Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Black Jack Shellac

Active Member
...10 Soryu?? You been on the waccky baccy?? :D None of your govts would fund that. Given your geostrategic situation, I would think that you should pay attentention to the RAN Attack class, just because of the range aspects and capabilities that it will offer compared to standard Euro SSKs.
Well, just walking on the street in Vancouver it is near impossible to avoid the waccky baccy, it's everywhere all the time since they legalized it - the smell is quite annoying really :(. Is it affecting my mind, no, my mind was bent long before this :p.

As for 10, yeah I know, 10 is impossible - but ask for 10 maybe get 5, ask for 5 only get 2. Have to aim high.

As for type - I think the most critical thing is having the ability to go under the ice - despite what people think, there is still lots of ice in the arctic, even in the summer, and will be for at least the next century. I don't know enough about the RAN class, what is its AIP range/duration like compared to the Soryu?

Cheers
 

Calculus

Active Member
10 Soryu?? You been on the waccky baccy?? :D None of your govts would fund that. Given your geostrategic situation, I would think that you should pay attentention to the RAN Attack class, just because of the range aspects and capabilities that it will offer compared to standard Euro SSKs.
If our governments won't fund Soryu (which I don't necessarily agree is the case), they certainly won't be looking at Attack, which by all accounts cost somewhere around $6.6 Billion each ($80Billion/12).Australia’s attack-class submarine programme to cost $152bn
 
I would like to see a deal with naval group for 3 barracuda SSN for use in the Arctic and 6 scorpene subs to replace the 4 subs we have now but I can't see that happening
 

Calculus

Active Member
I would like to see a deal with naval group for 3 barracuda SSN for use in the Arctic and 6 scorpene subs to replace the 4 subs we have now but I can't see that happening
That would be a good number (9), and nuclear would be best, but the three options I have seen mentioned in Canadian defence journals are Soryu (with solid-state batteries for extended submerged patrolling), A26 Oceanic ER (with Sterling engines and LI batteries for extended submerged patrolling), and Type 216 (with enhanced fuel cell for extended submerged patrolling). Note: The status of the Type 216 is a bit unclear as it no longer seems it is being actively marketed.

The RCN desires a conventional sub capable of patrolling under the arctic ice sheet, and that means both long submerged range but also the ability to surface in an emergency through the ice, which means sail and hull reinforcement. It's not clear if any of these subs have that capability, however. They all have significantly greater endurance than the Victorias, however, at 80 days.

This is an interesting article that summarizes pretty well the ideal solution for Canada: The quest for the unconventional – conventional submarine

The A26 has some appeal in that it is offered in three different versions, with high commonality between all three, and would give the RCN the ability to mix and match, with the Oceanic ER version (10,000+ nm) for the long-range missions and arctic patrols, and the smaller A26 Oceanic (6,500 nm) for more limited deployments, such as patrolling off our coasts. Saab Expands its A26 Submarine Offer with now Three Variants to Choose From


Swe_A26_poster.jpg
 
Last edited:

Calculus

Active Member
I think it may be wise for the RCN to have a Plan B underway, i.e., a study project for replacement of the Victoria class SSK. Have all the data, possible candidates, costings, everything, and a proto business case giving strategic and economic benefits to Canada, as well as the costs to Canada if the Victoria class SSKs are not replaced. It must be thorough, focussed, and of a very high standard. Get acquisition people from the DND and Treasury experts involved. In the end when the time comes, the RCN and DND will have a very robust document ready to be submitted, as long as it's kept current.
Agree. They should issue an RFI with all their desired traits in a submarine and see if there are any builders out there that would be interested.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Agree. They should issue an RFI with all their desired traits in a submarine and see if there are any builders out there that would be interested.
The RCN would probably need to do a study to determine what traits or capabilities they would want or need in a future submarine class, before really being in a position to issue a RFI, since some of the capabilities might very well conflict, or at least the current implementations.

AIP for instance, is good for prolonged submerged transits (3+ weeks IIRC) at low speeds. That also lends itself to loitering very quietly in an area and waiting for a potential hostile to come to it, which works well if there are readily available transit/SLOC choke points comparatively close to ports the sub can operate from. AFAIK however, the energy density available from AIP systems as well as the rate of energy production still cannot match the energy density and generation rates from conventional diesel-electric systems. This in turn can impact the range of a sub, the effective number of days on station (due to taking long to transit to/from a port to a patrol area) and even the capabilities of the sensors and combat systems. Without establishing the required and desired capabilities, as well as their respective priorities, then it would be left to the sub designers to make such determinations which might very well result in Canada getting a capability which is not fit for purpose.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Well, just walking on the street in Vancouver it is near impossible to avoid the waccky baccy, it's everywhere all the time since they legalized it - the smell is quite annoying really :(. Is it affecting my mind, no, my mind was bent long before this :p.

