Canadian Submarine Capabilites (What can they do? Do we need them?)

[Cloud Cover]

Point on the Japanese Navy... everybody here knows I'm a big fan. Look for a new class of SSN with land attack capability with the passing of the new Japanese defence posture. A while back Dick Cheney said the US would lend their expertise to assist in such a program. Changes to their constitutional parameters are imminent, and this type of platform will be at the top of the "to do" list.  China will definitely starting ^%&#ing bricks, as will Russia.

 

[a_majoor]

Our requirements are rather unique, which makes outsourcing subs a bit of a problem. Most SSKs are fairly short ranged, which isn't a problem if you have a small coastline (90% of the world), or use them as the last layer of defense behind screens of SSNs (Russia). The "U" class subs we bought from the UK were much longer ranged than most SSKs, since they were essentially nuclear submarine hulls with diesel engines. They are somewhat larger and more voluminous(?) than other SSKs.

I had an article from the old CDQ, which I can't locate right now, but the proposal was to take the Italian FOCA sub plan and expand it to make real sea going subs. To explain, the FOCA is built from a series of large diameter steel pipes which are bent into circles, then welded together. (Picture a stack of tires in the corner of the garage to get the idea). The circular cross section of the pipes makes it quite strong, and the internal volume of the pipes is used as fuel tankage and to store high pressure oxygen. The fuel and oxygen feed into a normal diesel engine for AIP when running underwater. (presumably it uses outside air when surfaced). Italian navy FOCAs are very small machines designed to bring teams of 4-6 frogmen close to the target. If we go to bigger sizes and more pipes, eventually we could build a sub the size of a Victoria class sub (or the Kursk, for that matter), with transoceanic range.

Obviously there is a lot more to this, I would have to guess a "real" super FOCA would have a double hull like the Russians used to accommodate useful items like torpedoes and towed arrays. The moral of this story is we need to get off our butts and start cutting metal if we ever "hope" to gain much needed submarine capabilities and experience. Yet another item to bring to the table,

 

[Navalsnpr]

What do you think the publics opinion would be if they announced that we would be building Nuclear submarines for the Navy?

They would obviously server the purpose of patrolling our Northern coastline...

 

[Sheerin]

what was the public's reaction the Mulroney's plan for a dozen SSNs?   Unfortunately I was rather young at the time and as such have no recollection of the plan....

 

[Cloud Cover]

The public were by and large supportive ... it was around the time the US said they would not respect Canada's claim to the NWP. It was the Navy more than anyone else who was surprised, and justifiably skeptical. 

 

[Navalsnpr]

Too bad we weren't able to procure Nuclear Subs back then.

I don't think the public would widely embrace the idea these days...

 

[Slim]

Too bad we weren't able to procure Nuclear Subs back then.

I don't think the public would widely embrace the idea these days...

If they were properly informed they might...But with people like Steven Staples and other media ilk running around "informing them" it might be a rather tough sell...

Slim

 

[Navalsnpr]

Even if the public could be convinced that Nuclear Submarines would be a good procurement, there really isn't anyone in Canada who would be able to step up and fabricate them.

I guess we would have to tender it out to the USA or UK.

 

[Slim]

Even if the public could be convinced that Nuclear Submarines would be a good procurement, there really isn't anyone in Canada who would be able to step up and fabricate them.

I guess we would have to tender it out to the USA or UK.

Again, it might be a bit tough for us to buy nuke boats from the U.K. just now (perception remember) Personally i would be all for it. Is the trafalger class of boat still in service over there?

Slim

 

[Navalsnpr]

Yes there are 7 Trafalgar Class SSN's in service in the Royal Navy.

Their website is located at : http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/static/pages/2299.html

I agree with the current perception regarding UK military equipment.

 

[Sheerin]

If we were to buy SSNs from the UK the US would have to approve of it first since the UK's reactors are based on US designs if I remember correctly. And  I don't know if the US would be too happy if we got nukes.

