Los Angeles Class sub

[Pongo]

Jesus people are thick.
Canada is an exporter of Uranium and Reactors. But the very very specialized reactors that the Brits use in thier Nuclear subs were developed from  or copied from US designs. We cannot buy one of those brit subs without the Brits getting an export license for that technology from the people they licensed it from. The US.

Exactly the same thing applies to the M16s that Canada makes and Exports under license. If the US says we cant sell those M16s to someone. We cant sell them.

The Candu reactor. Which we export, is distinctive in that its equipment is useless for refining weapons grade fissionable materials.  It is as far as I know distinctivly canadian technology that we have the licenses to export.

So we have reactors. We have uranium(I believe that the uranium used in the first two bombs was sourced from canada..not positive though) But that is along long way from the kind of technology that you put in a viable SSN. It has to be tiny and quiet  and very powerful for its size.Probably specialy refinded uranium as well. The US paid all the bills to develope that and you cant use their version of it unless they say so.

They apperenlty let it be known that we would not be allowed to have it unless we used the boats to help in the survailance of Soviet subs etc. Which the British do by the way.

That was not the purpose we wanted them for, we wanted them to watch who was in our northern waters.
So between the cost(probably about what the SSKs have cost us now) and the export license. The SSN progam died.

[Dowding]

Wolfala - a Nowegian reactor went critical? I wasn't aware of any Noregian nuclear disasters.

[Wolfala]

Originally posted by Dowding
Wolfala - a Nowegian reactor went critical? I wasn't aware of any Noregian nuclear disasters.

Dowding,

When a reactor is said to go critical - that means it is fissioning and splitting uranium atoms. Not critical in the sense of "oh ****, we've got a warp core breech in progress!" Thats a misuse of the word - critical is used in the scientific community of when everything starts working. Now melt down...that doesn't have to be explained.

Wolfala

[Chairboy]

The Virginia class SSN uses a lot of COTS components already.  It's roughly equivalent to the Seawolf in capabillity with an added emphasis on littoral combat.

I think the Virginia will end up being more capable/useful than the Seawolf because of the wider combat flexibility.  The Seawolf might be the meanest deepwater predator, but there aren't a lot of far faring enemies these days, it seems.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by GScholz
I must question your conclusions since the Kuznetsov just recently put to sea on a one-month deployment carrying 24 newly upgraded Su-33's and a wing of Su-25's. She is escorted by 2 cruisers, 6 destroyers and 2 nuke subs. The Russian navy has currently more than 40 ships at sea. 15 ships in the Med alone and a flotilla playing war games with the French.

One month deployment? That's not a deployment, that's a training cruise... Hell, I've spent 8 months on deployment. I suspect that they don't want the Kuznetsov to steam beyond the range of their ocean going tugs.....

My regards,

Widewing

[Squire]

Canada would have NEVER bought nuclear powered Submarines from anybody (despite what our navy might have mused about in the past). The Navy does not have the money to purchase them nor do they have the money to maintain them. On top of that, politically, no Canadian gov't would opt for nuclear powered warships because of the political fallout, imho.

The US would have no issue at all with Canada buying or developing SSNs if we wanted to, they would have no reason to oppose it. We are a close ally and NATO member and we are not restricted from purchasing US made weaponry or systems that I am aware. The only thing I can think of that might be an issue would be SSBNs perhaps. Not that we will ever ask for any.

The main reason why most NATO navies (and other navies) do not have SSNs is $$$. Plain and simple, they are too much money in comparison to diesel/electrics. The second is requirement. The USN bases its naval power around nuclear powered CVNs with escorts, and there is a requirement for SSNs with the speed and range to keep up with those battle groups.

I think the Royal Navy would have been better off with a larger # of diesel electric boats than the small # of SSNs they have, considering they are also on a fairly tight defence budget, but I think with the US and the French having them, its a bit of "keeping up with the Jones's", despite the high costs.

[Chairboy]

Something else to consider, a Diesel sub in littoral waters can be very dangerous to a nuclear sub.  A nuke can never be as quiet as a diesel (because of the pumps/noise made by the reactor) so a modern diesel can sit motionless for days right in the path of a probable intercept that a SOSUS-type detection might predict (or near a high value target).