As for 10, yeah I know, 10 is impossible - but ask for 10 maybe get 5, ask for 5 only get 2. Have to aim high.

As for type - I think the most critical thing is having the ability to go under the ice - despite what people think, there is still lots of ice in the arctic, even in the summer, and will be for at least the next century. I don't know enough about the RAN class, what is its AIP range/duration like compared to the Soryu?

Cheers
A month ago I was waking into a superstore at 7:00am on a Sunday in Mission and the reek of MJ in the parking lot was overwhelming. Really have to wonder what the country will be like in twenty years if people need to be doing this first thing in the morning. Thanks a lot junior, your only accomplishment from your first mandate... you piece of excrement!
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Agree. They should issue an RFI with all their desired traits in a submarine and see if there are any builders out there that would be interested.

Until junior is gone the discussion of the RCN’s future sub requirements is a waste of time. Even when he is gone, the chances of finding money after his financial train wreck are close to zero.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
If our governments won't fund Soryu (which I don't necessarily agree is the case), they certainly won't be looking at Attack, which by all accounts cost somewhere around $6.6 Billion each ($80Billion/12).Australia’s attack-class submarine programme to cost $152bn
Does it? Where did Naval Technology get their figures from? Does that include the Whole Of Life Costs (WOLC)?
That would be a good number (9), and nuclear would be best, but the three options I have seen mentioned in Canadian defence journals are Soryu (with solid-state batteries for extended submerged patrolling), A26 Oceanic ER (with Sterling engines and LI batteries for extended submerged patrolling), and Type 216 (with enhanced fuel cell for extended submerged patrolling). Note: The status of the Type 216 is a bit unclear as it no longer seems it is being actively marketed.

The RCN desires a conventional sub capable of patrolling under the arctic ice sheet, and that means both long submerged range but also the ability to surface in an emergency through the ice, which means sail and hull reinforcement. It's not clear if any of these subs have that capability, however. They all have significantly greater endurance than the Victorias, however, at 80 days.

This is an interesting article that summarizes pretty well the ideal solution for Canada: The quest for the unconventional – conventional submarine

The A26 has some appeal in that it is offered in three different versions, with high commonality between all three, and would give the RCN the ability to mix and match, with the Oceanic ER version (10,000+ nm) for the long-range missions and arctic patrols, and the smaller A26 Oceanic (6,500 nm) for more limited deployments, such as patrolling off our coasts. Saab Expands its A26 Submarine Offer with now Three Variants to Choose From


View attachment 47177
I would like to see a deal with naval group for 3 barracuda SSN for use in the Arctic and 6 scorpene subs to replace the 4 subs we have now but I can't see that happening
Alright, this discussion on RCN subs is getting into fantasy land because we all know that the current Canadian govt is highly allergic to spending money on defence and no matter who controls the Treasury benches aren't much better because they procrastinate. Also posters are making illinformed posts because they do not understand the CONOPS, the sub capabilities desired, or the subs area of operations. Hence there is no future for this discussion.
 

aussienscale

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
I can find photos of models and other images showing four, five and six bladed props. I can think of a number of possibilities but having been involved in developing models of as yet unbuilt ship classes, I would think the most likely one is that it wasn’t specified to the model maker who had to use his or her best judgement. The models tend to get modified as we go along and the design evolves and becomes more definite.
I will ask Russ who made the model for Pacific 2019 that is in the Naval News video of the Hunter Class, my guess would also be "artistic" interpretation from the model makers, I would assume that most of the propulsion system is common to all variants

Cheers, watch this space
 

Calculus

Active Member
Does it? Where did Naval Technology get their figures from? Does that include the Whole Of Life Costs (WOLC)?
They got their figures from a quote made by Royal Australian Navy submarine programme head Rear Admiral Greg Sammut. It's in the link in my post. And no, that is not the WOLC - there is a further $145Billion of operating costs over the life of the subs.

Just in case there is any doubt:

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/submarine-fleet-tipped-to-cost-225b-to-build-and-maintain-20191129-p53fds.html

Defence Connect

Submarine costs spiraling into the stratosphere

Like I said. Too expensive for Canada, or anyone else other than Australia, for that matter.
 
