"High-ranking sources": Canada considering nuclear subs?

[Kirkhill]

The Yanks have got Brit pilots on secondment flying Yankee aircraft off of Yankee Carriers.  It wouldn't surprise me if "Redundant" Brit Harrier pilots ended up flying their old aircraft for the USMC on secondment.

Perhaps the same thing could apply to SSNs as applies to AWACs.  Canada chips in for the cost of the vessel. The US manages the maintenance and support and Canada supplies crew (initially part of the US crew and eventually independent crews).

I still believe something of the same sort could be agreed with the Brits in terms of manning and operating their two (eventually) new carriers.

After all..... we're all good pals together.  Right?  ;D

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

I think they would welcome the possibility of filling an outside order of 6 to 8 subs, especially for the only naval ally they trust almost as much as their own.

I guess the issue is again the cost.  At a per unit cost for the U.S. Virginia Class submarines of $1.8billion (2009) x 6, that's $10.8billion just for the boats not including any training, facilities upgrades etc.  Even if we were to scale that purchase back to 4 subs, that's still $7.2billion at a time that budget cuts are being the talk of the day.  Especially since we're already spending $33billion on 28 ships, it's going to be a hard sell to put that number over the $40billion mark.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the expenditure to replace our aging equipment, I'm just realistic in the this being pushed infront of Canadian taxpayers and us not getting a positive response.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Your quite right to point out the cost Canadian.Trucker.

However, the 33 $B for 28 ships does not include (yet) the replacement of the "Upholders" that will have to be replaced at some point anyway. At that point a replacement "new" diesel boat that meets our requirements is likely going to be in the $1.2B to $1.5B range per boat. That by the way is what the 14 SCSC's in the 28 ship currently slated for construction will also likely cost each.

At that rate, spending 50% more for each boat but getting a nuclear propelled one instead of diesel is a bargain.

You also have to understand that all this is stretched over a period on 20 years, so even at a total value of $40B, its just about $2B/year, something that would be part of the ongoing annual materiel acquisition budgets.

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

True the Victoria class subs need to be replaced, and I do believe they should be so we can retain this skillset.  As I've said in other posts I'm all for replacing our aging equipment, I'm just realistic about how these ideas will be met.  The Upholders were the "deal of the century" that turned out to be a full lemon cart.  I think we need to cut our losses and look at going with something else, if that is nuclear then so be it, arctic sovereignty should be at the forefront of our minds WRT the purchase of new subs.

 

[a_majoor]

Given that nuclear submarines are likely to be "the" capital ships of the 21rst century, you might be able to factor out surface ships as time passes, creating cost savings while developing superior abilities and capabilities. Nuclear attack subs (SSN) have strategic range, mobility and strike capabilities (using cruise missiles)

(Of course, pigs might fly as well, unless a very effective sales and education job is being done to the public and politicians).

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Your quite right to point out the cost Canadian.Trucker.

However, the 33 $B for 28 ships does not include (yet) the replacement of the "Upholders" that will have to be replaced at some point anyway. At that point a replacement "new" diesel boat that meets our requirements is likely going to be in the $1.2B to $1.5B range per boat. That by the way is what the 14 SCSC's in the 28 ship currently slated for construction will also likely cost each.

At that rate, spending 50% more for each boat but getting a nuclear propelled one instead of diesel is a bargain.

You also have to understand that all this is stretched over a period on 20 years, so even at a total value of $40B, its just about $2B/year, something that would be part of the ongoing annual materiel acquisition budgets.

Don't forget the CSC project is still at 15 ships, don't gut us before we get gutted by the paper pushers in Ottawa.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Given that nuclear submarines are likely to be "the" capital ships of the 21rst century, you might be able to factor out surface ships as time passes, creating cost savings while developing superior abilities and capabilities. Nuclear attack subs (SSN) have strategic range, mobility and strike capabilities (using cruise missiles)

You could get all of those qualities with a nuclear-powered CSC. CGN's were good for a 30+ knot SOA.

