Naval Ship & Submarine Propulsion Systems

Delta204

Member
This is an interesting topic going forward and I'll be curious to see how many models will be going lithium-ion in the future. Author doesn't spend much time on the current Japanese tech which is unfortunate. Japanese seem to be the most advanced in this area from my understanding; would be interesting to know how long their patrols are or expect to be with their upcoming lithium-ion battery subs (likely not public info). Definitely trade-off's with different configurations; but if the Japanese envision their subs going up against Chinese SSN's in the future it is telling that they have so heavily invested in lithium-ion IMO.

Interesting article on the complexities of designing a new type of submarine battery, from the perspective of Attack class, but relevant to all submarine development programs: The Attack-class submarine battery debate: science fiction or engineering? | The Strategist
 

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
Interesting article on the complexities of designing a new type of submarine battery, from the perspective of Attack class, but relevant to all submarine development programs: The Attack-class submarine battery debate: science fiction or engineering? | The Strategist
Excelllent article by The Strategist on the future of submarine batteries. It might be good to keep an eye on the UK Nickle-Zinc experiment as this could be a promising power usage for whatever submarine Canada may decide on "down the road".
 

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
This is an interesting topic going forward and I'll be curious to see how many models will be going lithium-ion in the future. Author doesn't spend much time on the current Japanese tech which is unfortunate. Japanese seem to be the most advanced in this area from my understanding; would be interesting to know how long their patrols are or expect to be with their upcoming lithium-ion battery subs (likely not public info). Definitely trade-off's with different configurations; but if the Japanese envision their subs going up against Chinese SSN's in the future it is telling that they have so heavily invested in lithium-ion IMO.
You are right Delta204. The author doesn't seem to be too keen on the Japanese LIBs. The Japanese though are working on improving these batteries every day and hopefully they will come up, with one that is safer too. Another one to keep an eye on.
 
Last edited:

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
This is an interesting topic going forward and I'll be curious to see how many models will be going lithium-ion in the future. Author doesn't spend much time on the current Japanese tech which is unfortunate. Japanese seem to be the most advanced in this area from my understanding; would be interesting to know how long their patrols are or expect to be with their upcoming lithium-ion battery subs (likely not public info). Definitely trade-off's with different configurations; but if the Japanese envision their subs going up against Chinese SSN's in the future it is telling that they have so heavily invested in lithium-ion IMO.
The Japanese aren't exactly boastful regarding their submarines. However, they are very happy with the lithium battery technology and are rolling it out replacing the Stirling cycle AIP in all future builds and may even refit it to older subs. Given the CONOP's of the Japanese, lithium batteries suit them very well. The Japanese submarines were built with specific AIP areas with bulkheads, which have been most likely repurposed for lithium battery use.

While Lithium batteries have risk, Liquid oxygen (and hydrogen) also has a terrible risk, nuclear has its own risks, and lead acid batteries also have their own risks (gaseous hydrogen for one), and if any sea water gets into a submarine and makes contact with wiring or batteries, you will create chlorine gas from the salt in the water, as well as hydrogen and oxygen gas in a explosive combination. Essentially everything is risky in a submarine, you have to actively manage all risk from everything.

With regards to points 1 and 2 above, at least one Canadian reactor design (Slowpoke) uses highly enriched uranium (SLOWPOKE reactor - Wikipedia) using uranium enriched at Chalk River Labs, in Canada. You are correct that CANDU does not require enriched fuel, but other reactor designs do. BWXT corporation (Cambridge Ontario) has extensive capabilities with regards to uranium processing and enrichment.
BWXT has no enrichment capability, it can and does however take HEU and downmix or downblending with unenriched uranium to make LEU.

Canada does have tremendous refinement capability, in extracting uranium from its ore, but no enrichment capability, in enriching U235 from its natural 0.7% to <20% for LEU or 85%+ HEU . Even where Canada experimented with Highly Enrich Uranium and operated its medical and research reactors with HEU, it was supplied from elsewhere, almost always by the US. When ACR was cancelled, any planned enrichment facilities were also cancelled.

Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission said:
Highly enriched uranium (HEU) is produced in the U.S. and is used in Canada as a source fuel in a number of nuclear research reactors.
Australia mostly sourced its HEU used in its reactors from the UK weapon line. We now source our LEU from Argentina. Highlighting the problem with HEU and proliferation (specifically South Africa's proliferation based off using its HEU fuel from its medical and research reactors). Australia's and Canada's history in this regard goes all the way back to before the Manhattan project.

The most promising of Canada's potential for enrichment is actually with an Australian company Silex, who pioneered laser enrichment. Although for a variety of reasons the plant will most likely need to be in the US. Australia's nuclear lobbists are already unrealistically very excited about the possibilities.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I'll leave it for more qualified Aussie navy Def Pros to comment, but as a general rule the sub service is not called the silent service for nothing. Unfortunately the ASPI currently is not of the same quality that it was in 2015 and earlier.

One very important point to remember when comparing Aussie submarine requirements and operations with other nations, is that Aussie subs have to sail ~2,000 nm transits just to get from Fleet Base West, where they are based, (just below Perth, WA) to Fleet Base East in Sydney, NSW. Then they have another 3,000 nm + transit to their patrol area. If they go around the top end it's just as long.

The JMSDF subs don't have anywhere the same transit distances from the Japanese mainland and none of the Euro navies who operate SSKs, routinely have anything like the same transit distances to patrol areas as well. So just bear this in mind when you're comparing the Aussies with other navies subs.
 

StobieWan

Super Moderator
Staff member
I'll leave it for more qualified Aussie navy Def Pros to comment, but as a general rule the sub service is not called the silent service for nothing. Unfortunately the ASPI currently is not of the same quality that it was in 2015 and earlier.

One very important point to remember when comparing Aussie submarine requirements and operations with other nations, is that Aussie subs have to sail ~2,000 nm transits just to get from Fleet Base West, where they are based, (just below Perth, WA) to Fleet Base East in Sydney, NSW. Then they have another 3,000 nm + transit to their patrol area. If they go around the top end it's just as long.

The JMSDF subs don't have anywhere the same transit distances from the Japanese mainland and none of the Euro navies who operate SSKs, routinely have anything like the same transit distances to patrol areas as well. So just bear this in mind when you're comparing the Aussies with other navies subs.

Exactly so. The AU subs were built around an advance speed of 8-10 knots vs the industry average of about 5 knots. The RAN has long been accustomed to long range patrols and there are rumours of some Oberon's getting as far as Murmasnk.
 

ASSAIL

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I'll leave it for more qualified Aussie navy Def Pros to comment, but as a general rule the sub service is not called the silent service for nothing. Unfortunately the ASPI currently is not of the same quality that it was in 2015 and earlier.
ASPI May no longer speak with the previous authority but the referred article was penned by Paul Greenfield, a 33 year veteran submarine engineer, “he knows boats”!
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Exactly so. The AU subs were built around an advance speed of 8-10 knots vs the industry average of about 5 knots. The RAN has long been accustomed to long range patrols and there are rumours of some Oberon's getting as far as Murmasnk.
There is a book available that mentions that among other things we did that had some new to Government horrified that little ol Straya could do such things :)
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
I'll leave it for more qualified Aussie navy Def Pros to comment, but as a general rule the sub service is not called the silent service for nothing. Unfortunately the ASPI currently is not of the same quality that it was in 2015 and earlier.

One very important point to remember when comparing Aussie submarine requirements and operations with other nations, is that Aussie subs have to sail ~2,000 nm transits just to get from Fleet Base West, where they are based, (just below Perth, WA) to Fleet Base East in Sydney, NSW. Then they have another 3,000 nm + transit to their patrol area. If they go around the top end it's just as long.

The JMSDF subs don't have anywhere the same transit distances from the Japanese mainland and none of the Euro navies who operate SSKs, routinely have anything like the same transit distances to patrol areas as well. So just bear this in mind when you're comparing the Aussies with other navies subs.
There are several factors that do not get taken into account in such discussion and articles, because they do not know (silent service)

The submarines generation capacity, hotel load, charge capacity, etc etc etc and the list goes on and on ! People get caught up in Sub A v Sub B with no understanding of the actual differences between them.

Would be my left one that a Collins would out perform a Soryu with new batteries in charge time and battery capacity, and the Attacks will leave them for dead :)

People need to look a little more out of the box, a sub is not a sub, easy to do the whole car salesman piece and talk about the flashy bits, but capability is key, what Australia does with its subs is very unique for many reasons, not just distance, to any other service in the world, and that goes for nuclear subs too BTW!