Last edited:

spoz

The Bunker Group
Yes, but that is a costing to the year 2072 expressed in out turned dollars. It may well be too expensive for Canada, but any program costed to 50+ years in the future, given the current and experienced rate of increases in Defence equipment, is going to look just a tad expensive.
 

Calculus

Active Member
It is reputed the RCN has, for planning purposes, budgeted $20 Billion in Capital for a submarine replacement program, sometime around 2035. The numbers I have seen in several defence periodicals indicate that would be for 6-8 boats, so somewhere around $2.5-3.3 Billion each. That number is for purchase only. I have not seen any numbers for operating costs. In any case, the RCN has publicly stated on many occasions that it is planning for a new fleet, and it is in fact part of their guidance document Leadmark 2050 (see page 50). https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Leadmark-2050-13-May-2016.pdf

The 2035 date is further supported by the fact that the Victorias are currently undergoing LIFEX and system upgrades that will allow them to remain viable until the mid 2030s.

Hunter-killer sub HMCS Corner Brook undergoes massive retrofit
Canadian navy decides to start upgrades to extend life of aging submarine fleet
Navy seeks to extend lives of Canada’s four submarines into the 2030s

Further to this, the 2035 date lines up well with the Capital spending profile at DND. The two big Capital projects currently are Fighter Replacement and CSC. Fighter is supposed to deliver the last airframe around 2035, and CSC the last hull around 2039 (or 2041 depending on the source). That means that around the 2035 time-frame a lot of Capital money becomes available, which is exactly when the submarines are supposed to start arriving.

Here is an interesting slide showing RCN maritime projects - page 15 is for the subs: https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2019/05/07/01ad531f847ba84169412e5406a26438/dnd_procurement_outlook_en.pdf

victoria_cross_section_b.jpg
 

Calculus

Active Member
Yes, but that is a costing to the year 2072 expressed in out turned dollars. It may well be too expensive for Canada, but any program costed to 50+ years in the future, given the current and experienced rate of increases in Defence equipment, is going to look just a tad expensive.
That's true, but the 2072 dollars includes the lifetime sustainment (operating) costs. From what I have been able to gather, the actual build cost is $80 Billion, spread over 18 years (12 boats 18 month drumbeat), starting around 2032-35, which is exactly when Canada would need to start receiving new boats. The average build cost is 80/12 ($6.67 Billion per hull), but the first few will be worth much more than that. The point I was trying to make is if Canada has a budget of somewhere between $2.5 - 3.3 Billion (see my post 2198), Attack is simply not affordable.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
That's true, but the 2072 dollars includes the lifetime sustainment (operating) costs. From what I have been able to gather, the actual build cost is $80 Billion, spread over 18 years (12 boats 18 month drumbeat), starting around 2032-35, which is exactly when Canada would need to start receiving new boats. The average build cost is 80/12 ($6.67 Billion per hull), but the first few will be worth much more than that. The point I was trying to make is if Canada has a budget of somewhere between $2.5 - 3.3 Billion (see my post 2198), Attack is simply not affordable.
A point of correction, the first Attack-class sub is expected to be launched ~2030, followed by approximately 18 months of trials with handover to the RAN occurring in ~2032. The anticipated drumbeat is a sub every 2-3 years, not one every 18 months. A build run of 18 years for a dozen subs would IMO make batch building a bit more difficult, and that short a production run, especially if it is to be part of a National Shipbuilding Program, would make sustaining the workforce rather difficult.

Also worth noting is that work has already begun on building or expanding facilities for the production of the Attack-class, with some parts of the hull expected to be produced in the early 2020's.
 

ASSAIL

Defense Professional
Verified Defense Pro
It is reputed the RCN has, for planning purposes, budgeted $20 Billion in Capital for a submarine replacement program, sometime around 2035. The numbers I have seen in several defence periodicals indicate that would be for 6-8 boats, so somewhere around $2.5-3.3 Billion each. That number is for purchase only. I have not seen any numbers for operating costs. In any case, the RCN has publicly stated on many occasions that it is planning for a new fleet, and it is in fact part of their guidance document Leadmark 2050 (see page 50). https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Leadmark-2050-13-May-2016.pdf

The 2035 date is further supported by the fact that the Victorias are currently undergoing LIFEX and system upgrades that will allow them to remain viable until the mid 2030s.