 

[a_majoor]

Since we are dreaming in technicolour anyway 

1. Surface warships are becoming too vulnerable. High speed missiles, submarines, high speed torpedoes (even supercavitating ones that approach at 300KPH or more), smart mines and saturation attacks with low tech weapons or even speed boats put conventional displaement hulls at a huge disadvantage.

2. Surface combatents need to be able to move a lot faster to have a chance to avoid these threats, and would be even better off if they were not actually in the water (this is needed to go really fast anyway, water is 800 times denser than air). This suggests a Wing in Ground Effect vehicle (WIGE or WIG). The Russians experimented with various designs ranging from jet powered models bigger than a 747 to turboprop powered vehicles similar in size to large transport aircraft. These type of vehicles can also land in the water and "drift" if needed to deploy and recover hydrophones or UUV's. They would be conceptually similar to seaplanes (and could even be seaplanes if flying is considered more advantagious than WIG flight. The Martin Seamaster was roughly similar to the B-47 in terms of payload and performance).

3. Underwater combatents have the unique advantage of being mostly invisible, so can stay on station for a long time, "lurking" but being very hard for the enemy to detect. Current state of the art gives the highest performance to SSN's powered by nuclear reactors, and this is not likely to change unless some unconventional, compact and high energy density power source comes along to replace the current nuclear reactors.

4. Being able to stay on station for long periods of time also suggests that blimps or other Lighter Than Air (LTA) craft should be part of the mix of future fleets, performing surveillance and other tasks.

Future fleets will be very different from what we see today...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Don't forget the CSC project is still at 15 ships, don't gut us before we get gutted by the paper pushers in Ottawa.

Quite correct, a typo - My bad - and I noticed too late to edit.

 

[GAP]

So maybe we could get some of these......


Newer Isn't Always Better Enough
Article Link
December 4, 2011:

Russia has begun construction of its second "Improved Kilo" class diesel-electric submarine. These are mostly for the export market, although the Russian Navy is buying a few more of this improved model as well. The Kilos weigh 2,300 tons (surface displacement), have six torpedo tubes and a crew of 57. They are quiet, and can travel about 700 kilometers under water at a quiet speed of about five kilometers an hour. Kilos carry 18 torpedoes or SS-N-27 anti-ship missiles (with a range of 300 kilometers and launched underwater from the torpedo tubes.) The combination of quietness and cruise missiles makes Kilo very dangerous to American carriers. But for the Russians, their Kilos are mostly for home defense. Nuclear subs are used for the long distance work. The successor to the Kilo, the Lada, underwent three years of sea trials before they were declared fit for service two years ago. One has been built and another is under construction and eight are planned. The problem with the Lada is that it is not enough of an improvement on the latest Kilo to attract any export orders.
The Kilo class boats entered service in the early 1980s. Russia only bought 24 of them, but exported over 30. It was considered a successful design, especially with export customers. But just before the Cold War ended in 1991, the Soviet Navy began work on the Lada. This project was stalled during most of the 1990s by a lack of money, but was revived in the last decade.

The Ladas have six 533mm torpedo tubes, with 18 torpedoes and/or missiles carried. The Lada has a surface displacement of 1,750 tons, are 71 meters (220 feet) long and carry a crew of 38. Each crewmember has their own cabin (very small for the junior crew, but still, a big morale boost). When submerged, the submarine can cruise at a top speed of about 39 kilometers an hour (half that on the surface) and can dive to about 250 meters (800 feet). The Lada can stay at sea for as long as 50 days, and the sub can travel as much as 10,000 kilometers using its diesel engine (underwater, via the snorkel). Submerged, using battery power alone, the Lada can travel about 450 kilometers. There is also an electronic periscope (which goes to the surface via a cable), that includes a night vision capability and a laser range finder. The Lada was designed to accept a AIP (air independent propulsion) system. Russia was long a pioneer in AIP design, but in the last decade, Western European nations have taken the lead. Construction on the first Lada began in 1997, but money shortages delayed work for years. The first Lada boat was finally completed in 2005. A less complex version, called the Amur, is being offered for export.

