Replacing the Subs

[JMCanada]

The air issue is more about fire then it is about operations.  A nuke boat has oodles of power to create O2 though electrolysis.  A diesel sub usually doesn't create O2, it either stores it (LOx) or scrubs CO2 instead. 

AIP usually needs a big amount of stored LOx (liquid oxygen), either for the stirling engine or for the fuel cells, so that oxygen needed for the crew to breath for 2-3 weeks is only a small fraction of the stored LOx (quite below 5%). Replenish oxygen to the boat in case of fire should not be a problem.

However AFAIK, in order to crack the ice cap and emerge in the Arctic, two features are needed: buoyancy and strengthened hull (and sail, rudder, hydroplanes, sensors, etc). So the options would lead for something about 3,000 tons or above.

This year dutchs are to select their future subs among A26, Type 212 or a French Barracuda variant. Japan is retiring from Stirling technology but it has shown up as a robust technology. Unfortunately it seems too late to join the Netherlands and work together to develop and build a common boat.

 

[stellarpanther]

What is the cost to build and then operate any potential new subs?  Without having any real knowledge, I'm guessing it's a lot and maybe that program should be eliminated.  Going a little off topic, I realize we have a relatively small military as it is but perhaps we should shrink it even more and have a military that we can properly maintain and keep up to date with modern equipment and weapons.  We also need to accept the fact that we are a small country (population) and start doing only what we can afford and stop trying to punch above our weight class. 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

What is the cost to build and then operate any potential new subs?  Without having any real knowledge, I'm guessing it's a lot and maybe that program should be eliminated.  Going a little off topic, I realize we have a relatively small military as it is but perhaps we should shrink it even more and have a military that we can properly maintain and keep up to date with modern equipment and weapons.  We also need to accept the fact that we are a small country (population) and start doing only what we can afford and stop trying to punch above our weight class.

You are right about one thing...you don’t have any real knowledge.

Those of us who do have real knowledge of submarines are terrified by the Sovereignty, security, strategic and foreign policy debacle that would occur should we give up a submarine capability. Believe me when I say the capability is worth every penny (and more).

 

[stellarpanther]

You are right about one thing...you don’t have any real knowledge.

Those of us who do have real knowledge of submarines are terrified by the Sovereignty, security, strategic and foreign policy debacle that would occur should we give up a submarine capability. Believe me when I say the capability is worth every penny (and more).

Pretty sure I don't need to read your sarcastic BS.  You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Pretty sure I don't need to read your sarcastic BS.  You're entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine.

I wasn’t being sarcastic to you in any way, shape or form.

There are opinions. And then there are informed opinions.

Which was yours, again?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You are right about one thing...you don’t have any real knowledge.

Those of us who do have real knowledge of submarines are terrified by the Sovereignty, security, strategic and foreign policy debacle that would occur should we give up a submarine capability. Believe me when I say the capability is worth every penny (and more).

Not to mention the corporate knowledge and skillsets we have built up around the Victoria Class, both onboard and ashore. These subs give Canada way more than people realize. If they divest the fleet, my guess is many of the trained personal will be offered jobs with the RAN to man their new subs coming online.

 

[quadrapiper]

I wasn’t being sarcastic to you in any way, shape or form.

There are opinions. And then there are informed opinions.

Also: standpoints (subs are a Good Thing To Have) that're foundational in nature.

 

[Uzlu]

What is the cost to build and then operate any potential new subs?  Without having any real knowledge, I'm guessing it's a lot and maybe that program should be eliminated.  Going a little off topic, I realize we have a relatively small military as it is but perhaps we should shrink it even more and have a military that we can properly maintain and keep up to date with modern equipment and weapons.  We also need to accept the fact that we are a small country (population) and start doing only what we can afford and stop trying to punch above our weight class.

Submarines have been expensive, are expensive, and probably always will be expensive.  Lots of good reasons for submarines have been given in this thread.  Shrink Canada’s military spending even more?  After we promised the Americans to spend a minimum of 2% of our gross domestic product on the military?
 
