Quote:
Originally Posted by GoinAllTheWay
Do most Navy's still have oilers? I always wondered why we didn't go nuclear or is that just for large ships like carriers?
|
Yeah, it doesn't make economic sense to make nuclear based frigates or destroyers which is as large as Canada's navy is going to get in terms of ship sizes.
You will see nuclear propulsion in some cruisers but mostly in carriers. It makes a lot of sense in terms of submarines especially if you need something other then coastal defense subs.
On top of that the cultural change in going to a nuclear navy is immense.
You would need to establish a whole new engineering discipline and training program, and a whole new type of engineering officer and training program in terms of running and maintaining those ships.
I used to advocate paying half a dozen of the American 688I class boats when they started moving them to the beach, but it would take years to transition from a diesel electric fleet to a nuclear fleet. And its to the point now when your on that bleeding edge that obsolete happens a lot sooner.
the Russians for example have caught up and passed the Americans's in terms of their new boats coming off of the line, the Chinese are closing that gap as well.
Even the diesel subs that were actually commissioned in 1990 and were actually a nicely designed boat made to combine a advanced sensor and weapons platform in a diesel platform are pretty much nearing the end of their effective life technology wise and there are better propulsion systems out there that the Germans and other nations are using for their coastal subs.
I think that Submarines are crucial platforms in terms of a nation like Canada that has the arctic sovereignty issue hanging over their heads. There's also no better platform for intelligence gathering then a submarine.