Hunter-killer sub HMCS Corner Brook undergoes massive retrofit
Canadian navy decides to start upgrades to extend life of aging submarine fleet
Navy seeks to extend lives of Canada’s four submarines into the 2030s

Further to this, the 2035 date lines up well with the Capital spending profile at DND. The two big Capital projects currently are Fighter Replacement and CSC. Fighter is supposed to deliver the last airframe around 2035, and CSC the last hull around 2039 (or 2041 depending on the source). That means that around the 2035 time-frame a lot of Capital money becomes available, which is exactly when the submarines are supposed to start arriving.

Here is an interesting slide showing RCN maritime projects - page 15 is for the subs: https://buyandsell.gc.ca/cds/public/2019/05/07/01ad531f847ba84169412e5406a26438/dnd_procurement_outlook_en.pdf

View attachment 47182
Has Canada ever released the total costs of the Victoria programme to date?
I seem to recall that they have spent an inordinate amount of time out of service rectifying both inherited shortcomings, accidental damage and modifications and this hasn’t been inconsequential.
Had new boats been acquired from ant one of the major builders I suspect both cost and operations would have improved.

The LIFEX is interesting considering these boats were designed and built in the 1970’s, the oldest will almost qualify for the Old Age Pension.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
The RCN desires a conventional sub capable of patrolling under the arctic ice sheet, and that means both long submerged range but also the ability to surface in an emergency through the ice, which means sail and hull reinforcement. It's not clear if any of these subs have that capability, however. They all have significantly greater endurance than the Victorias, however, at 80 days.
Couple of questions:

Has the Victoria class upgrade been costed out and funded? Are there any public details what this is going to cover? Timeframes?
Does the RCN need to patrol (at transit speed I assume, as plenty of subs will offer long submergence time) under thick ice?

Given Canada doesn't have that capability, hasn't had that capability, seems unwilling to fund that capability (in previous submarines) and that in <15 years there won't be any permanent icecap, and ice will be much thinner it would seem to be an odd requirement to put onto the submarine. That won't see the ocean until 2035 at the earliest.

If our governments won't fund Soryu (which I don't necessarily agree is the case), they certainly won't be looking at Attack, which by all accounts cost somewhere around $6.6 Billion each ($80Billion/12)
That is again in turned out 2080 dollars.
See below for more details of when the AU gov started doing this.
https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=jcpaa/defenceannual0311/report/appendixc.pdf

To give everyone an rough idea of what that would look like.
Best Inflation Calculator (2020) - Historical & Future Value | SmartAsset.com
$80b in 2070 would be approximately $23b in 2020 money. That does appear to be more than the $23 B Canada is proposing for acquisition. The subs will cost approximately $2b to build. In the scale of subs, this is more than cheap smaller European subs. Less than western nuclear submarines.

Navy’s New SSN(X) Attack Sub To Be Faster, More Lethal – And More Expensive - USNI News
SSN(X) is expected to cost $3.1-$5.5 B USD each.

For Australia the logical point for costings is the end point of the program. So a suitable year base line is chosen and figures across the project are turned out to that year. This makes it not quite straightforward to compare with other projects or other countries acquisitions.
SMH said:
The head of the Navy's submarine program, Greg Sammut, told a Senate estimates hearing on Friday the "out-turn cost" - the actual cost of the build calculated at the end of the project - was now estimated to be at least $80 billion.
Submarines are expensive, they are expensive to buy and expensive to operate. There is no cheap submarine. Refits cost ~75% of a new purchase. Like many military projects, your intention is to create something superior than what it will face. Often that requires outspending the opposition. In Australia's case it was decided we would get better value by spending more. Making a more capable submarine, and making more of them. That is not a flaw, that is a chosen path to enhanced capability.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Has Canada ever released the total costs of the Victoria programme to date?
I seem to recall that they have spent an inordinate amount of time out of service rectifying both inherited shortcomings, accidental damage and modifications and this hasn’t been inconsequential.
Had new boats been acquired from ant one of the major builders I suspect both cost and operations would have improved.

The LIFEX is interesting considering these boats were designed and built in the 1970’s, the oldest will almost qualify for the Old Age Pension.
I believe these boats were constructed in the late 1980s and didn’t enter service until 1991 and were all mothballed by 1995. The RCN didn’t begin to use them until around 2000. The main issue was they didn’t age well during storage. It is still my belief the RCN knew their condition was not optimal but honestly believed if they didn’t push for the acquisition the RCN would have been out of the sub business. Chrétien was ok pi$$ing away 500 million on helicopter cancellations but committing money for new subs...not so much. Four new boats in 2000 would mean a no financial stress replacement in 2035-40 after the fighter replacement and CSC. Chrétien was a senior brown-noser and an advisor to junior.
 
Top