not want Canada to have British nuclear-powered attack submarines.  And there might also be treaties that prevent Canada from buying nuclear-powered attack submarines from the United Kingdom or France.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine#American_opposition
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
208
Points
560
Colin P said:
If you went nuke, buy into an existing program and pay to use their refuelling facilities and waste storage. The French would be most happy if we did, as would the Brits. It would give us a bit more freedom to push our sovereignty, as the US may not always agree with our claims.

But wouldn't we run into the exact same issue that Mulroney ran into in the early 90's?  Getting the US to 'allow' the French or the Brits to sell us the technology?  We'd have to try and re-fight that all over again, and if we managed to win that fight again, as sure as sh*t we'd have to follow through this time and buy/build 6-8 of them because if we went through all that trouble (political capital) again and again we didn't build them, we'd never ever be able to broach that issue again.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
391
Points
930
https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/energy-sources-distribution/nuclear-energy-and-uranium/canadian-small-modular-reactor-roadmap/21183

Develop our modular nuclear reactor tech through the submarine service!
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,806
Points
940
Uzlu said:
The United States does not want Canada to be operating submarines in the Arctic.  So I doubt very much they will sell any nuclear-powered attack submarines to Canada.  They will also probably do everything they can to prevent the Brits and the French from selling their nuclear-powered attack submarines to Canada.  The United States gave the United Kingdom an S5W reactor. 

British reactors, therefore, may have incorporated some American technology—another reason the Americans may not want Canada to have British nuclear-powered attack submarines.  And there might also be treaties that prevent Canada from buying nuclear-powered attack submarines from the United Kingdom or France.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine#American_opposition

You could throw it into Trumps face that Canada is stepping up to it's 2% commitment and defending North America by buying British or French Nukes, I suspect he would support such a move and claim it was his idea.
 

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
358
Points
1,130
Colin P said:
... I suspect he would support such a move and claim it was his idea.
Maybe, but maybe not after someone explained to him that this would mean Canadians would at least have the capability to actually block anyone's access to the NW Passage to anyone who, oh, I don't know, may just want to mosey on through without having to bother anyone by asking.
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
Colin P said:
You could throw it into Trumps face that Canada is stepping up to it's 2% commitment and defending North America by buying British or French Nukes, I suspect he would support such a move and claim it was his idea.

My thoughts as well. Any POTUS would gladly STFU about our defence, period, if we spent how many Billions buying Made-in-America SSNs. Think about how much political capital it would buy with any country if we latched on to a SNN project?

Could even have a closed-door competition into whose SNN project we should join, pre-selecting USN/RN/French. Have them fight for that contract to offset the difficult to swallow sub R&D contracts.
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
28
Points
280
If Trump wins again in 2020.  You could wrap a SSN buy/lease from EB/HHI,  A F-35 buy from Lockheed, a VIP/refueler/P-8 buy from Boeing with weapons and sensors and NORAD update from Raytheon.  You got a deal!  Trump would move heaven and earth for that deal.  Hell put a couple of trucks from Navistar in too.  Defense purchasing done for the decade lol.  Plus very US defense contractor going to bat for you.  Canada would hit all the targets.  Plus you would be buying this over a very long period time.  So you may not even get to the 2% GDP spend but Trump would be very happy and not bring it up again.  Say the buy is 60 to 70 Billion over 25 years Canada would get twice amount in political capital.  But in the end you get some very impressive kit.

But Ottawa does not think this way.  So oh well. 
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,709
Points
910
Hamish Seggie said:
The last time we even thought of purchasing nuclear propelled subs the hue and cry from the "Anti everything military" crowd and  the budding environmental movement shtyecanned the idea - that's why we have the current ones.

I would not expect this current GoC to even consider nuclear propelled submarines.  I personally think this GoC is the worst - even worse than Pierre Trudeau's governments - when it comes to defense expenditures.

 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
428
Points
910
The US shared nuclear submarine tech with the British because the British were committed to a nuc force, both SSN and SSBN.  They're remained committed with the ASTUTE class; a very capable boat IMO, although I've only flown on or ISO of them on 2, maybe 3 occasions (that I know of  ;D).

To the folks asking 'what conditions would the US let us cut up a Virginia class' etc...the conditions probably look something like this
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,477
Points
940
Spencer100 said:
If Trump wins again in 2020.  You could wrap a SSN buy/lease from EB/HHI,  A F-35 buy from Lockheed, a VIP/refueler/P-8 buy from Boeing with weapons and sensors and NORAD update from Raytheon.  You got a deal!  Trump would move heaven and earth for that deal.  Hell put a couple of trucks from Navistar in too.  Defense purchasing done for the decade lol.  Plus very US defense contractor going to bat for you.  Canada would hit all the targets.  Plus you would be buying this over a very long period time.  So you may not even get to the 2% GDP spend but Trump would be very happy and not bring it up again.  Say the buy is 60 to 70 Billion over 25 years Canada would get twice amount in political capital.  But in the end you get some very impressive kit.

But Ottawa does not think this way.  So oh well.

But what are the Industrial Tech Benefits and Canadian jobs? 

(only somewhat sarcastic)
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
4,591
Points
1,060
Dimsum said:
But what are the Industrial Tech Benefits and Canadian jobs? 

(only somewhat sarcastic)

The Newt suit was developed by a Canadian.... sheer, well proven, genius. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newtsuit

Here's our big chance to introduce the word to 'Underwater Starship Troopers'  ;D

 
Top