The Ladas are designed to be fast attack and scouting boats. They are intended for anti-surface and anti-submarine operations as well as naval reconnaissance. These boats are said to be eight times quieter than the Kilos. This was accomplished by using anechoic (sound absorbing) tile coatings on the exterior, and a very quiet (skewed) propeller. All interior machinery was designed with silence in mind. The sensors include active and passive sonars, including towed passive sonar.

Russia has 17 Kilos in service (and six in reserve) and six Improved Kilos on order. More than that is on order from foreign customers, and efforts to sell the Lada continue.
end

 

[Pusser]

The world bought Ladas back in the 80s.  I don't think anyone wants to go through that again!

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The problems with submarines are that they can't affect air operations much, and they can't do the presence mission very well. They're a great complement to surface warships, but they can't replace the surface fleet.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The problems with submarines are that they can't affect air operations much, ...

It is with great regrets that Defence Research acknowledges its failure in developing a working version of the "flying-submarine" carried by the USS Nautilus in "Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" after more than 50 years.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Since we are dreaming in technicolour anyway 

1. Surface warships are becoming too vulnerable. High speed missiles, submarines, high speed torpedoes (even supercavitating ones that approach at 300KPH or more), smart mines and saturation attacks with low tech weapons or even speed boats put conventional displaement hulls at a huge disadvantage.

2. Surface combatents need to be able to move a lot faster to have a chance to avoid these threats, and would be even better off if they were not actually in the water (this is needed to go really fast anyway, water is 800 times denser than air). This suggests a Wing in Ground Effect vehicle (WIGE or WIG). The Russians experimented with various designs ranging from jet powered models bigger than a 747 to turboprop powered vehicles similar in size to large transport aircraft. These type of vehicles can also land in the water and "drift" if needed to deploy and recover hydrophones or UUV's. They would be conceptually similar to seaplanes (and could even be seaplanes if flying is considered more advantagious than WIG flight. The Martin Seamaster was roughly similar to the B-47 in terms of payload and performance).

3. Underwater combatents have the unique advantage of being mostly invisible, so can stay on station for a long time, "lurking" but being very hard for the enemy to detect. Current state of the art gives the highest performance to SSN's powered by nuclear reactors, and this is not likely to change unless some unconventional, compact and high energy density power source comes along to replace the current nuclear reactors.

4. Being able to stay on station for long periods of time also suggests that blimps or other Lighter Than Air (LTA) craft should be part of the mix of future fleets, performing surveillance and other tasks.

Future fleets will be very different from what we see today...

Me not want to be in ground effect aircraft meeting steep 100' wave.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Me not want to be in ground effect aircraft meeting steep 100' wave.

What's the problem?  Then, we would be in the submarine business again. 

 

[a_majoor]

Anyone flying a WIG in that sort of weather deserves to be in the submarine business!

 

[a_majoor]

An intermediate design between a ship and a WIG. Think of a catamarine with the center deck being a wing (a tunnel hull speedboat is a good starting point to imagine):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerodynamically_Alleviated_Marine_Vehicle

Incat apparently experimented with the idea, coming up with the design pictured below. Unfortunatly this seems to have crashed and no follow up was done. The second illustration (edit to add) lays out the various forces acting on such a ship, although retrofitting a set of wings and a jet engine to a MCDV would be rather amusing,,,,

 

[cupper]

Why not go back to the hydrofoil concept again?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Why not go back to the hydrofoil concept again?

I often wondered what would happen if the wing of the Bras D'or ever hit anything like a dead head (submerged log) at speed.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Nothing good I'd imagine.  IIRC one of the problems they faced was keeping the foil happy.  Understandably it took a bit of a pounding at speed and there was always worries about cracking etc.