 

[Navalsnpr]

I would believe that the Canada/US Military relationship is strong enough for the US to support this countries acquisition of SSN's with their Nuclear technology.

 

[Sheerin]

Well if we did get SSNs then we'd be able to assert control of the NWP, something which US doesn't want us to do....

 

[Slim]

Is that the NWP or the NDP...?! ;D ;D

Slim

 

[buckahed]

We have been through this already. When Mulroney wanted to buy  a dozen nukes, the USN had a coronary and several admirals flatly stated that the British would not be allowed to transfer the reactor tech to Canada. Reagan himself got involved and stated the transfer would be allowed. After that episode and the subsequent history of US - Canada relations, why would Bush overrule the admirals?

 

[Kirkhill]

There was another option discussed at the time.  If a_majoor goes back to the article I think he is referring to in the CDQ (Summer 1986 - Submarines for the Canadian Maritime Forces by Comd E.J.M. Young) I believe he will find reference to a Canadian nuclear alternative.

The Intent at the time was to develop and Air Independent Propulsion system.  A system that would allow long stays under the ice.  This meant a power supply that could operate for a sufficiently long period of time as to allow any vessel to transit the ice and not get trapped.  It didn't necessarily mean being able to stay down indefinitely.

Some of the candidates under discussion were the FOCA system that he referred to, a stirling-cycle engine (it uses diesel but much more efficiently and like the FOCA can be operated under water - I believe the Swedes are either using such a system or have at least conducted extensive trials), a fuel cell system based on Ballard technology (Vancouver based company that did some proof of concept tests - Germany is using similar systems on some of their subs)  and then there was the Slowpoke.

The Slowpoke is a nuclear reactor, that I believe was developed at the University of Saskatchewan in Saskatoon, but certainly safely operated there for many years in the heart of the campus and the town.  I believe it might be out of service now, or at least that is the rumour that I heard around town there recently.  But it was a remarkable design apparently for lack of moving parts (read noise) and its inherent safety and stability.  There was even talk at one time of it being considered for small scale commercial applications. It was licensed for "unattended" operation.

From what I gather the unit wouldn't generate enough power to drive a sub at high speeds, the way the Yanks, Brits, French and Russians do, but it would certainly allow a sub to continue patrolling slowly (about 6 knots with all electrical systems and life support) and quietly and virtually indefinitely.

This would be combined with some other propulsion technology to supply burst speed power.  A company called ECS was promoting the concept and claimed that a plug could be inserted in a hull like the Upholders (Chicoutimi) with only marginal impact on performance.  Cost would have added about 10% to the new-buy price of a conventional diesel sub in 1986 or about 5 to 6% of the project cost.

During the discussion about buying the Upholders there was still talk about at least one of them being fitted with such a plug to trial AIP propulsion systems.

For my part, seeing as how the Chicoutimi is now hors-de-combat and needs a thorough going over in any case I think it would be a great opportunity to proceed with the conversion and evaluate the options.

One hybrid combination that I don't think has been explored is a Slowpoke/Fuel Cell combination. 

The Slowpoke creates electricity that is needed to run everything. It can even drive the propeller at six knots. 

A fuel cell takes Hydrogen and Oxygen and combines the two in a device that creates fresh water and electricity - that again could be used to drive the prop.  More hydrogen and oxygen - prop goes faster.  Hydrogen takes the place of diesel.  As in the case of various buses and cars trialled by Ballard and Daimler-Chrysler in Canada, the US and Europe.

Now here's the interesting bit.

The same piece of kit that is used to create electricity and water from hydrogen and oxygen can be used in reverse and create hydrogen and oxygen from electricity and water.

So - with adequate supplies of uranium on board, and a large enough reactor, then the boat could lie quiet running on nuke power and filling up tanks with hydrogen while creating oxygen for the boat,  patrol at six knots on nuke power (perhaps still being able to generate hydrogen from sea water that has been passed through a desalinator) and transit at high speed on the fuel cells from hydrogen.

