Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: pugg666 on October 07, 2004, 05:28:11 PM
-
Any one here have an idea how much one of em costs?
Considering the price that my government payed for 4 Brit *cough* subs, I'd like to see the difference.
Just curious.
-
Approximately $900 Million (1972 dollars) according to this (http://navysite.de/ssn/ssn688.htm).
-
I don't know the details, but given their age, I'd guess a lot of them will be on E-Bay pretty soon.
-
Originally posted by pugg666
Any one here have an idea how much one of em costs?
Considering the price that my government payed for 3 old Brit *cough* subs, I'd like to see the difference.
Just curious.
Is that the one that's on fire? I'm really sorry to hear a seaman died.
-
That's the one Otto :(
-
Originally posted by Otto
I don't know the details, but given their age, I'd guess a lot of them will be on E-Bay pretty soon.
I wouldnt bet on that.
LA Class Subs, are constantly being renovated, adding new weapons systems, Theyll be the mainstay of our Sub Fleet until the Seawolf begins to replace them.
-
<
> to the fallen sailor, who bravely gave his life in service of his country.
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
I wouldnt bet on that.
LA Class Subs, are constantly being renovated, adding new weapons systems, Theyll be the mainstay of our Sub Fleet until the Seawolf begins to replace them.
Where have you been? Seawolf class has long since been canceled after the first few. The Virginia class which is now under construction is the sucessor to the LA class. They are cheaper and even more advanced than seawolf.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Where have you been? Seawolf class has long since been canceled after the first few. The Virginia class which is now under construction is the sucessor to the LA class. They are cheaper and even more advanced than seawolf.
Huh, Thanks for the insight, I didnt hear about the cancelation, I do know about the Virginia Class though.
-
The Los Angeles class sub is tremendous, I actually got to tour the USS Honolulu during my honeymoon. Incredible machines, I'm sure the Virginia will be amazing too.
The 688i was a great advancement, the addition of the VLS really expanded its capabilities and demonstrated the versatillity of a well designed chassis.
$900m, and worth every penny. Wanna know why? Watch the Hunt for Red October. :D
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
<> to the fallen sailor, who bravely gave his life in service of his country.
<>
-
Aren't the boats Canada bought powered by normal means? I wonder if fuel source influenced Canada's decision.
J_A_B
-
We wanted nukes and were going to buy 4 Trafalger class subs from the brits. The US has the veto on brit nuke sub sales due to the aggreements signed for the reactor technology and they didnt want us to have nuclear subs so they vetoed it.
So we ended up buying 4 barely used brit Diesel boats that I thought was a great idea. Turning out not so good.
-
Honestly. Our norther border has been the exclusive domain of the US navy since they developed nuclear subs. Why put them selves in a position to have to ask our permision. As it is and with diesels we have no say of what happens in our nothern waters. The US doesnt mind that at all.
They looked at the french one but it was lame. Russian ones are obviosly out of the question.
Wether the USN wants us to have SSNs or not. They are our staunch allies and the soviets are not likely to let us buy a worth while nuclear sub.
-
The latter.
But remember. We really have an itegrated defence between the two countries. We didnt mind for decades the USN keeping the soviets at bay in the north. If we wanted to buy 4 LAs and excepted some kind of US control over thier deployment it could probably be arranged(pre bush anyway). But that is not what was wanted.
Dont sweat it. You cant keep the USN out of your waters either.
They use a torpedo range right north of where I live.
-
We are talking about 1995ish when this was decided. Maybe 98
-
I honestly can't speak for the military but I'm not sure if the US has an agreement with Canada like we do with the brits concerning Nuke tech.
Alot of the things that goes into a sub reacter is top secret....do we really want our bouncy head abooot saying neighbors to be able to come even slighly close to matching us in submarines????
I'm just kidding of course. I'm equally confuse why the US gov wouldnt allow a sale to canada OR why Canad needs subs.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well, I suppose they need subs for the same reason the US needs them. You tell me why they are necessary?
IMHO a submarine is more of an offensive weapon.
You can patrol/monitor more ocean surface using RADAR.....underwater there is the SOSUS net and the US whome I am assuming would detect any threat in Canadian waters as a threat to the US as well.
all this considering what I know and have read about Canada's military.....they are mostly a defensive force. There are exceptions to that of course, but specifically their Navy is set up for deffense, not projection of power. I could be wrong of course.