Canada should act honourably and keep its promises.  Canada has a relatively small population.  But, by gross domestic product, it is, in the world, number ten.  We shall be punching above our weight class when we spend more than 2% of our gross domestic product on the military.

 

[PuckChaser]

Those of us who do have real knowledge of submarines are terrified by the Sovereignty, security, strategic and foreign policy debacle that would occur should we give up a submarine capability. Believe me when I say the capability is worth every penny (and more).

Considering all 4 subs had 0 sea days last year, you must have spent the whole year terrified. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632

Strong, Secure, Engaged even has that replacement boats aren't coming until 2040. Comd RCN says in the article we can operate the boats into the 2030s... whether that's early, middle or late will determine how many years we'll be completely without a viable submarine capability (just like last year).

The article even says we've spent $750M CAD in 2 years on maintenance, repairs and upkeep, and a quick look at Wikipedia's cited news articles shows an absolutely terrible number of sea days we've gotten out of the Upholders for the money we're dropping on them. SP has a point, we're flushing money down the drain to keep lemons barely at sea. Either we start a replacement project now and hope to drag out their life with existing contracts until we have the first new hull in the water, or cut our losses to retire them now and just begrudgingly accept that the Government of Canada does not value a submarine force as much as the people who are advising on naval tactics.

 

[Stoker]

Considering all 4 subs had 0 sea days last year, you must have spent the whole year terrified. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632

Strong, Secure, Engaged even has that replacement boats aren't coming until 2040. Comd RCN says in the article we can operate the boats into the 2030s... whether that's early, middle or late will determine how many years we'll be completely without a viable submarine capability (just like last year).

The article even says we've spent $750M CAD in 2 years on maintenance, repairs and upkeep, and a quick look at Wikipedia's cited news articles shows an absolutely terrible number of sea days we've gotten out of the Upholders for the money we're dropping on them. SP has a point, we're flushing money down the drain to keep lemons barely at sea. Either we start a replacement project now and hope to drag out their life with existing contracts until we have the first new hull in the water, or cut our losses to retire them now and just begrudgingly accept that the Government of Canada does not value a submarine force as much as the people who are advising on naval tactics.

I think that's a very unfair thing to say. Four submarines and the frequency of maintenance and circumstances beyond the RCN's control almost guarantees that we will have times where no units are available. Last year was such a year. Cutting our losses is not a option I hope, although with this government I am very surprised that it hasn't occurred yet as it is a very big target given he amount of money spent by the government during the last 90 days.

 

[MilEME09]

How much is it these days roughly to operate a sub vs a surface ship? I cannot find any accurate modern statistics, however a senate defense report from the 80s said 12 subs would be cheaper then 12 surface ships to operate. Does that still hold true? Of course this is assuming you had a brand new sub vs a brand new warship.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Considering all 4 subs had 0 sea days last year, you must have spent the whole year terrified. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/submarines-canada-fleet-repairs-canadian-navy-1.5458632

Strong, Secure, Engaged even has that replacement boats aren't coming until 2040. Comd RCN says in the article we can operate the boats into the 2030s... whether that's early, middle or late will determine how many years we'll be completely without a viable submarine capability (just like last year).

The article even says we've spent $750M CAD in 2 years on maintenance, repairs and upkeep, and a quick look at Wikipedia's cited news articles shows an absolutely terrible number of sea days we've gotten out of the Upholders for the money we're dropping on them. SP has a point, we're flushing money down the drain to keep lemons barely at sea. Either we start a replacement project now and hope to drag out their life with existing contracts until we have the first new hull in the water, or cut our losses to retire them now and just begrudgingly accept that the Government of Canada does not value a submarine force as much as the people who are advising on naval tactics.

The problem is the RCN can't broadcast the Subs actual sailing and maintenance schedule because it's a secret.  You can imagine how COVID-19 has played havoc on everyone's schedule though.

