Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

ExPB14_JAS-39_Gripen.jpg

ExPB14_Mirage2000.jpg

6_EXPB14_20140729_088_3_RSAF_F16s.jpg

5_EXPB14_20140729_143_3_RSAF_F-15SGs.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Canada may buy Nuclear Subs!

This is a discussion on Canada may buy Nuclear Subs! within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; After the diaster of the diesel powered subs we bought from the UK. The federal government is playing with the ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 2.00 average.
Old October 31st, 2011   #1
New Member
Private
JTF-2's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 15
Threads:
Canada may buy Nuclear Subs!

After the diaster of the diesel powered subs we bought from the UK. The federal government is playing with the idea of purchasing nuclear subs.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stor...h-nuclear.html

Last edited by JTF-2; October 31st, 2011 at 02:29 PM.
JTF-2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 31st, 2011   #2
New Member
Private
JTF-2's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 15
Threads:
Here is the link

Canada may buy nuclear submarines - Politics - CBC News
JTF-2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2011   #3
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,514
Threads:
When did this idea last surface & get quashed? 1990s?
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 1st, 2011   #4
New Member
Private
JTF-2's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 15
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by swerve View Post
When did this idea last surface & get quashed? 1990s?
It was in the late 80's when Brian Mulroney put a stop to it.
JTF-2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2011   #5
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 164
Threads:
Quote:
One of the subs, HMCS Chicoutimi, has been in active service of the Royal Canadian Navy exactly two days in the 13 years since it was purchased from the Brits.
WOW....that makes several of the Collins class subs look like a gem! I wonder how the Canucks will go crewing a Virginia class sized sub though?
rand0m is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2011   #6
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
kev 99's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 827
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by rand0m View Post
WOW....that makes several of the Collins class subs look like a gem! I wonder how the Canucks will go crewing a Virginia class sized sub though?
They almost certainly won't, I think most people on here would put money on the Canadians ditching the idea, probably after spending quite a bit of cash of feasibility studies to see if SSNs are the right option for them.

Besides if the Canadians were serious about the idea they might want to look at something with less crew like an Astute or a Barracuda class, both UK and French governments would probably be delighted to sell to the Canadians.

Last edited by kev 99; November 2nd, 2011 at 07:55 AM.
kev 99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2011   #7
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 3,061
Threads:
SSNs for Canada is one of those cases that the obvious solution is politically unacceptable.

The original project for 12 SSNs in the 80s started when Canada was persuing a conventional replacement for their Oberons. SSNs were intoduced into the mix not as a serious option but for the sake of comparison. The comparison however demonstrated that SSNs were the best option for Canada.

On the Victoria / Upholder Class I am very very glad the RAN wasn't lumbered with them as our piss head then defence minister intended. Canada would have been better off buying Collins class subs, at least they are supported by their parent neighbour.
Volkodav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2011   #8
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,631
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volkodav View Post

On the Victoria / Upholder Class I am very very glad the RAN wasn't lumbered with them as our piss head then defence minister intended. Canada would have been better off buying Collins class subs, at least they are supported by their parent neighbour.
I attended the briefing in 1999 when VADM Chris Barrie made it abundantly clear that we would not be buying Upholders as a second squadron whilst Collins was being established. He was quite clear in pointing out that they would cost more to maintain and still be less capable

Even then, the list of what was wrong with those subs was long and painful - and he said all of this even though canadian and RN personnel were in the room.

those boats were a disaster in 99, how anyone would think that they got better in the last 13 years is beyond me. they were in a sorry state in 98, let alone all the intervening years where there was a paucity of support and maint.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 2nd, 2011   #9
Senior Member
Brigadier General
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Sydney
Posts: 1,670
Threads:
I think the options for the Canadians are nuclears or Collins II.

Honestly I think Collins II would be a better go for them, get in at the ground level, get something that meets needs and requirements. Have a partner that is going to be helping and paying for upgrades, improvements, fixes. A partner that gets along very well with the US.

The o-boats were such great boats I can see why people thought the upholders would be again, awesome boats. But even the o-boats had signficant problems early on and it took at lot of development and time to get them to a capable level. Its just that it was shared between all Oboat users (usually). You can pretty much say that about every submarine (US just has the $'s and the hulls to make it seems easy).

Why didn't canada concider (well the article puts it this way) Collins? They could have been built in Canada, again shared systems, US support etc.

Collins was expensive, but we got something out of it. Upholders are on the level of seasprites where you get essentially nothing on your investments. I can't belive they paid $750m back in 98 given they had a rough idea of how much work was to go into them (lots!). For the money they spent (all up)they could have got 4 Collins subs, and have 1 avalible most of the time and still have a fair amount of life in them, and a partner to develop with. Instead they went alone with orphaned systems and ships.
StingrayOZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2011   #10
Defense Enthusiast
Captain
the road runner's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: sydney
Posts: 757
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
For the money they spent (all up)they could have got 4 Collins subs, and have 1 avalible most of the time and still have a fair amount of life in them, and a partner to develop with. Instead they went alone with orphaned systems and ships.
Would Collins 2 be of interest to The Canadian Navy now?Maybe The Australian Government and Canadian governments could do a joint development of a future sub for both navies....

Could the Japanese sell the blue prints for there Oyashio boats to Canada(or any other country ) to build new ships? I know Japan Constitution Prevents Weapons sales to other countries,but what about collaboration on defence projects?

Regards
the road runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2011   #11
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 33
Threads:
Quote:
Could the Japanese sell the blue prints for there Oyashio boats to Canada(or any other country ) to build new ships? I know Japan Constitution Prevents Weapons sales to other countries,but what about collaboration on defence projects?
That is certainly allowed as we have seen with the AEGIS BMD missile, which is the result of a colaborationf between Japan and the US.
Even for that special provision and law amendments were done to ensure constitutionality.
Unless Japan´s situation becomes much worse I don't think we will see an Oyashio or Soryu steaming under other flag.
mankyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2011   #12
New Member
Private
JTF-2's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 15
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StingrayOZ View Post
. I can't belive they paid $750m back in 98 given they had a rough idea of how much work was to go into them (lots!). For the money they spent (all up)they could have got 4 Collins subs, and have 1 avalible most of the time and still have a fair amount of life in them, and a partner to develop with. Instead they went alone with orphaned systems and ships.


I believe that $758M was actually a good deal for those subs. Everyone here at the time were actually happy with the price amount.

Hindsight is a powerfull thing.
JTF-2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2011   #13
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 13
Threads:
Unbelievable if this goes through. Canada has the resources to build submarines. Vancouver, Halifax and Montreal are huge centers with the required technology.
Doering is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2011   #14
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,631
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTF-2 View Post
I believe that $758M was actually a good deal for those subs. Everyone here at the time were actually happy with the price amount.

Hindsight is a powerfull thing.
not sure you can argue hindsight.

snr canadian navy officers were at the briefing I attended in 99

the list of problems was long - and we said no even though we were then prepared to consider spending coin on having an interim squadron which was also under consideration as a 2nd squadron.

the risk analysis in 99 was bad. it wasn't going to get any better. nobody spent any money to make it better before the sale, so it was on a long journey of grief from the day it was signed.
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 3rd, 2011   #15
New Member
Private
JTF-2's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 15
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by gf0012-aust View Post
. nobody spent any money to make it better before the sale, so it was on a long journey of grief from the day it was signed.
When you say "nobody" do you mean the UK?
JTF-2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:40 AM.