Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[Git_Kraken]

(snip...) Realistically RCN submarine operations will be patrolling the approaches to the North American continent and perhaps the Caribbean/top part of South America. I seriously doubt the Japanese want to deal with our military procurement horror show. The OZ-France program, likely no enthusiasm either, great if something actually happens but $hit seems to happen more often than not with joint development projects.

RCN subs have done patrols in the vicinity of NK in recent years. Not to mention some Med operations. They just haven't been in repair to do those sorts of missions. That being said, yes I agree that what you said are most likely the most common mission sets for them.

I expect a build-in Canada approach because all of our military procurement turns into corporate welfare and can often be sold under the guise of job creation. Though there are shipbuilders on record (Davie) who have said it would be crazy to try and build subs from scratch. That being said we could have the submarine hulls built somewhere else and do much of the outfitting in Canada. There is a surprisingly strong refit basis for subs in Canada (given their "non-operational" history).

Similar to this image (taken from the Saab website for references)



I would watch the Dutch procurement closely. That sort of timeline is really close to what Canada would like, the Dutch are only getting four-ish subs and their mission sets are nearly identical to ours for the Atlantic region at least. The Dutch run command courses for our submariners and use the same torps as we have in inventory. There are lots to build on from that partnership.

 

[John Fedup]

The CSC program performance will be a huge factor as to whether subs would be built (or partially) under license in Canada. If costs really go to $hit for the CSC then new subs might never happen. With a pending election in the fall that junior will likely win, it will be another 5 years before any serious information is known about COVID costs. The list of kit requiring replacement grows every year with zero replacement results. DND will have to make some hard decisions down the road on what capabilities are to be sacrificed.

 

[StingrayOZ]

With Subs, refit isn't just a coat of paint and new oil filters. Its a complete rework of the sub.

Sub refits are often extremely labor intensive and can cost ~75%+ of the new acquisition cost (but generally less risk, and faster time frame). You can assemble block locally from overseas fabricated sections, particularly if you have a small build program.

With your own subs, you can practice and hone ASW of your surface fleet. You gain fleet knowledge of how subs operate with both allies and foes. They can perform a huge range of missions in peace and war time.

There are a range of reasonable options that Canada could consider. Its not like there is just one submarine to choose from. There are a wide range of options. Smaller, less wealthier and less capable countries than Canada operate and have built submarines successfully.

 

[ngatimozart]

RCN subs have done patrols in the vicinity of NK in recent years. Not to mention some Med operations. They just haven't been in repair to do those sorts of missions. That being said, yes I agree that what you said are most likely the most common mission sets for them.

I expect a build-in Canada approach because all of our military procurement turns into corporate welfare and can often be sold under the guise of job creation. Though there are shipbuilders on record (Davie) who have said it would be crazy to try and build subs from scratch. That being said we could have the submarine hulls built somewhere else and do much of the outfitting in Canada. There is a surprisingly strong refit basis for subs in Canada (given their "non-operational" history).

Similar to this image (taken from the Saab website for references)

View attachment 48334

I would watch the Dutch procurement closely. That sort of timeline is really close to what Canada would like, the Dutch are only getting four-ish subs and their mission sets are nearly identical to ours for the Atlantic region at least. The Dutch run command courses for our submariners and use the same torps as we have in inventory. There are lots to build on from that partnership.

Dutch subs are basically coastal subs much like German and Swedish subs. Canada doesn't just have one region it operates in and its CONOPS and submarine requirements are totally different to those three countries. None of those countries operate in two hemispheric oceans simultaneously nor do they have an AOMI (Area Of Maritime Interest) that extends across 10 time zones and 60° of longitude. They don't continuously operate in the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific Oceans do they? So I suggest that you actually sit down with a map of the Northern Hemisphere and look at the oceanic areas that border Canada upon three sides.

If the Canadian government is going to expend significant quantities of national treasure upon submarines it's not going to spend it on something that's only capable of operating on one coast. Even they aren't that stupid - he says hopefully. After the Victoria Class acquisition one wonders though.

