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

[Lex Parsimoniae]

The major availability issues with the Collins is that their refits are taking too long, exacerbated by lack of crew. Both issues should be handled over the next few years as they get more experience.

Main Motor, batteries, sea water systems, and diesels are all flawed.  Hence the inquiry.  Maybe your info is better than the Australian Government though.

You could generate similar numbers from dividing the number of days at sea by the current submarine program costs...

You could generate numbers...just not similar though.  Somewhere around 25% at a per hull cost.

The diesels on the Collins apparently had manufacturing defects that have been rectified.

Good to know.  You may want to let the Cole Review know.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The Cole Review is a ministerial review at the political level, responding to public perception of problems with the Collins class. It's not RAN, although any information the RAN has will be used by the review. If the RAN was running this, it would be a BoI under different rules.

The issues that you mentioned have been issues, but most have only been major once. The lessons were learned and those particular issues didn't happen again. It's not that they weren't major and they had a large effect on the boats availabilities, but they aren't a reasonable predictor of future performance. The major issues that have ben repeated have been refits running over-long and low crew numbers. The first should be addressed as they get more experience doing these refits, and the second is turning around now.

In terms of per-sea-day cost equivalents, we would have a division-by-zero problem. We haven't had a fully certified boat since Onondaga paid off, so the first sea day for Victoria would have to bear the entire cost of the program divided by 1. That's not reasonable as a future predictor either.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Actually, I couldn't find anything on the range/depth capabilities of the Gotland class. As a comparison the German U-214 class which is also uses an AIP system has a range of 12,000 nm (surface) or submerged - 420 nmi @ 8 kt/1,248 nmi @ 4 kt. The U-214 was tested to a depth of 214m, with a theoretical depth of 400m.


The U-214 seems a tad bigger, but the Upholders are 10m larger than the Gotland class

Gotland class

The A26 is planned to be capable of both littoral and deep blue sea operations.

isplacement: Surfaced: 1,494 tonnes (1,470 long tons)
Submerged: 1,599 tonnes (1,574 long tons)
Length: 60.4 m (198 ft 2 in)
Beam: 6.2 m (20 ft 4 in)
Draft: 5.6 m (18 ft 4 in)
Propulsion: 2× Diesel-electric MTU engines
2× Kockums v4-275R Stirling AIP units
Speed: Surfaced: 11 knots (20 km/h)
Submerged: 20 knots (37 km/h) on batteries; 5 knots (9.3 km/h) on AIP

U-214
Displacement: 1,690 t (surfaced), 1,860 t (submerged)
Length: 213 feet 3 inches (65.0 m)
Beam: 20 feet 8 inches (6.3 m)
Draught: 19 feet 8 inches (6.0 m)
Propulsion: Diesel-electric, fuel cell AIP, low noise skew back propeller
Speed: 12 kt surfaced
20 kt submerged
Range: 12,000 miles (19,300 km) surfaced
420 nmi (780 km) @ 8 kt
1,248 nmi (2,311 km) @ 4 kt

Upholder Class

Displacement: 2,455 tons
Length: 70.26 m
Beam: 7.2 m
Draught: 7.6 m
Propulsion: Diesel-electric- 1 shaft
2 × Paxman Valenta 2,035 hp (1.517 MW) 1600 RPA SZ diesels (3.035 MW total)
1 × GEC electric motor (5 MW)
Speed: 12 knots (surface)
20+ knots (submerged)
Range: 8,000 nmi (15,000 km; 9,200 mi)

 

[a_majoor]

An old article, but it lays out many of the options that are still on the table today:

http://centreforforeignpolicystudies.dal.ca/cdq/Compton%20Hall%20Winter%201989.PDF

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

ugh....just saw on Wikipedia that the RCN is looking at getting up to 8 Virginia class SSNs.  :

 

[yoman]

ugh....just saw on Wikipedia that the RCN is looking at getting up to 8 Virginia class SSNs.  :

If it's on wikipedia it must be true.  8)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

For a few hunderd dollars no less  ;D

http://www.fxmodels.com/192Virginia.shtml

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

For a few hunderd dollars no less  ;D

http://www.fxmodels.com/192Virginia.shtml

Oh those are nice....

