Replacing the Subs

[Dale Denton]

Anyone know what our 3 NSS yards think of this project?

Has greater crew integration into USN and RN SSNs been studied?

At least build a sub rescue ship for the aging Victorias, and im sure allies would appreciate another rescue ship in the Atlantic.

__________________________________________________________________

Since we clearly want nothing to do with AUKUS, could we not start something with France?

They have a current line of SSNs open and could use the win for Naval Group after the whole RAN controversy. I'm sure we could get a good deal for some Barracudas. They gave us a cheap option for FREMMs built in FRA and the rest in Canada - perhaps we could find a cheap way to work in Canadian maintenance infrastructure or even have some token outfitting done in Canada? Canadians won't want to pay the full price for any SSNs or SSKs at the same time as the CSC project, so we could get away with foreign built ships in this case without much public resistance (like anyone really would care in the first place).

French Ambassador Michel Miraillet has been in the news a very times in the past year regarding Canadian defence and foreign policy. You just know they're more than ready to send us some brochures if our gov't ever opened the door, but are concerned we aren't serious enough buyers and afraid of another burn.

 

[Spencer100]

Anyone know what our 3 NSS yards think of this project?

Has greater crew integration into USN and RN SSNs been studied?

At least build a sub rescue ship for the aging Victorias, and im sure allies would appreciate another rescue ship in the Atlantic.

__________________________________________________________________

Since we clearly want nothing to do with AUKUS, could we not start something with France?

They have a current line of SSNs open and could use the win for Naval Group after the whole RAN controversy. I'm sure we could get a good deal for some Barracudas. They gave us a cheap option for FREMMs built in FRA and the rest in Canada - perhaps we could find a cheap way to work in Canadian maintenance infrastructure or even have some token outfitting done in Canada? Canadians won't want to pay the full price for any SSNs or SSKs at the same time as the CSC project, so we could get away with foreign built ships in this case without much public resistance (like anyone really would care in the first place).

French Ambassador Michel Miraillet has been in the news a very times in the past year regarding Canadian defence and foreign policy. You just know they're more than ready to send us some brochures if our gov't ever opened the door, but are concerned we aren't serious enough buyers and afraid of another burn.

France!!! NO NO NO.

 

[GR66]

Anyone know what our 3 NSS yards think of this project?

None of our shipyards have experience or the capability to build submarines. Any sub we buy will be built offshore.

Has greater crew integration into USN and RN SSNs been studied?

Crew integration really only makes sense to me if we're eventually going to get our own SSNs. Otherwise it's not training it's just supplying personnel to a foreign nation's military which may or may not always have the same political objectives as we do. Can you imagine the political controversy if for example HMS Conqueror had a split British/Canadian crew when it sank the General Belgrano during the Falklands War?

At least build a sub rescue ship for the aging Victorias, and im sure allies would appreciate another rescue ship in the Atlantic.

This seems like a worthwhile capability to me. Could an AOPS potentially be equipped with the required gear to act as a sub rescue ship if required?

Since we clearly want nothing to do with AUKUS

AUKUS is more than the Australian nuclear sub deal and Canada should definitely jump onboard AUKUS as far as I'm concerned just for those other aspects even if we don't go the nuclear submarine route.

From Wikipedia:
The pact also includes cooperation on advanced cyber mechanisms, artificial intelligence and autonomy, quantum technologies, undersea capabilities, hypersonic and counter-hypersonic, electronic warfare, innovation and information sharing. The pact will focus on military capability, separating it from the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance that also includes New Zealand and Canada.

could we not start something with France?

They have a current line of SSNs open and could use the win for Naval Group after the whole RAN controversy. I'm sure we could get a good deal for some Barracudas. They gave us a cheap option for FREMMs built in FRA and the rest in Canada - perhaps we could find a cheap way to work in Canadian maintenance infrastructure or even have some token outfitting done in Canada? Canadians won't want to pay the full price for any SSNs or SSKs at the same time as the CSC project, so we could get away with foreign built ships in this case without much public resistance (like anyone really would care in the first place).

French Ambassador Michel Miraillet has been in the news a very times in the past year regarding Canadian defence and foreign policy. You just know they're more than ready to send us some brochures if our gov't ever opened the door, but are concerned we aren't serious enough buyers and afraid of another burn.

Politically and economically I don't see nuclear subs (from any nation) being a realistic option for Canada at the moment. IF we were to go nuclear it would make much more sense to go with an American or British design simply for the commonality of sensors, weapons, combat systems, etc. with the major allies we're most likely to be operating with.