 

[John Fedup]

@ngatimozart …I think our governments have a proven record of being stupid so if subs are bought, they won’t fit CONOPS requirements, only budgetary requirements. A former government almost abandoned submarines, the current political environment would allow an even easier exit.

 

[ngatimozart]

@ngatimozart …I think our governments have a proven record of being stupid so if subs are bought, they won’t fit CONOPS requirements, only budgetary requirements. A former government almost abandoned submarines, the current political environment would allow an even easier exit.

We can but live in hope. Stranger things have happened.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

I think it doubtful that the German coastal/Baltic submarine design makes a bid given the mission sets that RCN subs are likely to be doing, but we don't know what the req's are yet, let alone if the government will agree to getting new subs. So I would standby on that one.

As for numbers, I think 6 are more likely. There isn't even close to enough crew to get 12. Complete pipe dream. As for the type of sub, well the Dutch replacement program is a good place to start. There the Shortfin is going against both German and Swedish subs under a competition that likely has similar requirements to what Canadian ones will be.

My personal concern is that 6 subs no matter what class may be chosen by the government will not be enough to do all the tasks required by the Government. That leaves 3 subs per coast. One in deep maintenance, one in build up/down mode and one operational per coast. I could see possibly an 8-10 sub acquisition (4-5 per coast) would be a better option. But no matter what happens, you are correct in personnel strength. It will have to increase by xxx numbers through an increase in CF strength no doubt.

 

[John Fedup]

Canada basically has a one submarine navy at present and there is zero political pressure to correct this disgraceful situation now or long into the foreseeable future. Eight to ten boats is a minimum but won’t happen, six boats, even this number is optimistic given our electorate. One thing that pi$$es me off is the outrageous cost of the JSS project, the cost savings of building off shore could have put back into pointy end ships that should be built in Canada. Of course I am being naive, the savings would end up in some pollie’s pork program.

 

[walter]

Dutch subs are basically coastal subs much like German and Swedish subs. Canada doesn't just have one region it operates in and its CONOPS and submarine requirements are totally different to those three countries. None of those countries operate in two hemispheric oceans simultaneously nor do they have an AOMI (Area Of Maritime Interest) that extends across 10 time zones and 60° of longitude. They don't continuously operate in the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific Oceans do they? So I suggest that you actually sit down with a map of the Northern Hemisphere and look at the oceanic areas that border Canada upon three sides.

If the Canadian government is going to expend significant quantities of national treasure upon submarines it's not going to spend it on something that's only capable of operating on one coast. Even they aren't that stupid - he says hopefully. After the Victoria Class acquisition one wonders though.

So you are saying the "Walrus"is a coastal boat,really?
There's not much difference in capabillities between a "Collins" and a "Walrus",so if i should "use" your way of thinking,the "Collins" is also a coastal boat.

But ok.

 

[Git_Kraken]

Dutch subs are basically coastal subs much like German and Swedish subs. Canada doesn't just have one region it operates in and its CONOPS and submarine requirements are totally different to those three countries. None of those countries operate in two hemispheric oceans simultaneously nor do they have an AOMI (Area Of Maritime Interest) that extends across 10 time zones and 60° of longitude. They don't continuously operate in the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific Oceans do they? So I suggest that you actually sit down with a map of the Northern Hemisphere and look at the oceanic areas that border Canada upon three sides.

I'm not sure if you intended to come across as patronizing but I'm quite aware of Canada's operating environment for submarines.

Dutch subs do continuously operate in the Atlantic when they are doing their turn with an SNMG (Standing NATO Maritime Group) and do transits regularly to the Dutch Carib territories. Walrus class is expeditionary, shockingly so for their size. Are their CONOPs different? For sure, but Canada is not likey in a place where we can afford to design a diesel submarine exactly to match their own CONOPS, and if the sub is a good enough fit then it's a good enough fit. The RCN sub fleet has been making do with smaller diesel subs for their entire history.

It's important to notice the labeling on the project office. It's called the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project. If one could infer a mission from a title, patrol likely means a larger longer-range submarine.

 

[walter]

to prove my point,in the Dutch Caribs,which btw is on the other side of the ocean,Walrusses are regurlarly spotted(and no i don't mean the mammal.

