Fire on Canadian Sub, Rescue Underway

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Claeren

So you are postive there is not a single model of diesel sub that can go under the ice pack for even a limited duration?

And what about the melting ice pack? Or our ice breakers?


I don't know but i imagine a cost-benefit between the two brings a modern diesel boat out above a nuclear one in all scenarios beyond having a fleet of them and the need for extreme capabilities - neither of which come into play here.


Claeren.

The Swede's and Germans use a nifty little system called the non nuclear air independant propulsion system which uses stored liquid oxygen to keep the batteries charged, and it gives a significantly longer range. However the engine plants are fairly bulky and they don't give enough endurance to patrol under the ice caps so they are a non starter.

A diesel submarine can't be used in an artic environment since it can't snorkle through the ice, and a AIP augmented sub cannot carry enough liquid oxygen to patrol under the ice, its nuclear or nothing.


Using an ice breaker has been tried, however they make a lot of noise breaking through the ice and surface vessels have a lot of problems in detecting submerged contacts.

Melting the ice packs is interesting, however I'd hate to have to fill out the environmental impact statements or apologize to the family on the coast whose house is now under a foot of water.

The cost/usage over the life spans of a nuc boat versus a diesel boat is fairly comparible over the life of a sub, and believe it or not a modern nuc boat is easier to maintain then an advanced diesel sub like the Upholder class which Canada bought, you also get the advantages of longer range, quieter performance, greater speed, and a longer life span.

It actually would have made a lot of sense for the Canadian Military to have purchased 6 688 subs back in the Mulrooney era as oppossed to going through the purchase of the Upholders (victoria) class, and the earlier and terrible Oberon class submarines that we continually upgraded since we purchased them in 1967.

The real expense in a 688 program boat is the actual construction, after that the maintainance, upgrading and running of the subs is not out of line with what we're paying now. And since we don't need to build them. . .

Just my two cents.

[I-Hate-Hulse]

I quite like the idea of getting some used 688's Crunch - never really occured to me but with the fleet reductions in the USN it actually makes a lot of sense. As long as they don't get the burning obsession to outfit the thing with all Canadian systems thereby quadrupling any modernization costs.

That said - it would burn a tonne or two of political capital to get through. Imagine the headlines. A C17 could be argued for humanitarian purposes as could an Protecteur replacment - but get "nuclear subs" into the picture and Harper faces a firestorm, even if it's not deserved. No way does he attempt this in a minority govt.

[CaptainCrunch]

granted, however a solid case could be made when you look at the fact that most Canadian's want to see the Military upgraded, also with the recent problems with the Victoria class the selling job becomes easier.

But your probably right, the Liberal's would bleat about this pretty hard even though the Military situation is mainly thier fault.

[White Doors]

Yes - Harper would have to differentiate HARD between nuclear powered and nuclear armed. That said, priorities right now seem to be for both tactical and strategic airlift and an expansion/upgrade of the army.
Then there are new Helicopters, the upcoming Joint Strike Fighter purchase, supply ship replacements - which they may combine into a new troop transport, Helicopter type carrier..

There are no shortages of priorities for the CAF and nuclear subs are down near the middle of the priority. More incursions and competing sovereignty claims on the north could move them up the chain however.
At any rate, the next 5 years are going to be very interesting and critical for the CAF.