Cheers
 

Boagrius

Well-Known Member
The only thing that concerns me about the Attack class are those raised by gf in the first pages of this thread. Posts like:
we have one sub on its second generation, based on what was regarded as the most acoustically perfect hull made and which earned the nickname "nuke killer" in its baseline guise - as against two untested and unbuilt proposals.

we have one sub where we know that we will have less grief and no resistance from our principle partner to assist in integrating the preferred combat system into it and who has no problems with that build partner - as opposed to one country where we know that IP firewalls will have to be constructed and where integration is not as smoothly guaranteed.

this notion that there is a magical viable french solution is an exercise in faith and wishful thinking more than engineering realities and absolutes.
...are difficult to dismiss from a poster who I have always understood to be one of the most knowledgeable and respected on the forum with respect to this subject. Nevertheless, the choice has been made by better minds than my own, so I do hope the subs deliver - the capability is too important for them not to.
 

aussienscale

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
The only thing that concerns me about the Attack class are those raised by gf in the first pages of this thread. Posts like:

...are difficult to dismiss from a poster who I have always understood to be one of the most knowledgeable and respected on the forum with respect to this subject. Nevertheless, the choice has been made by better minds than my own, so I do hope the subs deliver - the capability is too important for them not to.
Absolutely, Gary is another who has forgotten more about Submarines than most of us know, he has worked on projects around the world. But also, and not to take away from him, a lot has changed and transpired since then !

Knowing from my previous experience, seeing what was said and written about certain things, knowing what I knew at the time and what has since come to light, I have a certain faith in the decision that has been made :) Time will tell.

Cheers
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Further to David's post 348.

Ballard Power of Burnaby, BC, is often cited as a potential supplier of fuel cells for future (and even existing) Canadian submarines. According to their website (https://www.ballard.com/docs/default-source/spec-sheets/fcvelocity-hd.pdf?sfvrsn=2debc380_4), they have developed a relatively small module for transit systems (buses, in other words) that can output 100KW of power, at a size and weight of 1200x869x487 mm and 61Kg. Assuming these can be combined and scaled, and used safely in the confined space of a submarine, you could conceivably get up to the holy grail of 1000KW (or 1333 HP), which would be enough to propel a 3000 ton sub up to 12 knots (or, guessing, a 4000 ton sub up to ~ 8 or 9 knots), if the estimates shown in Figure 2 of this study are correct: https://jmst.ntou.edu.tw/marine/26-5/657-666.pdf.

You would still need batteries (or a combination of batteries and super-capacitors), however, to enable sprints beyond that maximum AIP “cruise" speed, and probably a diesel engine, so space is still the biggest constraint when it comes to combining fuel cells, (and their fuel), with batteries. This strongly suggests the Australian approach of using a very large hull provides the most flexibility, especially if a final decision on a propulsion system has not been made. (It also suggests that a future Canadian sub, for years reputed to be in the 3-4000 ton range, may NOT be large enough to provide the enabling non-nuclear technologies to allow for extended patrolling beneath the ice cap).

It certainly looks like the fuel cell is still seeing steady development, and the issues of power density and longevity seen in the earlier versions look to be mostly conquered. Much promise to be had here, but the key enabling technology of an AIP system still seems very much to be the battery, and as of today, the LIB in particular. Given there is no reason to assume that the Japanese or Koreans value the lives of their submariners any less than other nations do, I think we can assume that they have overcome the explosive potential of LIBs, either through mitigation strategies such as active (or passive) cooling and cell isolation, or through the use of new technology such as the solid-state LIB chemistry. Either way, I think it is a good bet that LIBs are now very much a “good enough” solution, and will likely be part of a future Canadian AIP submarine, either as the main source of power, with fuel cells providing top-up to the LIBs, or as a secondary source of add-on power for higher speeds. As time marches on, both fuel cell and LIB technology will only get better, in terms of power density, safety, and longevity, so a Canadian submarine program maturing in the 2030s has a very real chance of delivering a submarine with substantially improved underwater performance, and perhaps even the ability to conduct sovereignty patrols beneath the ice cap. I think the holy grail for Canada would be a technology that can deliver sustained submerged speeds around 10 knots, for 3-4 weeks. Fuel cell + LIB + diesel may be that technology. So, as time marches on, the argument for nuclear gets harder to justify.
 