 

[FSTO]

Re: Nuclear. (and thread derail)

There is a fight going on between the Natural Resources Minister and the Environment Minister about Nuclear. I've been hearing that Guilbeault has threatened to resign if Canada decides to build Nuclear power plants. I say let the religious fanatic walk, he's nothing but a roadblock.

The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson - Member of Parliament - Members of Parliament - House of Commons of Canada

The Honourable Steven Guilbeault - Member of Parliament - Members of Parliament - House of Commons of Canada

 

[OldSolduer]

Re: Nuclear. (and thread derail)

There is a fight going on between the Natural Resources Minister and the Environment Minister about Nuclear. I've been hearing that Guilbeault has threatened to resign if Canada decides to build Nuclear power plants. I say let the religious fanatic walk, he's nothing but a roadblock.

The Honourable Jonathan Wilkinson - Member of Parliament - Members of Parliament - House of Commons of Canada

The Honourable Steven Guilbeault - Member of Parliament - Members of Parliament - House of Commons of Canada

I have an opinion about this little clone of.....I won't say it but he was one of Adolf's guys.....

 

[Spencer100]

I have an opinion about this little clone of.....I won't say it but he was one of Adolf's guys.....

The was in charged at Heritage when C-11 was put on the table.

His mission is do the same at Environment. Would his next stop be Infrastructure?

Censorship. Check
Raise the the cost and limit energy. Check
15 minute city. Next

 

[Edward Campbell]

France!!! NO NO NO.

I'm with Spencer100, and it has nothing to do with Macron and China. I'm going back a long time, to the time when we bought the Eryx anti-tank missile, but dealing with France have always, in my experience, in a couple of different fields, problematical.The French are, in my experience, very good at commerce and negotiation - better, again in my personal and limited experience, than we (or the Brits or the Americans) - but they are not famous for integrity, not even to their partners in the EU.

I recall one incident - not defence related - when the French were, formally, officially, committed to a CEPT position, but the French delegation saw a local advantage and screwed their partners to get a (relatively small but still valuable) sale for a French firm.

 

[Spencer100]

I'm with Spencer100, and it has nothing to do with Macron and China. I'm going back a long time, to the time when we bought the Eryx anti-tank missile, but dealing with France have always, in my experience, in a couple of different fields, problematical.The French are, in my experience, very good at commerce and negotiation - better, again in my personal and limited experience, than we (or the Brits or the Americans) - but they are not famous for integrity, not even to their partners in the EU.

I recall one incident - not defence related - when the French were, formally, officially, committed to a CEPT position, but the French delegation saw a local advantage and screwed their partners to get a (relatively small but still valuable) sale for a French firm.

My business dealings have been very difficult too. We as Canadians (and to some existent Americans) are not good negotiating with the average Frenchman. Watch Stallantis in the coming years.

 

[Weinie]

I agree with you. But as evidenced by the last 40 years most of the country does not.

But then again I think maybe I would be Ok with US suzerainty over us. Thinking......maybe not Washington DC is almost as dumb as Ottawa.

 

[Kirkhill]

We could look to joint crew with Australia but I think we would bleed more to AUS

Negotiation time.

60 BCAD capability required of us by our allies.
Nukes are the answer
Canada doesn't do nukes.

Canada hires AUKUS to supply the capability.
Canada puts Matelots on board to make sure AUKUS plays nice

Canada buys 20 BCAD of capability it is comfortable supplying to work with the RAN, another 20 BCAD for the RN and another 20 BCAD for the USN.

Bob's your uncle.

 

[Spencer100]

Negotiation time.

60 BCAD capability required of us by our allies.
Nukes are the answer
Canada doesn't do nukes.

Canada hires AUKUS to supply the capability.
Canada puts Matelots on board to make sure AUKUS plays nice

Canada buys 20 BCAD of capability it is comfortable supplying to work with the RN, another 20 BCAD for the RN and another 20 BCAD for the USN.

Bob's your uncle.

I'm getting to the point where you might as well go all the way.

Make a deal with the US. Tell them you are doing it in reality anyways so here you go. You will allow Canadians to join your forces. We will hand over bases in Canada. You can do the patrolling.

Up size and re-roll the Reserves to Emergency Services Canada. They will get the SAR assets, wheeled LAV's removed heavy guns. and the trucks etc. C130, C17, Airbuses and Helos to Transport Canada for government lift and SAR etc. CF18 go to the desert. The F-35 order goes to USAF but we still pay for it. Upsized CG gets the AOPS and training to use guns.

CAF members get the choice of the New Reserves Services, TC or CCG. or Job offer in the US forces or Retirement.