[Pongo]

Squire you dont know what your talking about.

at all.
Sure they are expensive. Obviosly that is a consideration. But the Canadian Navy went through an extensive process to select an SSN in the late 80s. They selected the Trafalgar. Must have been befor your time.

Thats not fantasy. Thats the reality. The reality was that we wanted them not to help contain Soviet boomers in their ports. But to monitor our own sovereinty verses the USN in our northern waters. The Canadian goverment wasnt even shy at the time about why we wanted them.

The US said no.
If you want nuclear subs to keep track of our nuclear subs...build em yourself or buy that french thing that doenst even work under the ice...lol

When you have to start from scratch you obviosly can not afford to build them.

It would have been canceled by the Liberals anyway but the Conservatives were very serios about it.

[Wolfala]

Originally posted by Pongo
[Bbuy that french thing that doenst even work under the ice...lol
 [/B]

Is there a story to this? Because now i'm curious.

[Pongo]

going from memory. The French sub was an updated diesel boat. Never designed to work under ice. The hull and sail were not designed for that purpose. The Trafalgar was.

[Squire]

Pongo, produce any document or proof of any kind that the US actually blocked the sale.

Second, like I said, the Canadian navy might have thought about it, considered it, studied it, drawn posters!!!....thats got ZIP to do with the fact the in the end, it would not have EVER happened. They would have been too expensive, and we had no requirement for them.

Canada's navy is commited to its NATO responsibilites to ASW duty in the North Atlantic, thats what we have been doing since 1945, and we have *no* requirement for a SSN sub. Keeping track of Soviet SSBNs we left to the USN, we didn't have the $$$ to do it, and we are not about to start now, with the cold war being over for a decade.

Militaries "study" possible procurements all the time, that doesn't mean jack. We studied all kinds of things that in all likelyhood we never would have bought, and thats especially true for Canada, with its limited defence dollars. Im sure somwhere you can find a DoD "study" on Canada procuring a CV, but that aint going to happen either.

It took us 3 governments and 12 years to replace HELICOPTERS for the navy, where have you been?

[Pongo]

Just to recap.
Canada did persue an SSN purchase.
Canada did select an SSN that would  require US permision to buy.
Canada did cancel the proposed program to purchase those SSNs.

None of that seems up for debate.
You feel it unlikely that we would even buy them. Well it was persued and I have never heared it denied before. As to if we would need US permision to buy the Subs we wanted..that is just a fact. They reactors in the Brit subs are subject to US permsion to export.

As to whether the US would deny that permision to Canada, which seems to be the issue that so many think is imposssible. It is possible. Its likely. The primary reason we were considering buying SSNs was to try and establish some kind of control of our northern shore from the USN.  Freedom to navigate where they want to up there is valuable to them a simple shake of the head and they maintain it.

It was my understanding at the time and was reafirmed in the first article about the sub fire in my local paper last week. That the US made it known they would not grant that permision. Obviosly cost benifit was a part of the demise of the SSN program, as was the demise of Mulroony and the interm Cambell goverments cost cutting(that killed the EH101).
As to where was I. I was in the military at the time watching with intense intrest.
But look what we have instead. SSKs that they want to upgrade to some kind of fuel cell in a few years so that we can what..patrol under the ice up north.

[Swager]

Looks like the Virginia Class are going for $2B a pop.

Wayyyyyyyyy too much!

They plan on 30 hulls.  Hopefully they will only get 4 or 5 out before the construction is cancelled!

[Chairboy]

Considering how capable the Virginia is at launch compared to the Los Angeles class (which cost $900 million each in 1978 dollars), $2B doesn't sound crazy.  Defense of our nation isn't cheap, what would you suggest as an alternative?  A hundred navy guys on Jet Skis with a bag of grenades and a fish finder for anti-submarine patrol driving up and down our coast?

[Pongo]

You can make all kinds of bone head mistakes in foriegn policy and defence if you have that SSN fleet in your back pocket. I say build em! And their very cool.