Last edited:

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
Hi All! Nuclear propulsion is ideal for long distances and extended under-ice missions that are unique to Canada. But is there a better, more affordable and collaborative way? Off-the-shelf AIP submarine designs that are direct replacements to the Victoria class, such as the French Barracuda Block 1A being designed for Australia by DCNS or the Japanese Soyru class AIP design with Lithium Ion Battery (LIB) technologies are interesting alternatives that may extend the endurance of diesel submarines for short periods. But neither of these options will completely satisfactory Canadian submarine needs. The dominant paradigm for a modern nuclear-powered submarine is a steam generating reactor driving turbines that directly drive the propulsor or propeller. The French Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A being built for Australia offers a limited AIP design that enables electric propulsion for low speed cruising and turbo-mechanical drives at higher speeds, but is not competitive against nuclear-steam turbo-mechanical for blue water or arctic operations. Outrageous cost estimates for nuclear-powered submarines tend to cloud Canadian thinking for recapitalizing its submarine fleet. DND’s proposal for extending the lives of its four Victoria class conventional submarines for another 6-18 years appears to be a comparative bargain. But is there a better way?

In my opinion (IMO)The first challenge to costs is volume. Development, or non-recurring engineering and infrastructure costs make up a sizable percentage of the cost of a Submarine fleet. If an existing, proven, hull can be slightly modified, it would be a major cost saver. That will require DND to end the habit of imposing onerous modifications that inevitably cause costs to explode like the CSC or Maritime Helicopter program. Another route to substantial cost savings is to share the development costs of major items like the propulsion and power plant with partners. Technologies like air independent propulsion (AIP) and/or LIBs that extend the endurance of diesel submarines but introduce major compromises in performance. But neither of these options are satisfactory for Canadian naval requirements. With or without AIP, diesels are far too “short legged” – they are dependent on logistically complex supplies such as liquid oxygen that deplete quickly, may be unsafe and the engines are mechanically complex. Radar can pick out periscopes or snorkels. Then there is the deafening noise of diesels, even when equipped with the latest quieting technologies. These are distinct disadvantages given the long distances and extended under-ice missions that are unique to Canada.

IMO nuclear propulsion in some form is still ideal for Canadian requirements. Due to their endurance, nuclear submarines tend to be blue water, ocean-going vessels. Los-Angeles and Virginia class fast attack submarines displace 6-8,000 tons. French Barracudas are about 5,000 tons, UK’s Astutes are 7,000 tons, while the Shortfin Barracuda (conventional version) is about 4,000 tons. Compared to the Victoria class at about 2,500 tons, they are large vessels. A nuclear submarine (6-8,000 ton range) is neither necessary nor ideal for Canadian waters. A smaller Hybrid attack submarine that is large enough to support a good sized crew and carry unmanned systems would be ideal for Canada, but presently, none is available. Canadian submarines are most likely to operate in Canadian waters especially in the Arctic, Pacific and Atlantic coasts up to the relatively shallow continental shelf. A Hybrid submarine offers a novel solution. A fleet of Hybrid nuclear submarines (4-5,000+ tonne range) would be ideal for Canada. But building such a submarine with this kind of displacement with a 60 day endurance, transit speeds of 12-20+ knots, with burst speeds above 30 kts, and state of the art signature management technologies and support for unmanned platforms would be cost prohibitive for all but the largest Navies. Canada, does however, have excellent technologies that can contribute to a joint venture from say the USA, France or Japan for a new Hybrid nuclear/AIP/LIB submarine design such as the Canadian Safe LOW POwer (K)Critical Experiment, or “Slowpoke” reactor, that could be miniaturized for a smaller Hybrid/AIP/LIB powered submarine. A nuclear, battery-electric hybrid is also a potentially attractive alternative to the dominant nuclear turbo mechanical drive. One or more modular reactors could be used to generate enough power to drive generators or constantly top-up LIBs. The ability to completely shut down a reactor module, and tightly match energy demand with supply, reduces the amount of excess (waste) heat dumped. Machinery noise from the nuclear turbo-mechanical generator can be more readily controlled if the system is operated at, and optimized for a relatively narrow power band, with no requirements for rapid throttling as with a turbo-mechanical drive. Electricity generated can be stored in state-of-the-art LIBs. Reactor shielding can potentially make use of LIB cells doing double duty. Electric power from batteries driving propulsors offer the prospect of extreme low radiated noise and yet maintain a high degree of “throttlability” with only limited compromises in sustained high speed cruising that would be the function of a nuclear plant’s power ramp and maximum output. Making the propulsor jets steerable and eliminating control fins is an additional benefit in minimizing the active signature. One of the biggest advantages of a Slowpoke reactor in modern Hybrid AIP submarine designs would be that “snorting” of the submarine would be a thing of the past as energy would be continually stored in much improved LIBs for better under ice endurance. This would also open up potential lucrative markets for this Canadian nuclear technology. An upgraded Hybrid/AIP/LIB design using a Sl;owpoke High or Low Enriched Uranium (HEU-LEU) reactor, having the highest ratio of neutron production to fission power, with nominal power levels of 300-400KW range may be possible with further Canadian research. The main advantages of the Slowpoke reactor is the reliability and ease of use of this design. The Slowpoke could be made small enough and inexpensive enough to make it accessible for such a submarine. The Slowpoke reactor is the only type of nuclear reactor licensed in Canada for unattended operation in automatic mode.