Again....not a pick on canada statement...I am eaqually confused at the veto of sale and the need for sale.
-
The way I look at it, the U.S. has every right to decide who we share our technology with. We choose to share it with the British, but not the Canadians. We developed it, it is ours to do with as we please. Perhaps the U.S. government feels that the British are closer allies than the Canadians.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
foreign nuke sub from operating in Canadian waters at will.
yes but were is the "threat" from that?
Again I'm basing this soley on the fact that IMHO subs are an "offensive" weapon system. Who is going to attack canada by submarine.
You make a good point that they can add to the costal deffense of the US by operating there own subs but I honestly don't see the need for them w/ the canadian military.
I honestly think we still keep our attack fleet because we don't know who is buying up cold war surpluss stuff.
That and delivery of special forces troops.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Well, not to be rude, but it is not the US' business to determine the needs of the Canadian military. They wanted nuke subs from Britain, you said no. Not very friendly, and not very logical from a defence standpoint, but very logical from a "we want to continue to operate in Canadian waters illegaly" standpoint.
if you are following the Illeagaly part of the statment I agree with you BUT
the US in this case makes a valid point....lending tech. to other countrys requires treaties and agreements and whos to say that Canada was not part of that treaty? Although I'm not sure why.
I am mostly a realist though and realisticly Canada poses no threat in this deal Unless they then sell the subs to china/N. Korea or worse.
I however, don't see Canada doing that so this whole thing really doesnt make sense to me unless there is a treaty disput between Canada and the US.
At the same time I do not see why the Canadian navy needs submarines.
-
GS,
Its a technology transfer, and Canada is a signatory of the NPT - and especially dealing with nuclear components in a post 9/11 enviroment. The Brits have their fleet for the sole purpose of a survivable first strike nuclear capability. 2 in the shop, 2 on patrol. I just came back from Russia 2 weeks ago and the Northern fleet, if you do your research is a shadow of what it was 15 years ago. There is no need for Canada, who in Gunny's honest opinion which I agree with being an analyst for the Navy - needs fast attack boats when their primary mission is loiterial within 200 miles of shore. Diesels, are quieter and better suited for those purposes.
Why do you think the US is going completely ape about China's diesel fleet and being able to detect them? Because they are a bricks hurl away from Taiwan and whatever Carrier group we currently have over there making life difficult.
Also your argument about operating illegally in canadian waters doesn't hold up since international law allows anyone to operate within 12 miles of the coastline. Economic exclusion zones don't count as a coastline.
Wolfala
-
There is a very short list of countries (China) being the only one that operates a boomber - and its a single sub that rarely leaves port: check your facts. The current proliferation trend is towards Diesel boats since they can be developed for a fraction of the cost, its a mature technology everyone knows how to use, and theres fewer problems. There are maybe 3 blue water fleets in the world right now - US, UK and France.
Russia's Typhoons are being retired because the reactors while giving greater power output use a sodium loop and have a tendancy to leak when its least expected. Russia's surface fleet, aside from maybe the Kirov and the Minsk is pretty much laid up and non functional for the forseeable future.
As for defense against cruise missiles - Subs are woefully under equipped to counter that given that any given time there are over 50,000 ships of all types operating in the atlantic on a given day. You'd be better off setting up a quarentine on airspace at the 12 mile ADIZ on the entire coastline - which is impractical.
Wolfala
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I don't think the NPT is a concern here. These are naval nuclear reactors, and Canada surely already has the technology to make reactors if they want. Probably bombs too. I know we do.
That is true ... however in peacetime when operating within 200 nautical miles of a foreign nation a submarine must sail on the surface and announce its presence.
Navy reactiors use HEU (Highly Enriched Uranium) which is weapons grade material - yes it is a proliferation concern. I did my senior thesis on nuclear proliferation and taught a class on nuclear weapons, war and arms control. I can stay up pretty late if you want to debate this point.
Show a me a rule book about a sub needing the run on the surface - I lived next to where they built the 688's in New London CT, and i've flown over those submarines as they dove within the 12 mile restriction. Here's an example off Block Island just east of Long Island New York.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/204_1097308474_688.jpg)
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Ok, I can understand that, but does not Canada have this technology already?
