Canada may buy Nuclear Subs!

[JTF-2]

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/story/2011/10/27/submarines-british-nuclear.html

 

[JTF-2]

Here is the link

Canada may buy nuclear submarines - Politics - CBC News

 

[swerve]

When did this idea last surface & get quashed? 1990s?

 

[JTF-2]

When did this idea last surface & get quashed? 1990s?

It was in the late 80's when Brian Mulroney put a stop to it.

 

[rand0m]

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?

 

[kev 99]

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.

 

[Volkodav]

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.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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.

 

[StingrayOZ]

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.

 

[the road runner]

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

 

[mankyle]

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.

 

[JTF-2]

. 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.

 

[Doering]

Unbelievable if this goes through. Canada has the resources to build submarines. Vancouver, Halifax and Montreal are huge centers with the required technology.

 

[gf0012-aust]

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.

 

[JTF-2]

. 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?

 

[gf0012-aust]

When you say "nobody" do you mean the UK?

In the 99 Defence briefing on submarine opprtunities the Upholders were flagged by the press and the opposition as alternative and interim solutions to Collins (thats an example of how long Collins has been a political football)

RADM Chris Barrie detailed the reasons why the Upholders were not regarded as a responsible purchase and went into detail about their condition in the UK, what was required to bring them up to spec and why they were not suitable for integration etc..tactical limitations etc....

I'm not going to go into the detail of what was identified as they are an existing in service asset and my view is that going into specifics is not good security sense.

most of it has been discussed obliquely across the years, I'm just not comfortable doing a wrap up in this post.

the cost to make them sea and battleworthy was regarded as of minimal if any benefit for their capability.

 

[Volkodav]

In the 99 Defence briefing on submarine opprtunities the Upholders were flagged by the press and the opposition as alternative and interim solutions to Collins (thats an example of how long Collins has been a political football)

RADM Chris Barrie detailed the reasons why the Upholders were not regarded as a responsible purchase and went into detail about their condition in the UK, what was required to bring them up to spec and why they were not suitable for integration etc..tactical limitations etc....

Let me guess, pretty much the same reasons the Upholder didn't make it very far in the selection process that resulted in the Collins?

A few old submariners have suggested that the best option for Australia would have been a modernised Barbel class SSK which I suppose would have been viewed more favorably by Canada. Then again thats what the Dutch Walrus class, the derived Hai Lungs in Taiwan and (I believe) Japans 70s, 80s and 90s subs were, evolved Barbels or at least developments of the Albacore design.

It really is too bad the US didn't keep a finger in the conventional sub pie. Likely the expence could not be justified but it would have helped out allies and provided export opportunities.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It didn't seem like a big issue. At that stage the UK and Germany were still building boats, plus a number of smaller countries. There seemed to be a healthy industry.

The US has been very helpful in the Collins program and I would be very helpful in any allied program.

If Australia and Canada teamed up came up with a design with common systems and common hull even the status of these two countries Im sure the US would assist as much as possible.

Australia is talking 12, I would assume Canada would be interested in 4-6. There may be some outright sales if not development partners (Singapore for eg).

Conventional technologies have improved. I don't think any clean sheet conventional submarine design would use lead acid batteries any more as battery technology has really progressed from the 80's and 90's. You would be looking at quite large conventional subs (Collins sized) with perhaps double the energy density (or more) of Collins. Greater efficiency from all systems, lower drag hull, greater reliability. Is that enough for under ice opterations? I don't know.

Given the upholder experience I can see how droping the capability or the technology all together might be tempting.

 

[gf0012-aust]

It didn't seem like a big issue. At that stage the UK and Germany were still building boats, plus a number of smaller countries. There seemed to be a healthy industry.

the germans still do, now the spanish are in and trying to leverage with the french. the only difference is that UK dropped conventionals to go to an all nuclear fleet and the swedes got absorbed by the germans. the other players like the dutch never had their heart in the build game

The US has been very helpful in the Collins program and I would be very helpful in any allied program.

but only towards the very end, and probably driven by some concern at the fact that local politics was going to hurt subs and by proxy hurt a critical strategic region where they acknowledged they didn't have complete visibility of. Politically driven as well, so an altruistic constribution (not meant to diminish their effort by any means, as it was some of the hull/prop knowledge out of virginia/seawolf which helped us out in the end)

If Australia and Canada teamed up came up with a design with common systems and common hull even the status of these two countries Im sure the US would assist as much as possible.

Australia is talking 12, I would assume Canada would be interested in 4-6. There may be some outright sales if not development partners (Singapore for eg).

Can't see absolute benefit in this, the swedes learnt very quickly that northern subs have different acoustic properties due to geographic/maritime issues - and the USN learnt that even with Gotland (a mini-me AIP version of Collins without the hull and prop mods)

 

[swerve]

the germans still do, now the spanish are in and trying to leverage with the french. the only difference is that UK dropped conventionals to go to an all nuclear fleet and the swedes got absorbed by the germans. the other players like the dutch never had their heart in the build game...

Fincantieri was keen to build subs, but didn't have the government backing that the German builders did, & never broke into the export market. Gave up designing when there was a second gap in Italian procurement in the 1990s (the first gap was in the 1970s) & now builds the Type 212 under licence for the MM.