 

[dimsum]

If they divest the fleet, my guess is many of the trained personal will be offered jobs with the RAN to man their new subs coming online.

So really, no change from what the ADF did (and still does) for many trades.

 

[Navy_Pete]

How much is it these days roughly to operate a sub vs a surface ship? I cannot find any accurate modern statistics, however a senate defense report from the 80s said 12 subs would be cheaper then 12 surface ships to operate. Does that still hold true? Of course this is assuming you had a brand new sub vs a brand new warship.

There used to be a AMD(Fin-CS) report that had the operating costs for all equipment on the DWAN that broke down the personnel, maintenance, and operating expenses. Don't think it's been updated in a few years, but that might have the total spend. That info is all public, as it's just line items in various budgets. They included cost per sea day, which was just a cumulative total of the # of sea days for each class, averaged out over the whole fleet. Also had the cost of aircraft and army vehicles there as well.

Can't see subs being cheaper to operate overall though; they might have slightly smaller crews then some ships, and use less fuel per day, but the maintenance costs alone completely dwarf a surface ship by a multiple (5? 10?).

 

[JMCanada]

Let me drop an open question for which myself have no clear answer... would it be smart to buy 4 SSNs from UK (Astute class) or France (Barracuda class)? As they are, with minimum canadianizing to avoid or minimize cost overruns, project risks and delays.

Both countries will finish their production by late 2020s, so probably could deliver 4 more units sometime between 2030 and 2035, should the agreement come soon, let's say before 2023-24.
Both allies may not be interested on stretching their series since they will also need to start production for the next, SSBN series for replacement of the current ones. But once the production line is on place... having an extended series for a trustworthy ally is always interesting, allows to reduce overall costs and provides further collaboration contracts for maintenance.

Of course, my proposal implies that some agreement should be in place for local maintenance and refuelling up to some extent. I'm pretty sure Canadian nuclear sector is or would be able to do so.

This should be a bipartisan agreement and would allow for Arctic surveillance as well. Later on, planning could be done for further AIP SSKs, maybe 6 to 8, to be built with some local content.

I know that an "hybrid" fleet with two types of submarines (SSNs and SSKs) is more expensive, but wouldn't it be worth it? Could base one type on each coast. SSNs would be Canadian "non-nuclear deterrence", but "arctic deterrence" instead, providing the capability to effectively monitor and show sovereignty under the Arctic.

Problem is that politicians would be comfortable after first SSNs were on duty and would never after try to get the AIP ones, the second batch. Once again four boats only.

 

[Uzlu]

would it be smart to buy 4 SSNs from UK (Astute class) or France (Barracuda class)?

Are you sure the Americans will allow this?

 

[Stoker]

Let me drop an open question for which myself have no clear answer... would it be smart to buy 4 SSNs from UK (Astute class) or France (Barracuda class)? As they are, with minimum canadianizing to avoid or minimize cost overruns, project risks and delays.

Both countries will finish their production by late 2020s, so probably could deliver 4 more units sometime between 2030 and 2035, should the agreement come soon, let's say before 2023-24.
Both allies may not be interested on stretching their series since they will also need to start production for the next, SSBN series for replacement of the current ones. But once the production line is on place... having an extended series for a trustworthy ally is always interesting, allows to reduce overall costs and provides further collaboration contracts for maintenance.

Of course, my proposal implies that some agreement should be in place for local maintenance and refuelling up to some extent. I'm pretty sure Canadian nuclear sector is or would be able to do so.

This should be a bipartisan agreement and would allow for Arctic surveillance as well. Later on, planning could be done for further AIP SSKs, maybe 6 to 8, to be built with some local content.

I know that an "hybrid" fleet with two types of submarines (SSNs and SSKs) is more expensive, but wouldn't it be worth it? Could base one type on each coast. SSNs would be Canadian "non-nuclear deterrence", but "arctic deterrence" instead, providing the capability to effectively monitor and show sovereignty under the Arctic.