The boat may have to go slow from time to time but it would never run out of gas and find itself trapped under the ice and it would never run out of oxygen.

I don't think anybody will fault the Brits for their hull designs - perhaps we should consider working with them by working on an alternate power system. And non-Lucas wiring.

 

[a_majoor]

That is a brilliant insight Kirkhill.

My understanding of the 1980 era "SSn" slowpoke reactor boat was it would resemble a late WWII type XXI U Boat, with the slowpoke driving things at low speed and charging the banks of batteries, then drawing from the huge battery supplies for bursts of high speed. I would guess capacitors might work better for the rapid discharge cycle, but fuel cells would work, and probably have far less mass and space issues than devoting the entire lower deck to batteries.

If we combined forces with other navies with similar needs (UK, Australia, maybe the USN) a joint submarine program could be launched with a common hull and AIP propulsion system, but leaving the individual navies to select the combat systems they wanted to use. It might even work in todays environment, since the "consortium" would not have to commit to build anything while they do engineering studies, money would flow to U Sask for the slowpoke and some shipyards to build test articles, and when the Liberals are finally gone; the new government will have an up to date set of plans and equipment ready to go.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Kirkhill: .... sadly, I bought shares in the offering corporation back then.  A lot of them. 

 

[Kirkhill]

whiskey:

Only response possible - OUCH

 

[STONEY]

Hey guys i have a few more details of slowpoke i thought i'd pass on for info.
SLOWPOKE (Safe LOw POwer Kritical Experiment) has been around for 35 years. It was designed by AECL Chalk River ON. in 1970.  Slowpoke 1 was transfered to U OF Toronto  that same year and had a power output of only 100 watts. It was updated to Slowpoke 2 in 1973 and power output increased to 20 kilowatts.  AECL commercial products division has sold several SLOWPOKE 2's for example;  University of Alberta, RMC Kingston, Dalhousie University Halifax, Ecole Polytechnique Montreal, Saskatewan Research Council Saskatoon and McMaster University Hamilton.  Just how many of these are still operating today i don't know and in any case most people who attended these instutions dot not have a clue they existed . In 1996 U of T celebrated 25 years of continious Slowpoke  operation and it was extended for 10 more years.

Another point that seems to have been forgotten here is that one of the top contenders for A Canadian Nuke boat was a French design which was cheaper (hence of great interest to Canada) and the french were offering (unlike the brits) complete technology transfer so we could build our own boats. US boats were well out of our price range in the billion dollar a copy range while the Brit & French boats only in the hundreds of millions range , but what really shot down the idea.beside the end of the cold was the atmospheric costs that would have been required for infastructure.  New Bases would have to of been built (you can't tie up a nuke boat in downtown Halifax like you can a diesel)  and nuclear serviceing facilities to refuel the reactors & disposal sites for spent fuel , so your talking many billion $$$$ and we all know that ain't gonna happen.  It would take a National comittment as the UK,USA,France,China & Soviets found out.

Kirkhill - The Swedes entire sub fleet is operational using the Sterling AIP system .  The US NAVY has just recently leased a Swedish Navy sub with its crew for an entire year to exercise their ASW forces , it is expected to be based in the western  US. 

Ballard AIP system - DND cancelled its research contract many years ago & Ballard has shown no interest in the program since.

PEM FUEL CELL- Boats using this system are under construction in Italy, Germany & Turkey as we speak (some undergoing trials)  but remember these boats require storage tanks outside the pressure hull  able to withstand great pressures to hold PEM fuel + you need special fueling facilities that aren't exactly a dime a dozen around the world.

All in all its a very interesting field of thought and we havent even begun to discuss other AIP systems such as the French Mesma (now being built in Pakistan)  or the Russian system which is different again or the German closed cycle diesel  etc. etc.

Cheers