Section III of the 1958 Geneva Convention, the rule is established that transit is innocent only “so long as it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state.” The last section of the article also requires that submarines exercising the right of innocent passage navigate on the surface, showing their flag.
I refer you to my previous post while emphasizing on the word "foreign". You can do whatever you like in your own waters. Nice picture though. :)
Simply put - no. They had a research reactor back in 1945 but are an NPT signatory. They havn't pursued breeder reactors or anything regarding HEU fuel or Plutonium enrichment technology which is weapons applicable only.
Then I guess its a good reason that submarines are the origional stealth technology. But I suspect the reasoning behind not caring has to do with the cooperative nature of the US/CANADA with BMEWS, EWR, PAVE PAWS, DEW LINE and NORAD.
Clearly the US/CANADA's security is intertwined - so foreign might be referred to those countries other then US and CANADA operating within those loitorial limits.
Wolfala
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I find it hard to believe that a modern, western nation like Canada does not have the technological knowledge to make nuclear reactors or weapons, even tiny Norway has this. We could probably cobble a nuke together in a 6-12 month time span if we made the effort.
Of course if you have a defence treaty that includes the free operation of submarines in Canadian waters, it's fully legal.
Thats not the point GS - the knowlege has existed for the last 60 years. If you had enough HEU, which is the hardest thing about building a nuclear weapon is getting the required amount of fissile material, you don't even sophsticated explosive lenses - you just make a gun-type weapon like that was used on Hiroshima - that one didn't even need to be tested. The problem that countries will run into is getting the requisit amount of fissile material.
If you look at how Iraq tried to go about it with Osarik and its enrichment facilities that it hid very very well - they spent a tremendous amount of money on trying to hide the infrastructure to allow them to get that requisit amount of fissile material. Thankfully, they never did or it might be a smoking irradiating ruin courtesy of israel - don't think for a second they wouldn't after the Supergun incident after Gulf war 1.
-
Norway is an NPT signatory with its first research reactor brought critical in 1959. There is only 1 operating power reactor within the country and there are no enrichment facilities. As for the question of HEU would be in violation of the NPT - remember, the NPT was made to prevent the export of technology related to the proliferation of nuclear weapons: hence non proliferation treaty.
This is the sad state of arms control - you can violate that because there is very little in the way of verification by an overseeing entity. An example - Iran is an NPT signatory - yet today there is clear evidence that they and North Korea helped in developing Pakistan and India's ballistic missile program to what it is today.
So it really depends - is the answer. My guess is nobody would care about a reactor used domestically. They would care if that reactor was shipped to the DPRK however. I'm not the State Department - they make the rules.
Wolfala
-
Accoring to the stats i've got - you guys have 1 power reactor and 1 research reactor.
-
If you want a good reference; this is what I had my students read as a primer: The Technology's underlying Weapons of Mass Destruction. You can download the PDF from this website.
http://www.wws.princeton.edu/~ota/disk1/1993/9344_n.html
-
Can anyone show me one reference on the ‘net’ to the United States denying Canadian purchase of Nuclear Submarines? I’ve tried very hard and I can’t find a thing.
There is a lot of opposition within Canada it’s self but I can’t even find a ‘Conspiracy’ site that says the US stopped it.
(I did find mention of the U.S. Navy being happy that Canada was going to have non-nuclear subs so each Navy could cross-train there sub and surface fleets on the various types)
-
I don't think there ever was a veto by the US over the purchase of Nuke Subs. In the mid 80's the Canadian Government (Conservative at that time) proposed a fleet of nuclear subs but due to the cost involved and the current economic conditions the project was cancelled in 1989. In the 90's the Liberal government slashed the defense budget (Between 1989 and 1998 the defense budget was shrunk by a total of $21 billion ) and made it tougher for DND to replace the aging "O" class subs in use by our Navy. In 1998 an agreement was made to purchase 4 Upholder-class submarines from the United Kingdom. The Upholder-class submarines were built at the shipyards in Birkenhead and Barrow, UK, between November 1983 and 1993 and upon delivery to Canada they will be re-designated Victoria-class.