Problem is that politicians would be comfortable after first SSNs were on duty and would never after try to get the AIP ones, the second batch. Once again four boats only.

I'm sure if we did a search on Canada procuring Nuclear submarines you would find many such posts advocating for just that. Yes for Arctic sovereignty they are what you want, talk about AIP all you want its too finicky to retro fit into the Upholders and no one has placed a AIP sub under the ice yet. Canada procuring nuclear submarines is a dead issue, our government and the public will never allow it, not to mention other external influences that already scuttled the governments attempt to procure such platforms in the past. If people are complaining about what the Upholders are costing us, try imagining what nuclear boats would cost in maintenance and infrastructure alone.
My take on the matter given the financial mess we are currently in do to Covid we will be lucky to hold on to what we have let along buying anything else. More than likely we will continue to limp on with the upholders until we have no other option to retire the boats with no replacement.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Let me drop an open question for which myself have no clear answer... would it be smart to buy 4 SSNs from UK (Astute class) or France (Barracuda class)? As they are, with minimum canadianizing to avoid or minimize cost overruns, project risks and delays.

Both countries will finish their production by late 2020s, so probably could deliver 4 more units sometime between 2030 and 2035, should the agreement come soon, let's say before 2023-24.
Both allies may not be interested on stretching their series since they will also need to start production for the next, SSBN series for replacement of the current ones. But once the production line is on place... having an extended series for a trustworthy ally is always interesting, allows to reduce overall costs and provides further collaboration contracts for maintenance.

Of course, my proposal implies that some agreement should be in place for local maintenance and refuelling up to some extent. I'm pretty sure Canadian nuclear sector is or would be able to do so.

This should be a bipartisan agreement and would allow for Arctic surveillance as well. Later on, planning could be done for further AIP SSKs, maybe 6 to 8, to be built with some local content.

I know that an "hybrid" fleet with two types of submarines (SSNs and SSKs) is more expensive, but wouldn't it be worth it? Could base one type on each coast. SSNs would be Canadian "non-nuclear deterrence", but "arctic deterrence" instead, providing the capability to effectively monitor and show sovereignty under the Arctic.

Problem is that politicians would be comfortable after first SSNs were on duty and would never after try to get the AIP ones, the second batch. Once again four boats only.

One thing to keep in mind that we would need dedicated new base(s) for any nuclear ships to allow a suitable security cordon, so that would be a big expense (with a dedicated maintenance wing, etc). Also, some people consider them a nuclear weapon system, so there would be massive political pushback, on top of the pushback about the expense.

Honestly can't see it happening for those reasons, regardless of whether or not it's a big strategic advantage. If we didn't get into it during the cold war, not going to happen now, and the US is openly against us having a nuc sub fleet.  We can make non-nuclear subs work in our current infrastructure, so would just be happy if we aren't seriously sailing them around for their 50th birthday before replacing them.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

What is the cost to build and then operate any potential new subs?  Without having any real knowledge, I'm guessing it's a lot and maybe that program should be eliminated.  Going a little off topic, I realize we have a relatively small military as it is but perhaps we should shrink it even more and have a military that we can properly maintain and keep up to date with modern equipment and weapons.  We also need to accept the fact that we are a small country (population) and start doing only what we can afford and stop trying to punch above our weight class.

I'd be curious to see why you want to eliminate a program capability after stating you have no knowledge of submarines or their (tactical, operational and/or strategic) capability.

If you eliminate the submarine fleet and their cap's and lim's (capabilities and limitations), what would the CAF gain and what would we lose, in your opinion?

If you have no knowledge, are you interested in attaining some? 

 

[GR66]

My personal opinion is that while nuclear subs would be a great asset for Canada it's just not going to happen for the many reasons that have been mentioned here.

I think if we do get replacement subs then we should definitely partner with an ally to make a joint purchase so that we don't have an orphan fleet that is 100% unique to us.  I'm guessing that the Australian Attack-Class would best match our requirements and specs over one being built for a European navy?