Canada is safe. And the Political class get to spend more time dividing the ever shrinking pools of money. The job they really want to do anyways.

Super easy sell to the electorate. Canada is a peacekeeper see we have no army. If they need us we can send RCMP or the Emergency reserves to stand in front of the UN. Plus the gov can say we still have the reserves and the US was already doing the NORAD thing so you won't even know the difference. And the saving from this will put into Healthcare. Done. The protest will be 10 people on parliament hill.

 

[lenaitch]

France!!! NO NO NO.

i spit in your general direction - Google Search

 

[Spencer100]

I'm getting to the point where you might as well go all the way.

Make a deal with the US. Tell them you are doing it in reality anyways so here you go. You will allow Canadians to join your forces. We will hand over bases in Canada. You can do the patrolling.

Up size and re-roll the Reserves to Emergency Services Canada. They will get the SAR assets, wheeled LAV's removed heavy guns. and the trucks etc. C130, C17, Airbuses and Helos to Transport Canada for government lift and SAR etc. CF18 go to the desert. The F-35 order goes to USAF but we still pay for it. Upsized CG gets the AOPS and training to use guns.

CAF members get the choice of the New Reserves Services, TC or CCG. or Job offer in the US forces or Retirement.

Canada is safe. And the Political class get to spend more time dividing the ever shrinking pools of money. The job they really want to do anyways.

Super easy sell to the electorate. Canada is a peacekeeper see we have no army. If they need us we can send RCMP or the Emergency reserves to stand in front of the UN. Plus the gov can say we still have the reserves and the US was already doing the NORAD thing so you won't even know the difference. And the saving from this will put into Healthcare. Done. The protest will be 10 people on parliament hill.

And to tie up a couple of lose ends. Shipbuilding, Seaspan and Davie continue to build the CG fleet. Irving builds the new 12 Constitution class ships for USN paid for by Canada. BAE is given a kiss. And a handshake deal that one will be USS Trudeau. GDLS-C given contract to supply LAV-6 to the US army. UNIFOR is now super happy. The NDP is happy about No Military but upset about the US takeover but will live with it. And Canadian companies companies are give a deal that they are exempt from US buy American rules. Industry is now extra happy.

Future PM are now super happy as they will now never be asked to do anything by other nations. Yes they would get to be at the big boys table...but are we really right now?

 

[Underway]

Interesting yes, but the largest issue for most arguments seems to be arctic patrol, and deterring China and Russia
Something that none of the D/E or AIP systems can really offer.

To me personally, albeit not being a Naval guy, the SSN is the only option that meets Canada’s stated requirements. SSN’s being most likely off the books for Canada due to the cost, and the issues with security, and concerns about the N word.

I know what your driving at and I belive you mean anticipated concept of operatations (not stated requirements). I think that the potential concept of ops for a RCN Patrol Sub includes: Arctic patrol (clear of ice and under ice), domestic patrol (EEZ), foreign operations in Europe and northern Asia (Japan, Korea region).

If you are going to use the sub for deterrance of China and Russia operations in Europe and Northern Asia a DE will fit those just fine. If you want to deter anyone from coming into domestic waters and our EEZ then a DE does that better than a nuke boat.

If you want to do under ice arctic operations then yah, a nuke boat is better. But I've yet to be convinced that under ice operations are actually important to NA defence. Russia uses their nuke boats almost exclusively in their own arctic waters, protecting them under their own air envelope and just waiting for the second strike missile launch in the even of a nuclear war. The point of a nuke boat in the arctic from the NATO side is to get to those boomers and sink them so there isn't a second strike capability. Canada doesn't do that mission.

For understanding of what's going on in the Canadian arctic then passive sensors at strategic points, combined with air operations and patrol ships is better. Frankly trying to go through the NW passage in a submarine is suicide at any time of year as the ice can go all the way to the bottom when it piles up and creates dams. There are clear area's where the bottom is scraped by ice consistantly. And the arctic is pretty shallow.

If we're looking further afield (like Arctic Ocean) then I question whether that is really necessary as all our strategic infrastructure is below 50 N for the most part and the arctic landmass will have air sensors with the NORAD rebuild (hopefully sooner then later).

But with allies for basing there is nothing for those area's of operations that a DE can't deal with. The reasons that Aussies want nuke boats is because they don't have allies for basing (or basing that wouldn't immediately be under threat from China) and need to do very long range patrols away from home.

A Canadian concept of operations likely doesn't have long range patrol a long way from home outside of NATO or North Asia. We frankly don't need to add our subs to the South China Sea. That's not where our strategic interests lay. They lay in protecting/helping our allies in North Asia and Europe.