 

[Navy_Blue]

You guys have no idea how close we are to having no Subs.  Nukes are not going to happen.  It will be heart braking if these boats get canceled at the 11th hour.  We have spent so much money to this point and committed millions more for the future.  It will be just like the EH-101 the contractors will get all the cash for doing nothing.  For those that say it will never happen I believe the public is getting more upset and the government is having a harder and harder time selling the platform with no results. 

 

[Edward Campbell]

Every "fleet" is always under the gun. The submarines have a lot of high level support from a lot of sources: civil and military.

There are those, to be sure, who support the submarines simply because they believe that when we have a real, valid operational requirement for something we must never back down in the face of public or political pressure - even, as was the case with Admiral John Anderson  in 1993, "speaking truth to power" costs one his job. (Anderson was CDS and was fired by Jean Chrétien for contradicting Chrétien's assertions that the Navy didn't need either nuclear submarines (I'm not sure about the need but I am certain (because of where I used to work) that the Mulroney/Beatty cost figure of $10 billion was too low by at least $10 billion) or EH-101s.

But there are also many senior officers and senior civil service who understand the need for a balanced force and who understand that submarines, however few, are part of that balance.

Some people talk about "higher priority" needs for tanks, guns, aircraft, etc but they are reminded that what goes around comes around and, eventually, the Navy will be in charge. So they, too, are "on board" if only for insurance purposes.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

You could use the "balanced force" argument to justify anything from carrier aviation to launching our own RORSATS.

The question is whether the current submarine capability is worth it's opportunity cost to the rest of the Navy and the CF in general. I think the capability is seen as worth the cost right now, while the current Arctic negotiations are being worked out. That may change when the negotiations are complete.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

You could use the "balanced force" argument to justify anything from carrier aviation to launching our own RORSATS.

The question is whether the current submarine capability is worth it's opportunity cost to the rest of the Navy and the CF in general. I think the capability is seen as worth the cost right now, while the current Arctic negotiations are being worked out. That may change when the negotiations are complete.

If it's seen as worth the investment now, won't that positive impression only increase as more boats become operational?

As a side note, in order to try to obtain NDP support, I'm surprised that no one in the Navy is suggesting that any nextgen submarines should be discussed in the context of being an add-on to the existing National Shipbuilding Program.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

If it's seen as worth the investment now, won't that positive impression only increase as more boats become operational?

As a side note, in order to try to obtain NDP support, I'm surprised that no one in the Navy is suggesting that any nextgen submarines should be discussed in the context of being an add-on to the existing National Shipbuilding Program.

Maybe someone in a backroom has?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

WHy is NDP support required?

 

[aesop081]

WHy is NDP support required?

He forgot that "majority" translates to "suck it NDP" in political language ?

 

[Haletown]

He forgot that "majority" translates to "suck it NDP" in political language ?

NDP support is as useful as a jock strap with worn out elastic.

 

[Canadian.Trucker]

NDP support is as useful as a jock strap with worn out elastic.

I'd rather take the jock strap, at least it has some potential value, which is more than can be said for the NDP.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

WHy is NDP support required?

The reality is if you don't get the NDP onboard, as the official opposition, the NDP can directly and indirectly (using mouthpieces like Steven Staples) create a non-stop stream of negative news releases that galvanizes a large portion of the population against the purchase..

On the other hand if they're on board with the idea by focusing on domestic labour spending....not only do you not need to fight, you may actually gain an ally.

Basic Art of War principles.... 

 

[OldSolduer]

The biggest problem I see here is the word "nuclear".

It doesn't matter if its stated "nuclear powered submarines which can submerge for x number of days at a time to patrol under the Arctic ice pack". Left wingers and enviro types will stop at the word "nuclear".

PLUS - our allies may not want to transfer technology to us.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Maybe we should start pronouncing it "nukelar", a la Bush.

Seriously though, during Nuke Boats round one (Mulroney era), the French had no qualms about selling us their attack boats. In view of their current military ships order book, I am sure they still would be willing.

As for the Americans, in round one, they could not accommodate us (some thought they did not want too, but in fact, it was height of cold war and they were cranking out their own nuke boats as fast as they could), but they did authorize the Brits to sell us their subs, which required US authorization because Brits use American nuclear power plants themselves. The US had no problems with that and the Brit boats were probably just as good as US ones technologically.

Nowadays, the US has problems getting congress to buy enough replacement nuclear subs at a level barely sufficient to retain the technological knowledge base required at the yards that build them. 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.