The Canadian Government paid, I believe, 750 million for the 4 subs. It is very unfortunate that there was an fire aboard the HMCS CHICOUTIMI and a tragedy that we have lost one of the submariners but we need to wait for a full investigation to determine the cause before we point fingers of blame, if we in fact do so.
-
classic ameristalker hijack
-
Thanks Ripper, I'm guessing your version is much closer to the truth, but that's not what GScholz and Pongo are saying and I wanted to know where they got their facts.
-
Well I did a net search and found nothing. But at the time( I was in the military when it was canceled.) The trafalger had been selected. The purchase was going ahead based on Mulroony wining the election, but the technology export for the Trafalger was denied by the US so it was dropped. The same was said in the paper here yesterday..
But there you go. You have both versions.
Of course Canada could do something to make a nuclear reactor. We make our own now but not anything like small enought and quite enough to be of use in a sub. It could go its own way and design and build its own class of 4 6000 ton SSNs..
But like people had said. The only reason to do so is to keep track of subs under the ice in our northern waters. 99% chance those subs are US subs. Its a bit galling but we have to be realistic. If the US wants to use hudsons bay as a totaly secure area for its boombers like the Russians where using the white sea do we really want to know about it?
The US denied us THIER reactor technology because they rightly guessed that it was moslty about observing them. We trust them to keep the soviets out...
Now we are paying a billion towards destroying Soviet subs..lol
-
Pongo,
I don’t know if the US ever tried to influence Canadian submarine purchase or not. Maybe we did.
But, what really bothers me is that right in the middle of a thread were everyone was trying to say how sorry they were that a sailor died on one of your subs you (and others) tried to hijack it with another one of those endless “Poor little Canada, US bully” rants. It gets old very quickly….
-
Originally posted by Otto
Pongo,
I don’t know if the US ever tried to influence Canadian submarine purchase or not. Maybe we did.
But, what really bothers me is that right in the middle of a thread were everyone was trying to say how sorry they were that a sailor died on one of your subs you (and others) tried to hijack it with another one of those endless “Poor little Canada, US bully” rants. It gets old very quickly….
Here is what the thread was about..
"Any one here have an idea how much one of em costs?
Considering the price that my government payed for 4 Brit *cough* subs, I'd like to see the difference.
Just curious."
What thread are you talking about idiot?
I didnt hyjack a dam thing. I was polite and on topic. Are you generaly a whiny potato peeler or is it only for the duration of this thread?
-
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.
Lets examine cold war figures as a comparison.
During the peak of the Cold War - the US had 6 CVN's, 6 CV's, 50 Cruisers of both Nuclear and Conventional, 38 Destroyers and 35 Fast Frigates or Guided Missile boats, Unknown number of Escorts and Support Vessles, 0 Diesel submarines 87 Fast attacks and 21 Boomers.
The Russians, had 4CV's, 23 Cruisers, 36 Destroyers, 134 Fast Frigates and 139 Fast Attack Frigates, 129 Escorts, 104 Diesel Submarines, 92 Fast Attacks and 54 Boomers from the Delta Class up through Typhoon.
Now - even post Cold war. If you examine how much the US spends on its armed forces - you'll be a little shocked.
Selected Countries Military Budget
($Billions)
United States 399.1
Russia* 65.0
China* 47.0
Japan 42.6
United Kingdom 38.4
France 29.5
Germany 24.9
Saudi Arabia 21.3
Italy 19.4
India 15.6
South Korea 14.1
Brazil* 10.7
Taiwan* 10.7
Israel 10.6
Spain 8.4
Australia 7.6
Canada 7.6
Netherlands 6.6
Turkey 5.8
Mexico 5.9
Kuwait* 3.9
Ukraine 5.0
Iran* 4.8
Singapore 4.8
Sweden 4.5
Egypt* 4.4
Norway 3.8
Greece 3.5
Poland 3.5
Argentina* 3.3
United Arab Emirates* 3.1
Colombia* 2.9
Belgium 2.7
Pakistan* 2.6
Denmark 2.4
Vietnam 2.4
North Korea* 2.1
Czech Republic 1.6
Iraq* 1.4
Philippines 1.4
Portugal 1.3
Libya* 1.2
Hungary 1.1
Syria 1.0
Cuba* 0.8
Sudan* 0.6
Yugoslavia 0.7
Luxembourg 0.2
If you added every single NATO member up - it would not equal 1/2 of what the US spends annually. These figures are current as of 2002. Keep in mind its not a conscript military like Russia's - we spend over 5 times as much as Russia - who is the runner up to keep everything working.