So given this thought process a DE boat is perfectly acceptable. Will it need more legs then most DE? Sure. But we don't need a nuke boat. The concept of operations doesn't have a critical path that leads us to a "must have" conclusion.

 

[GR66]

OK....here's a suggestion that will make heads explode all across the left of the spectrum...

Premise #1 - Nuclear subs are the correct platform for Canada's needs. Only they offer the range, endurance and under ice capability that Canada requires for both domestic defence of our maritime domain (including the arctic) as well as expeditionary capabilities. However the cost of nuclear submarines is extremely high and purchasing enough of them to be militarily effective (12?) is likely beyond our current budget capabilities (i.e. political will).

Premise #2 - Renewable energy alone will not be able to meet the electricity demands of Canada as we transition away from fossil fuels as a primary energy source and the only current no carbon technology available to meet that demand is nuclear energy.

Premise #3 - If Canada ramps up our use of nuclear power to meet our electricity demand we will need to (finally) find a long-term storage solution for our domestically produced high-level nuclear waste.

Premise #4 - Disposal of the nuclear waste from nuclear submarines is an issue, both politically and technically for the AUKUS members (and Australia in particular as they do not currently have a domestic commercial or military nuclear industry).

The Proposal - The Federal Government gives AECL the lead for managing the long term storage of high-level radioactive waste produced by all nuclear generation plants in Canada. They construct a deep shaft storage facility in the Canadian shield and develop the infrastructure to safely transport the waste from the current on-site storage pools to the long-term storage facility.

Canada buys into AUKUS by agreeing to open our long-term nuclear storage facility to the waste produced by the British and Australian nuclear sub fleets. In return we get to buy into the SSN-AUKUS class sub fleet at a discounted price. We would initially start by joint manning of the British boats (2030s) and Australian boats (2040s) with our own, 100% Canadian boats coming online in the 2050's.

Assuming that Canada increases our use of nuclear power for domestic electricity needs (and there doesn't seem to be any other viable energy sources currently available to meet our future requirements) then we will have no choice but to finally move forward with a long-term nuclear waste storage facility. So we will need a site regardless of AUKUS/nuclear subs (including the means to safely transport the nuclear waste) so adding waste from British and Australian nuclear subs will not significantly change what we will already be doing. For the Brits and Australians however, having a non-domestic location to ship their nuclear waste will be a major political (and economic) plus for them.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I know what your driving at and I belive you mean anticipated concept of operatations (not stated requirements). I think that the potential concept of ops for a RCN Patrol Sub includes: Arctic patrol (clear of ice and under ice), domestic patrol (EEZ), foreign operations in Europe and northern Asia (Japan, Korea region).

If you are going to use the sub for deterrance of China and Russia operations in Europe and Northern Asia a DE will fit those just fine. If you want to deter anyone from coming into domestic waters and our EEZ then a DE does that better than a nuke boat.

Not sure I agree 100%. A DE is defeated with simple hold down tactics. It’s a pretty significant weak point.

A nuc is always in a sensor profile; the same can’t be said about diesel boats.

If you want to do under ice arctic operations then yah, a nuke boat is better. But I've yet to be convinced that under ice operations are actually important to NA defence. Russia uses their nuke boats almost exclusively in their own arctic waters, protecting them under their own air envelope and just waiting for the second strike missile launch in the even of a nuclear war. The point of a nuke boat in the arctic from the NATO side is to get to those boomers and sink them so there isn't a second strike capability. Canada doesn't do that mission.

You mention we don’t do that mission “in passing” like it’s no big deal. We don’t do it because we are a militarily cheap nation. That is actually a fairly big deal that we can’t add to that fight.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I have personally put nuke boats into “non-sensor“ mode on at least a couple of occasions…

 

[Dana381]

View attachment 77254
Which I would argue doesn’t really do much, for 6 months of the year.
The white is March 2022 Ice Pack, and the pink line is the 30 year median.

I know what your driving at and I belive you mean anticipated concept of operatations (not stated requirements). I think that the potential concept of ops for a RCN Patrol Sub includes: Arctic patrol (clear of ice and under ice), domestic patrol (EEZ), foreign operations in Europe and northern Asia (Japan, Korea region).

If you are going to use the sub for deterrance of China and Russia operations in Europe and Northern Asia a DE will fit those just fine. If you want to deter anyone from coming into domestic waters and our EEZ then a DE does that better than a nuke boat.