Who might partner with Canada? France, Japan and Australia are all great potential partners. Each nation’s existing or planned submarine designs are potentially good candidates. A collaboration with Japan, which has begun work on its next generation of electric Soryu class AIP submarines, can contribute certain technologies, like LIBs in which they excel. If Canada contributed a major portion of the development costs of modular Slowpoke power plants for Hybrid submarines, it can be used to negotiate a better price on the subs, perhaps less than $1B CAD per sub (substantially lower than any standard nuclear sub being built today world-wide). It will also be the only small naval reactor power plant available that can potentially be used on surface vessels such as the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) or civilian vessels as well, reducing Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from shipping, potentially opening up lucrative markets for Canadian nuclear technology. The question is, can such a unique Hybrid sub design be built in quantity (more than 20) for less than 1B CAD a copy? The technology for the Slowpoke reactor is there, and has been constantly up-graded over the past several decades. A successful Hybrid submarine design would be a game-changer for Canada. A leap of faith in this program by Canadians and the government will forever banish the ghosts of the DeHavilland Arrow fiasco. It will be challenging, but IMO, Canadian ingenuity is up to it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OPSSG

Super Moderator
Staff member
^^ David, 50% to 80% of your post contains either factual errors or is written in such a way that demonstrates a lack of complete understanding of submarine operations or the non trivial engineering work required in your proposal. This makes it hard to explain why you are wrong in drawing your conclusions.

Like you, some in this thread are so eager to share without the corresponding willingness to read (with understanding prior posts) or study in-depth the advantages and limitations of each sub-system, including the reason why some sub operators have elected not to install AIP systems.

For my attempt to post about submarines, see the effort made in the RSN capabilities thread. And by 2023 Singapore will operate 2 types of AIP submarines; with 2 Swedish built Archer class (with a 75 kW AIP plug) and 2 German built Invincible class (each with 2 HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells of 120 kW) submarines. Together with German, Israeli and indigenously-developed systems integrated into the combat suite, the 2,200 ton Type 218SG will have enhanced situational awareness and accelerated decision-making support systems, allowing submariners to rapidly orientate themselves, decide on the best course of action, and act. Once the first 2 Invincible class enters service, Singapore can retire the last 2 Challenger class boats, which had insufficient automation.

The last 2 Soyru class boats, namely, JS Ōryū and JS Tōryū (with LIB) do not have an AIP system. The Japanese have very reliable boats that the USN benchmark against. The Japanese have capability that you in Canada can only dream of — I suspect that they have no desire to transfer such capability to Canada. But so much of their build program is classified that it is hard for a layman reading press reports to understand their true capability. I am sure they will be willing to sell 4 submarines to Canada but why would Japan need or want to form a JV with Canada (to build submarines, when you only operate 4 old subs)?

I will let others who are more qualified explain, if they can be bothered.