They may have more vessles on the books - but if we have fiscial issues keeping our blue water fleet ready to roll with 399 billion budget - I find a bit hard to grasp the notion that Russia is anywhere in the same ball park. As for the Northern fleet - here's an except of a study I did.
"From 1945-1991, the Soviet Union produced 249 submarines powered by nuclear propulsion and 492 dependent on diesel-electric power. To put this in perspective, over the same time period the United States built only 43 diesel and 169 nuclear powered submarines. The Soviet Union maintained competitiveness with US Navy during the Cold War primarily because of their nuclear submarine advantage. For the first few decades of submarine production, the Soviet emphasis was on quantity manufactured rather than quality of product, and even as better ships were built, older ones were kept running past their useful lifetimes. Facilities were not constructed to handle storing out-of-service ships, and there was very little long-term planning on the future of these nuclear submarines and their spent fuel. At the end of the Cold War, Russia had no need for such a large nuclear fleet and no infrastructure to decommission the vessels. As of late 2002, 191 of the 249 were out of service.
Russia’s navy maintains two fleets: the Northern Fleet (off the Kola Peninsula, the part of Russia adjacent to Norway and Finland), and the Pacific Fleet (on the Pacific Ocean, primarily along the Sea of Japan.) Although both fleets are important, the Northern fleet has 2/3 of the nuclear submarines and a larger support infrastructure. My research only addresses the larger Northern Fleet because it poses a greater threat, and has substantially more security issues. The Kola Peninsula where the Northern Fleet is based has the greatest concentration of nuclear reactors in the world and the world’s largest amount of radioactive waste. My examination of the Northern Fleet as a security and environmental threat will analyze the decommissioning of the submarines and the future of the spent fuel handling and storage technically, politically, environmentally, and economically.
The nuclear situation in the Kola Peninsula is multi-dimensional. The three biggest hazards from the Fleet’s spent fuel are radiation exposure, radioactive contamination, and proliferation. Many of the retired submarines are just sitting around with spent fuel inside, waiting to be dismantled. These vessels are great proliferation risks, as the highly enriched uranium they contain is a necessary component of any atomic weapon. Minatom (the Russian Ministry for Nuclear Energy) reported in 2002 that at least 32 of the laid up submarines “are in a bad shape and are in danger of sinking.” All 32 submarines still have spent nuclear fuel in their reactors. As of May 2001, 74 of the 170 submarines awaiting dismantlement still contained nuclear fuel. There are two additional submarines that have had accidents in their reactors and are too dangerous to disassemble now. Current plans will put them in an $18-million shelter until the fission in their reactors ends in approximately 300 years. The Kola Peninsula poses huge pollution threats to its neighboring Scandinavian countries. For example, one site contains more than 4000 cubic meters of solid radioactive waste all placed outdoors, without protection from precipitation. There are too many ways that public exposure and environmental contamination are possible given current situations. As home to the largest amount of radioactive waste in the world, Russia’s economic woes and political turmoil have only compounded problems on the Peninsula where leaking facilities and vessels, haphazard security and an uncertain future loom ominously.
There are several bright spots in the future of Russia’s nuclear situation. The EU, Norway and the US are committed to improving nuclear security. The US has currently contributed through the Department of Defense’s Cooperative Threat Reduction Agency. Since 1996, the US has funded the dismantlement of 16 ballistic missile submarines (SSBNs) and is willing to pay for the dismantlement of 25 SSBNs in total. Also, under the new G8 Global Partnership against the Spread of Weapons and Material of Mass Destruction, up to $20 billion has been pledged over the next ten years for projects in Russia specifically including the dismantlement of decommissioned nuclear submarines and the disposition of fissile material. Mismanaged facilities and political corruption have hindered international efforts. The Russians have also maintained secrecy about many technical details that could improve international efforts as well. Hopefully, proper management of new economic commitments will alleviate the potentially disasterous security and environmental risks."