 

[walter]

Didn't knew Somalia was next to the Ntherlands(or closeby,for that matter

Dutch submarine to help NATO combat piracy off Somali coast

On the Alliance’s request, the Netherlands has agreed to deploy a submarine as part of multinational efforts to combat piracy off the east coast of Africa, from the Gulf of Aden – one of the busiest global shipping routes – to the Indian Ocean. The submarine will be used to monitor communication...

www.nato.int

Sorry Ngatimozart,but if you are stating that the Walrus class is a coastal boat,well(in my opinion,and the the silent service)you are not in the know,sorry my friend.

and i will leave it at this.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

RCN subs have done patrols in the vicinity of NK in recent years. Not to mention some Med operations. They just haven't been in repair to do those sorts of missions. That being said, yes I agree that what you said are most likely the most common mission sets for them.

I expect a build-in Canada approach because all of our military procurement turns into corporate welfare and can often be sold under the guise of job creation. Though there are shipbuilders on record (Davie) who have said it would be crazy to try and build subs from scratch. That being said we could have the submarine hulls built somewhere else and do much of the outfitting in Canada. There is a surprisingly strong refit basis for subs in Canada (given their "non-operational" history).

Similar to this image (taken from the Saab website for references)

View attachment 48334

I would watch the Dutch procurement closely. That sort of timeline is really close to what Canada would like, the Dutch are only getting four-ish subs and their mission sets are nearly identical to ours for the Atlantic region at least. The Dutch run command courses for our submariners and use the same torps as we have in inventory. There are lots to build on from that partnership.

Although a "built in Canada" approach would be great and politically expedient, I'm afraid Canada would have to "bite-the-bullet" on where these future subs would be built. If we had the expertise that other Navies have like France, Japan, Australia, UK & US, then I would say it could be possible but Canada has only built submarines for the Royal Navy in WWI, so the expertise is not there now. Having them built off-shore and outfitted here in Canada would be the most prudent way to go. Davie Shipyard in this instance is correct. It would be insane to have them built from scratch here in Canada.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

Dutch subs are basically coastal subs much like German and Swedish subs. Canada doesn't just have one region it operates in and its CONOPS and submarine requirements are totally different to those three countries. None of those countries operate in two hemispheric oceans simultaneously nor do they have an AOMI (Area Of Maritime Interest) that extends across 10 time zones and 60° of longitude. They don't continuously operate in the Atlantic, Arctic and Pacific Oceans do they? So I suggest that you actually sit down with a map of the Northern Hemisphere and look at the oceanic areas that border Canada upon three sides.

If the Canadian government is going to expend significant quantities of national treasure upon submarines it's not going to spend it on something that's only capable of operating on one coast. Even they aren't that stupid - he says hopefully. After the Victoria Class acquisition one wonders though.

What you say ngatimozart makes so much sense. Some do not have any idea as to where these future subs would have to operate here in Canada and around the world. I have sailed on both Canadian coasts as well as the Arctic region and believe me, the area is so huge not to mention the ice problems in the Arctic. Rough enough for a surface vessel let alone a Submarine. Canada's Strong, Secured, Engaged policy dictates what and where we operate both domestically and world-wide. This requires a submarine design that is big enough and strong enough to endure all of Canada's harsh conditions and safely come back to home port fully intact every time. If a European sub has to return to base for repairs, it can do so expeditiously but a Canadian sub operating in the high Arctic lets say, would have a much harder time of it. There are not that many 4-5000t AIP subs out there that would be great options for Canada and what will be required of them by our "task-masters". A nuclear submarine would obviously be the best option however that ship has since sailed long ago and a "made-in-Canada" solution is decades away at least. if ever.

 

[Delta204]

@ngatimozart …I think our governments have a proven record of being stupid so if subs are bought, they won’t fit CONOPS requirements, only budgetary requirements. A former government almost abandoned submarines, the current political environment would allow an even easier exit.

I wouldn't be so pessimistic, unlike previous Liberal governments, the current one isn't as concerned about deficits. The geopolitical environment has also changed dramatically since then... There is probably a very real chance that a near-peer state could contest or attack sea lanes in the next 15 years, something I would say the RCN is keenly aware of.