If you continue down this path, you will be getting multiple source changes from other members soon. Read, think and then post (after some reflection), please. I am writing to let you know, as I have not given up on you.
 
Last edited:

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
^^ David, 50% to 80% of your post contains either factual errors or is written in such a way that demonstrates a lack of complete understanding of submarine operations or the non trivial engineering work required in your proposal. This makes it hard to explain why you are wrong in drawing your conclusions.

If you continue down this path, you will be getting multiple source changes from other members soon. Read, think and then post (after some reflection), please. I am writing to let you know, as I have not given up on you.
Hello OPSSG.
Like you, some in this thread are so eager to share without the corresponding willingness to read (with understanding prior posts) or study in-depth the advantages and limitations of each sub-system, including the reason why some sub operators have elected not to install AIP systems.

For my attempt to post about submarines, see the effort made in the RSN capabilities thread. And by 2023 Singapore will operate 2 types of AIP submarines; with 2 Swedish built Archer class (with a 75 kW AIP plug) and 2 German built Invincible class (each with 2 HDW/Siemens PEM fuel cells of 120 kW) submarines. Together with German, Israeli and indigenously-developed systems integrated into the combat suite, the 2,200 ton Type 218SG will have enhanced situational awareness and accelerated decision-making support systems, allowing submariners to rapidly orientate themselves, decide on the best course of action, and act. Once the first 2 Invincible class enters service, Singapore can retire the last 2 Challenger class boats, which had insufficient automation.

The last 2 Soyru class boats, namely, JS Ōryū and JS Tōryū (with LIB) do not have an AIP system. The Japanese have very reliable boats that the USN benchmark against. The Japanese have capability that you in Canada can only dream of — I suspect that they have no desire to transfer such capability to Canada. But so much of their build program is classified that it is hard for a layman reading press reports to understand their true capability. I am sure they will be willing to sell 4 submarines to Canada but why would Japan need or want to form a JV with Canada (to build submarines, when you only operate 4 old subs)?

I will let others who are more qualified explain, if they can be bothered.
You are absolutely correct. I am not a SME on nuclear subs let alone a new Hybrid design, however IMO this design may be feasible for Canada down the road. Most people don't understand the vastness of this country when trying to apply what requirements Canada needs in a modern submarine design (probably 12 of them as a minimum). We have three vast oceans here that need patrolling and protecting let alone our NATO and allied commitments world wide. With over 9,985,000 square kms, you could put over 13.5 thousand Singapore countries inside Canada and still not fill it up. If not a Hybrid design, then perhaps we could still collaborate with either Japan or France on a 'better" AIP/LIB design that might result in a Canadian new sub design that would give us prolonged under ice operations, with cruise and spurt speeds required in very harsh environments. The Soyus class or Barracuda 1A would be a good starting point to collaborate on with Canadian expertise. The last time Canada built submarines, was for the British during WW I. One thing is very clear though. New subs designs would have to be built here in Canada with foreign expertise. The Canadian public would not tolerate any vessel being built outside the country. Governments would fall because of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Calculus

Well-Known Member
One thing is very clear though. New subs designs would have to be built here in Canada with foreign expertise. The Canadian public would not tolerate any vessel being built outside the country. Governments would fall because of it.
Not sure I agree with that statement David. For one, the cost of building up a domestic capability is just as likely to bring down a government as an offshore build would be. For another, there are strategic and political points to be gained by getting our subs from another country that can't be discounted. And lastly, buying from an established line will ensure availability of parts and support at a better cost than an orphan bespoke Canadian sub program. Another equally important question is who would build these subs? NSS is built around the principal of "continuous build", such that when the last CSC is getting delivered, the follow-on design should be in the starting blocks at Irving already. Same story with the "non-combat" ships. Even if we add Davie as a third NSS yard, where is the capacity going to come from to build subs? It's a grand idea and all, but the cost of building such a specialized ship from scratch is, in my opinion, a waste of precious defence funding. Canada is a big country and definitely has some unique operational requirements, but there are conventional designs out there now from the German, Swedish, Japanese, and French builders that are big enough to satisfy most if not all of our requirements without having to reinvent the wheel. It would be good to collaborate with a designer to get what we think we need, including on the propulsion system, but designing from scratch makes so sense to me.
 
Last edited:
Top