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Aren't the boats Canada bought powered by normal means? I wonder if fuel source influenced Canada's decision.
J_A_B
Yeah, where would Canadians get the uranium from? :rofl
-
with the balanc of power thing. If we let the canadians have a nuke sub. then what if the russians decide its OK to sell a nuke sub to Iran one of the other little countries where terrorists could get their hands on it.
This may be far fetched here, but are we not all here because of a GAME we are playing.
I did not wish to offend any one by comparing on country to another.
-
Originally posted by SPECTRE304
with the balanc of power thing. If we let the canadians have a nuke sub. then what if the russians decide its OK to sell a nuke sub to Iran one of the other little countries where terrorists could get their hands on it.
This may be far fetched here, but are we not all here because of a GAME we are playing.
I did not wish to offend any one by comparing on country to another.
Let me tell you guys a thing or 2 about this nuclear sub selling thing. (1) America has to have the best and largest navy because their the worlds police department. (2) I see no reason NOT to sell nuclear subs to Canade, I mean lets face it when was the last time Canada attacked the US? ( Bob and Doug mckenzie don't count :) )
(3) if one ever wound up on EBay, you can bet your Arse that the muslim terrorists would get it, and if THAT happened, I reallything there would be a few big kabooms in various parts of the world from thermonuclear bombs.
Hence>>> let CAnade have a nuclear sub, just keep them away from the Muslims.
-
Originally posted by sb1086
I see no reason NOT to sell nuclear subs to Canade, I mean lets face it when was the last time Canada attacked the US? ( Bob and Doug mckenzie don't count :) )
1812 I think, but that was cause you guys started it...:D
ooops almost forgot.... eh!
-
"Let Canada have nuclear subs"?
LOL
Since when did we need permission?
It's all $$.
The Canadian government won't fund the research and development to produce and/or maintain the subs. They also won't fund the cost of operating and maintaining a nuclear sub fleet.
Our military has been raped over the last 20 years and looks like it will continue to be. Sad, but a true statement.
I'm not even going to touch on the Chicoutimi (and it's sister subs), other than to say that my heart goes out to her crew and thier families.
RTR
-
Originally posted by Ripper29
I don't think there ever was a veto by the US over the purchase of Nuke Subs. In the mid 80's the Canadian Government (Conservative at that time) proposed a fleet of nuclear subs but due to the cost involved and the current economic conditions the project was cancelled in 1989. In the 90's the Liberal government slashed the defense budget (Between 1989 and 1998 the defense budget was shrunk by a total of $21 billion ) and made it tougher for DND to replace the aging "O" class subs in use by our Navy. In 1998 an agreement was made to purchase 4 Upholder-class submarines from the United Kingdom. The Upholder-class submarines were built at the shipyards in Birkenhead and Barrow, UK, between November 1983 and 1993 and upon delivery to Canada they will be re-designated Victoria-class.
The Canadian Government paid, I believe, 750 million for the 4 subs. It is very unfortunate that there was an fire aboard the HMCS CHICOUTIMI and a tragedy that we have lost one of the submariners but we need to wait for a full investigation to determine the cause before we point fingers of blame, if we in fact do so.
I was very saddened to hear about the news of the death and injuries to the Canadian submariners. Hopefully after a full investigation a cause can be identified and isolated to prevent further tragedies.
From the Canadian Navy website with details of the purchase, why they need Subs and other data:
Submarines for Canada's Navy (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=892)
Submarine Contracts Signed (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=847)
VICTORIA Class Submarines: An Indispensable Asset (http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/Newsroom/view_news_e.asp?id=892)
Here's an article on the Royal Navy website: http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/rn/content.php3?page=1&article=827 & http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/rn/content.php3?page=1&article=828
-
Originally posted by RTR
"Let Canada have nuclear subs"?
LOL
Since when did we need permission?
It's all $$.
RTR
Its not just dollars if we want subs with US based nuclear reactors. Sorry you dont understand that. The only other sub that might have done was the french one that was not an under ice design.
We wanted and had selected the Trafalgar but even before the budget for such a program was asked for, it was shelved for lack of an export licence.
I cant believe this is such a far fetched concept for some.