 

[John Fedup]

Strong, Secure, and Engaged….typical polly campaign speak with a shelf life of one election cycle.

 

[John Fedup]

I wouldn't be so pessimistic, unlike previous Liberal governments, the current one isn't as concerned about deficits. The geopolitical environment has also changed dramatically since then... There is probably a very real chance that a near-peer state could contest or attack sea lanes in the next 15 years, something I would say the RCN is keenly aware of.

What the RCN is aware of now will take our pollies at least half of those 15 years to figure out. The first operational CSC is at least 10 years away, and even a partially capable 212CD probably 20 years. The nations exporting subs will quickly have their vendors looking after there needs in any serious near peer confrontation. We will be at the back of the queue.

 

[Delta204]

A few other thoughts on the topic.

Regarding numbers. It will almost certainly be in the 6-8 range. Since we are not going nuclear there are diminishing returns going beyond this anyway. We don't need to have a sub on each coast (all three of them) like many suggest - it doesnt match our CONOPS.

I suspect the RCN will not discuss arctic / under ice capabilities much but it will be interesting to see how they handle this once it does get brought up. Our northern shores are essentially already patrolled by SSN's - just not from the RCN. Any additional capability in this area might not be welcomed by our closest partner and ally. So don't hold your breath for any expanded under ice capability.

I'd expect a design that can travel at higher speeds while submerged... the type of propulsion and power chosen or suggested will certainly be interesting to follow. The newer Japanese designs could be the closest to what we might be looking for?

Finally, I hope the RCN includes public relations as key to this project. So little is understood by media, voters and politicians on this topic. The so called defense experts who comment on mainstream media also do a very poor job. If the RCN can get ahead of this from the beginning it would go a long way IMO.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

I wouldn't be so pessimistic, unlike previous Liberal governments, the current one isn't as concerned about deficits. The geopolitical environment has also changed dramatically since then... There is probably a very real chance that a near-peer state could contest or attack sea lanes in the next 15 years, something I would say the RCN is keenly aware of.

Hello Delta204. Despite all the rhetoric I am still cautiously optimistic and believe our next subs to replace the Victoria class will be world-class as I feel the CSC Frigates will be as well. I am just disappointed that the submarine replacement process is coming so late in the game. Should have happened perhaps at least a decade ago. Your ominous prediction 15 years down the line is probably when the RCN may receive their first Victoria class replacement!

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

A few other thoughts on the topic.

Regarding numbers. It will almost certainly be in the 6-8 range. Since we are not going nuclear there are diminishing returns going beyond this anyway. We don't need to have a sub on each coast (all three of them) like many suggest - it doesnt match our CONOPS.

I suspect the RCN will not discuss arctic / under ice capabilities much but it will be interesting to see how they handle this once it does get brought up. Our northern shores are essentially already patrolled by SSN's - just not from the RCN. Any additional capability in this area might not be welcomed by our closest partner and ally. So don't hold your breath for any expanded under ice capability.

I'd expect a design that can travel at higher speeds while submerged... the type of propulsion and power chosen or suggested will certainly be interesting to follow. The newer Japanese designs could be the closest to what we might be looking for?

Finally, I hope the RCN includes public relations as key to this project. So little is understood by media, voters and politicians on this topic. The so called defense experts who comment on mainstream media also do a very poor job. If the RCN can get ahead of this from the beginning it would go a long way IMO.

Hello again Delta 204. In My Opinion (IMO) I can see probably A new AIP sub fleet build of 8 with an option to build more down the road. The distribution per coast may change depending on the geo-political status of the day, but an even split per coast would be prudent at first. We all know that there are and have been foreign submarines in Canadian waters that are not part of the NATO Water Space Management System. To have relevant Canadian Submarine assets to give pause to any future threats would be "calming". IMO, I believe the Japanese Soyou 29SS design may be a good option for Canada. Don't know about high speeds when submerged though. Perhaps the LIB technology the Japanese class uses will improve to the point where those speeds could be possible. Perhaps a Canadian Hybrid Submarine design utilizing an improved Slowpoke-2’ reactor? Or am I just dreaming?