If you want to do under ice arctic operations then yah, a nuke boat is better. But I've yet to be convinced that under ice operations are actually important to NA defence. Russia uses their nuke boats almost exclusively in their own arctic waters, protecting them under their own air envelope and just waiting for the second strike missile launch in the even of a nuclear war. The point of a nuke boat in the arctic from the NATO side is to get to those boomers and sink them so there isn't a second strike capability. Canada doesn't do that mission.

For understanding of what's going on in the Canadian arctic then passive sensors at strategic points, combined with air operations and patrol ships is better. Frankly trying to go through the NW passage in a submarine is suicide at any time of year as the ice can go all the way to the bottom when it piles up and creates dams. There are clear area's where the bottom is scraped by ice consistantly. And the arctic is pretty shallow.

If we're looking further afield (like Arctic Ocean) then I question whether that is really necessary as all our strategic infrastructure is below 50 N for the most part and the arctic landmass will have air sensors with the NORAD rebuild (hopefully sooner then later).

But with allies for basing there is nothing for those area's of operations that a DE can't deal with. The reasons that Aussies want nuke boats is because they don't have allies for basing (or basing that wouldn't immediately be under threat from China) and need to do very long range patrols away from home.

A Canadian concept of operations likely doesn't have long range patrol a long way from home outside of NATO or North Asia. We frankly don't need to add our subs to the South China Sea. That's not where our strategic interests lay. They lay in protecting/helping our allies in North Asia and Europe.

So given this thought process a DE boat is perfectly acceptable. Will it need more legs then most DE? Sure. But we don't need a nuke boat. The concept of operations doesn't have a critical path that leads us to a "must have" conclusion.

With the Ice pack that KB posted and the fact the only adversarial country in that ice pack is Russia and the fact that we know the Americans are shadowing the Russian subs constantly, Would we not be better served buying a long legged AIP sub. Wiki claims the 212 can stay submerged for 21 days and cover 1600NM. The real specs are surely not on Wiki so it is likely longer.

Can an AIP travel under ice at all? What if we have the OEM strengthen the sub so it can egress through ice if needed?
This paper suggests the 212 could meet our needs.

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/405/192/meredith.pdf

Not sure I agree 100%. A DE is defeated with simple hold down tactics. It’s a pretty significant weak point.

A nuc is always in a sensor profile; the same can’t be said about diesel boats.



You mention we don’t do that mission “in passing” like it’s no big deal. We don’t do it because we are a militarily cheap nation. That is actually a fairly big deal that we can’t add to that fight.

Holding down a sub for 21 days must be extremely expensive and by that time surface assets could likely break up the hold down? At less than 1 bcad each for the 212's and appx 5 bcad for a Virginia Could we not get much more bang for our buck buying three times as many 212's and use the infra savings to pump up recruiting? Having a solid patrol of our waters on both coasts with a proper size sub force would be better in my mind than having maybe 1 nuc boat operational at any given time. 60 bcad can buy a lot of AIP subs even if you count most of it for life cycle costs. Maybe, just maybe the navy is getting serious about our sub force.

This debate reminds me of the Sherman vs Tiger fight in WW2. Many cheaper units won over a few expensive units.

 

[OldSolduer]

I have personally put nuke boats into “non-sensor“ mode on at least a couple of occasions…

You sir have my admiration. Well done

 

[KevinB]

With the Ice pack that KB posted and the fact the only adversarial country in that ice pack is Russia and the fact that we know the Americans are shadowing the Russian subs constantly, Would we not be better served buying a long legged AIP sub. Wiki claims the 212 can stay submerged for 21 days and cover 1600NM. The real specs are surely not on Wiki so it is likely longer.

Can an AIP travel under ice at all? What if we have the OEM strengthen the sub so it can egress through ice if needed?
This paper suggests the 212 could meet our needs.

https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/405/192/meredith.pdf

Holding down a sub for 21 days must be extremely expensive and by that time surface assets could likely break up the hold down? At less than 1 bcad each for the 212's and appx 5 bcad for a Virginia Could we not get much more bang for our buck buying three times as many 212's and use the infra savings to pump up recruiting? Having a solid patrol of our waters on both coasts with a proper size sub force would be better in my mind than having maybe 1 nuc boat operational at any given time. 60 bcad can buy a lot of AIP subs even if you count most of it for life cycle costs. Maybe, just maybe the navy is getting serious about our sub force.

This debate reminds me of the Sherman vs Tiger fight in WW2. Many cheaper units won over a few expensive units.

Ice Strengthening to work under Multi Year pack ice is an entirely new hull design and not the 212. Your 1b boat is now a completely different vessel, and needs to be build from scratch.
I suspect the Virginia’s would be the cheaper option to those.