-
yanks want canucks to buy yank subs not limey subs!
-
When I was in the USN some of the best diesel/electric boats were mfg by the Germans, is that no longer true? The Norweigians had some of these German Boats in the late '70s and were very difficult to detect by the technology of the time. I really haven't taken an interest in submarine warfare.
-
Originally posted by Ripper29
1812 I think, but that was cause you guys started it...:D
ooops almost forgot.... eh!
You guys? Just cause I live here doesn't make me American mate. Persoanlly my country cant sell Nuclear subs to anybody, cause we aint got any
-
IN 1978 the Uss Groton cost about $370 Million.
In 1985, the Uss Augusta cost about $700 Million. This was the same time the VLS boats were coming out (Uss Providence, SSN 719). When the last 688 was commisioned in 1996, I believe they cost about $850 Million a pop.
The 688s were a good deal. The Seawolf's were nice and pretty but not practicle for the times. Plus they were extremely expensive.
IMHO, the new Virgina class is a huge mistake. Smaller than the Seawolf it is still larger than the 688 class. You have to understand the 688 is a huge boat. A large, expensive ($1.5B a unit) Fast Attack like the Virginia is not feasible in todays battleground.
The US Navy should of lotted for a smaller, less expensive submarine. This smaller sub could of carried the same weapon types and very capable sensors as the Virginia.
With the new COTS (Commercial Off The Shelf) hardware and software size should of not been a problem. The actually cabinets making up most of the processing equipemnt for sonar, fire control, data processing, navigation, radio, ship control and communications can be configured into a much smaller package. The size of a submarine is mainly determined by it's reactor plant. So make a huge submarine like the Virginia seems more of a political move than necessary one.
Years ago I used to take pride in calling myself and ex-bubblehead. After seeing some of the crap that has been going on the silent service in the last 10 years, it is to the point where I am disgusted.
-
Originally posted by sb1086
You guys? Just cause I live here doesn't make me American mate. Persoanlly my country cant sell Nuclear subs to anybody, cause we aint got any
Sorry I forgot you were a "colonial" as well, and I knew better...did not mean to give ya a bollocking...have g'day mate
:lol
-
Any of you guys are into modern day sub sims "Dangerous Waters" should be out in the near future been in development for years.
You can command, 688(I) Los Angeles class, the SSN-21 Seawolf class, and the Russian Akula class and the Russian Kilo-class diesel-electric submarine. There's also a Frigate,Orion and Helicopter.
One of the more interesting aspects is that you can play multiplayer each person controlling a different station.
http://www.subsim.com
(http://subsim.com/ssr/dangerous_waters/SUBSIM_05.jpg)
-
Nowhere did I mention anything about US based reactors in my post.
Sorry you don't understand that.
RTR
-
I understand your lack of comprehension of the issue perfectly.
-
Originally posted by Nefarious
I wouldnt bet on that.
LA Class Subs, are constantly being renovated, adding new weapons systems, Theyll be the mainstay of our Sub Fleet until the Seawolf begins to replace them.
The Seawolfs are already being produced to replace the LA's. At least what I've heard is that the LA is not being produced anymore and the Seawolf is being built in its place.
Canaris
-
alternativly you could look.
here (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-ssn.html)
The Seawolf is in service and production. Last of class is under construction and is way way bigger then the other two.
The virginia is under construction and replaces the LA class. Its the same lenght but quite a bit larger then the LA class.
LA does rock though.
(http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/ships/submarines/greeneville/greene-drydock.jpg)
-
Originally posted by loser
Yeah, where would Canadians get the uranium from? :rofl
Crazy bunch of madmen they know down in the south western Pacific could give them all the Uranium they can afford to buy, and we have great military and trade ties with them allready in place.
Why would you think it would be difficult for the Canadians to get hold of some Uranium, or Plutonium for that matter?
It isnt exactly all that rare.
Not really needing to and not being able to are very differant things.
-
Originally posted by loser
Yeah, where would Canadians get the uranium from? :rofl
Niger of course! Bush reckoned there was heaps of it.
...Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Niger of course! Bush reckoned there was heaps of it.
