Replacing the Subs

[GR66]

its just another AIP isnt it?

It wouldn't be a nuclear powered sub, it would be a conventional sub with a nuclear battery charger.

 

[quadrapiper]

If we can overcome the security issues, this is actually a path that I can see potentially working. The submarine would be USN property, but “leased” to Canada. It would do all it’s maintenance in the US (there is a very convenient submarine base proximate to Esquimalt); with US regulatory oversight on subsafe. We provide the crew.

How much value, looking at that proximity, is found in having SSKs available for USN/RCN/RCAF to train with, and within NATO/Five Eyes/etc. in other settings?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

How much value, looking at that proximity, is found in having SSKs available for USN/RCN/RCAF to train with, and within NATO/Five Eyes/etc. in other settings?

You don’t spend 10s of billions on a clockwork mouse…

 

[quadrapiper]

You don’t spend 10s of billions on a clockwork mouse…

Not on its own, but would having non-nuclear subs retained in the Anglosphere be a good idea?

 

[FJAG]

Range and speed of Virginia...

My point is that even if Canada jumps with both feet into AUKUS today - that it would take years to get a RCN crew able to fully crew a SSN. There are trades on those boats that have no Canadian equivalent - so you would need to crawl, walk, run into that sort of endeavor just like the Aussies are having to do -- the main difference is that Canada does have a Nuclear Power program, and that puts it exceedingly ahead of the Aussies.

If you took the notational 212 crew for the Victorias, that would be probably enough for 3 partial USN/RCN boats. You could work up to 4-6 partial RCN/USN boats in a few years. It would give Canada some personnel in and around the Arctic - and probably be the best bang for there buck - even if there was never an intent to get fully RCN SSN boats.

My solution is to axe a couple or three CSCs and - Boom - you have the crews for all the boats you want plus a healthy down payment on them as well. Plus we have plenty of time to get the crews trained. It would give enough time for Irving or Seaspan to learn how to build a hull for an SSN.

Is there magic in the number 15 or will 6 per coast do?

 

[tomydoom]

My solution is to axe a couple or three CSCs and - Boom - you have the crews for all the boats you want plus a healthy down payment on them as well. Plus we have plenty of time to get the crews trained. It would give enough time for Irving or Seaspan to learn how to build a hull for an SSN.

Is there magic in the number 15 or will 6 per coast do?

As I recall, this was already done once before. The third tranche of CPFs were cancelled to pay for SSNs and in the end the then Maritime Command got neither. Hopefully the good idea fairy was not listening.

 

[JMCanada]

It wouldn't be a nuclear powered sub, it would be a conventional sub with a nuclear battery charger.

The old slowpoke reactor power, 20kW, would not be sufficient. The "new slowpoke" has 5MW, which would be probably enough to reach 21-22 knots in a Type 212CD. This is the eVinci reactor which is going to be tested in Saskatchewan for civilian purposes, project contract signed last year.

Should it be developed for marine military standards, I would bet for it to be installed in a second batch of 4 submarines for the RCN. To be clear, start with 6-9 SSK (whether Korean or German), low risk project. After 10-12 years from now, when those SSKs start to be delivered, and with the experience gained in Sask., start the design and construction of the 2nd batch of 4 boats with this modular reactor.

The best of this reactor is that the "primary circuit" is embedded in the whole thing, does not require pumps (less noise and chances for breakdowns) and needs little surveillance.

It says 8-years lifetime at base power. Considering the subs would seldom need full power, it might reach 10-years of operation (redesign components if needed). Then, in a major planned refit, substitute the whole "power module" by a new one.

eVinci™ Microreactor | Westinghouse Nuclear

Westinghouse is currently developing the eVinci™ Microreactor, a next-generation, very small modular reactor for decentralized remote applications

www.westinghousenuclear.com

 

[SeaKingTacco]

My solution is to axe a couple or three CSCs and - Boom - you have the crews for all the boats you want plus a healthy down payment on them as well. Plus we have plenty of time to get the crews trained. It would give enough time for Irving or Seaspan to learn how to build a hull for an SSN.

Is there magic in the number 15 or will 6 per coast do?

There is actual real world staff work behind 15 CSC. It is not a made up number. To go below that number would require the Government to revise downward it’s promised commitments to NATO and other Allies.

