Bill Robinson on Canada’s $10B Nuclear Submarine Options

Rideau Institute senior advisor Bill Robinson responds to Defence Minister Peter MacKay and subsequent media reports suggesting Canada is considering purchasing nuclear submarines:

“Assume a 4 sub purchase to replace the Victorias one for one (Perrin Beatty wanted 10-12 SSNs, but that’s way out of the question). U.S. subs would be the best, but they’re very big and way too expensive, and the U.S. would probably be no more enthusiastic to sell them now than they were then. Chinese and Russian are not on the table, and most other SSN programs are way too experimental. That leaves French and British SSNs as the only potential purchases. Forget used. You have all the problems of used conventional subs plus radiation concerns and the problem of what to do when the much-reduced reactor life runs out. The French Barracuda class is currently in production, with unit cost currently estimated to be about $2 billion in Canadian dollars. So that would be $8 billion just for subs, on top of which would be training, shore infrastructure, initial spares, conversion to Canadian standards and equipment — maybe 25% or more additional cost, for a total of around $10 billion. (And this is not a lifetime operations cost estimate — just the cost of the initial operational capability.)  The British Astute class SSN appears to be roughly the same cost, with the first three Astutes costing about $6.5 billion Canadian. Further production would probably drop that figure somewhat, but overall the cost of buying British SSNs would probably be around the same as that of buying French.

“All in all, a huge amount of money for a marginal capability at a time of supposed austerity even though the money the government has promised for the Canada First Defence Strategy is almost certainly insufficient to pay for its currently planned equipment purchases and DND is supposed to be under pressure to reduce its spending.”

– Bill Robinson
newman-robinson@rogers.com

Read More

Comments are closed.




Nuclear Deterrence does not deter.

“Nuclear deterrence is a myth and a lethal one at that. Nuclear deterrence continues to dominate international relations. Yet there is no proof it ever worked, nor that it ever will… “(David P. Barash, Guardian.com, 14 January 2018) According to recent articles in the New York Times and Huffington Post, President Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review […]

Read More
View the Blog »

Will Vancouver meeting on North Korea help or hinder peace?

“The conference can be expected to reaffirm sanctions and policies that have not worked, rather than discuss new approaches. In ...

Justin Trudeau must face up to Afghan detainee torture allegations

  We believe this is unfinished business of the most serious kind — accountability for alleged complicity in torture — the ...