...Gixer
Alert
BLUE[/color] (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=131907&referrerid=3203)
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Alert
BLUE[/color] (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=131907&referrerid=3203) [/B]
LMAO
Bugger, I was hoping for atleast orange. Maybe next time :lol
...-Gixer
-
There are 3 Seawolf's.
Uss Seawolf
Uss Conneticuit (sp)
Uss Jimmy Carter
The Jimmy Carter was built to replace the Uss Parche (SSN 683) as a SPECOPS boat. Probably stationed out of Mare Island.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
alternativly you could look.
here (http://www.chinfo.navy.mil/navpalib/factfile/ships/ship-ssn.html)
The Seawolf is in service and production. Last of class is under construction and is way way bigger then the other two.
The virginia is under construction and replaces the LA class. Its the same lenght but quite a bit larger then the LA class.
LA does rock though.
(http://)
Hmm... that place looks familiar :) I've only been on 688's but my coworkers have been on ships as far back as Skate and even further back. They agree 688 is great - more room to move around in and cleaner. I look forward to seeing other boats though, whenever that will be.
mauser
-
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.
-
Wolfala - a Nowegian reactor went critical? I wasn't aware of any Noregian nuclear disasters.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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!
-
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?
-
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.
-
Originally posted by 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.
Pongo, you silly beast. Canada simply cannot afford any weapons sytems. If you personally want to be co-owner of a modern world destroying submarine fleet then you must do what Jim Carey did. :D
-
Hey Swager, which boat were you on? A few years back, I was involved with some stuff that let me get on board the Hartford, the Providence, and the Dallas (because they were in New London that day).
-
Originally posted by storch
Pongo, you silly beast. Canada simply cannot afford any weapons sytems. If you personally want to be co-owner of a modern world destroying submarine fleet then you must do what Jim Carey did. :D
You mean become the King of Comedy?
-
Originally posted by Torque
You mean become the King of Comedy?
I don't think he's all that funny myself, though I do enjoy some of his antics. what I was referring to is he became an American Citizen but you knew that.
-
Err...yeah he has a dual citizenship now which is par for the course, i guess that wasn't an option for yourself.
Btw it's "Carrey" not "Carey".
-
Actually, the idea of jet skies and hand grenades does just as much protecting the US from our enemies of today as a Virginia Class does. Just alittle less expensive.
The point of my post was, the US Navy should of went with a smaller, slightly less capable submarine in place of the Virginia. A submarine the size of the Virginia is above and beyond the necessary.
The reason the US stopped building the SSN 21 was because they were too big for what was perceived to be future submarine missions. Without a powerful seagoing nation as an enemy, the SSN21 was too much submarine for the future. Even the 688 is too much submarine for the roles our undersea forces find themselves in.
So now we find ourselves building a nuclear submarine even bigger than the 688. Easily submarine designers could of created a smaller, less expensive SSN. We could of operated twice the submarine fleet size, with basically the same capability, at the same cost.
No matter how fast a submarine is, it cannot be in two places at once.
Dux, I served on the Uss Groton from Janurary 1981 to Sept 1985. During that time I also rode the Uss Dallas and the Uss Philadelphia.
-
Originally posted by Squire
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 could call the new sub...the ARROW...NEVAR FORGIT!
If I was the Yankonian military I certainly wouldn't want Canada to have our sub nuke reactors. Canada has a really ****ty record in controling export of military technology.
-
Originally posted by Torque
Err...yeah he has a dual citizenship now which is par for the course, i guess that wasn't an option for yourself.
Btw it's "Carrey" not "Carey".
Does the U.S. allow dual citizenship? It doesn't AFAIK.
-
"We could call the new sub...the ARROW...NEVAR FORGIT!"
Hehe, at least we named it something that normal folks can pronounce, which is more than I can say for our Subs. I swear it must be the final exam before getting the dolphin badge "name your ship".
-
Originally posted by storch
Does the U.S. allow dual citizenship? It doesn't AFAIK.
It does upto your 18th birthday, until which you need to pick 1.
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
It does upto your 18th birthday, until which you need to pick 1.
While carey is totally sophmoric I think he's over 18. so once again torque is wrong?
-
According to the U.S. Department of State website, U.S. law does not mention dual nationality, but it also does not "require a person to choose one citizenship over another".
A person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.
I dunno.......