 

[KevinB]

There is actual real world staff work behind 15 CSC. It is not a made up number. To go below that number would require the Government to revise downward it’s promised commitments to NATO and other Allies.

Agreed, but the question could also be asked does a number of Virginia type SSNs (or to be fair to the non SSN crowds a 6-10 AIP SSK) offer something that could take the slack out of some of the CSC needs?

 

[GK .Dundas]

As I recall wasn't the CPF programme originally going to be eighteen hulls and for a promised NATO commitment as well ?
We stopped at twelve because the government of the day promised to buy some submarines for the navy.
Sound vaguely familiar for some odd reason.

 

[MacNav63]

As I recall wasn't the CPF programme originally going to be eighteen hulls and for a promised NATO commitment as well ?
We stopped at twelve because the government of the day promised to buy some submarines for the navy.
Sound vaguely familiar for some odd reason.

There was supposed to have been a third tranche of six ships but they were sacrificed to the peace dividend after the Berlin Wall came down. Or I should say the second peace dividend after PET took one in 69-70...

 

[suffolkowner]

There is actual real world staff work behind 15 CSC. It is not a made up number. To go below that number would require the Government to revise downward it’s promised commitments to NATO and other Allies.

I feel like it wouldnt be the first time we didnt meet commitments to our Allies
Whens the last time we had 15 ships? 2014?
Whens the next time we are going to have 15? 2045?

 

[FJAG]

There is actual real world staff work behind 15 CSC. It is not a made up number. To go below that number would require the Government to revise downward it’s promised commitments to NATO and other Allies.

I appreciate that, but there is very little in the of budget math that gets Canada to new boats unless the commitment of CSCs is revised to allow for boats that can consistently perform.

My own preferences are for vessels that can provide an effective deterrent in the Arctic passages.

As for NATO, Germany should really step up there. They're about our size in the way of its fleet. It would behoove them to emulate France, at least. Poland I'll give a bye because they're hemmed in to the Baltic and are already more than stepping up to rebuild their army.

 

[Furniture]

I feel like it wouldnt be the first time we didnt meet commitments to our Allies
Whens the last time we had 15 ships? 2014?
Whens the next time we are going to have 15? 2045?

If you don't build them before you need them, you won't have them when you do need them.

That is the lesson we should be taking from 2014 onward, not "we can get by with less".

 

[suffolkowner]

If you don't build them before you need them, you won't have them when you do need them.

That is the lesson we should be taking from 2014 onward, not "we can get by with less".

it seems that the government position has been get by with less for the entire CAF

30 yr gap on surface combatant numbers
AOR gap
submarine gap?

 

[MilEME09]

its about to become a UOR at this rate, then just sole source from South Korea 10 KSS-III's

 

[Czech_pivo]

I appreciate that, but there is very little in the of budget math that gets Canada to new boats unless the commitment of CSCs is revised to allow for boats that can consistently perform.

My own preferences are for vessels that can provide an effective deterrent in the Arctic passages.

As for NATO, Germany should really step up there. They're about our size in the way of its fleet. It would behoove them to emulate France, at least. Poland I'll give a bye because they're hemmed in to the Baltic and are already more than stepping up to rebuild their army.

I'd say the Spanish, the Dutch and the Italians need to step up.

 

[MilEME09]

As I recall wasn't the CPF programme originally going to be eighteen hulls and for a promised NATO commitment as well ?
We stopped at twelve because the government of the day promised to buy some submarines for the navy.
Sound vaguely familiar for some odd reason.

Yes, the RCN gave up flight III in exchange for a six pack of nuclear attack subs. Cold war ended, Mulrony's government fell, and the RCN didn't get the frigates or the subs

 

[GR66]

Yes, the RCN gave up flight III in exchange for a six pack of nuclear attack subs. Cold war ended, Mulrony's government fell, and the RCN didn't get the frigates or the subs

I think it's cute that someone back then thought that the money from the 6 x Flight III CPFs would have covered the cost of 6 x SSN's.

 

[Stoker]

My solution is to axe a couple or three CSCs and - Boom - you have the crews for all the boats you want plus a healthy down payment on them as well. Plus we have plenty of time to get the crews trained. It would give enough time for Irving or Seaspan to learn how to build a hull for an SSN.

Is there magic in the number 15 or will 6 per coast do?

Do you really think all those "crews" freed up are going to want to sail subs, I think not.