Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[John Fedup]

Hello again Delta 204. Yes 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 but nothing seems to be done about it. To have relevant Canadian Submarine assets to give pause to any future threats would be "calming". Yes, 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?

You are dreaming wrt slowpoke. Really don’t think the Japanese have the capacity now for export, their geopolitical situation is approaching sooner so they will be looking after their own expanded needs. It’s Euro or Australia-France and the latter doesn’t really look like an export possibility any time soon.

 

[John Fedup]

@Delta204 …. Even if the RCN were able to get some first rate PR people, the anti-military side will have a vastly larger PR effort. Also their message is an easier sale, fighter jet money directed towards “free $hit” instead of jets. Still the external pressure from allies should be enough for some jets. The 88 will likely become something less.

 

[Mikeymike]

I highly doubt the Canadian government will approve more than 4 new subs.

I reckon the navy will come back with a set of requirements that say "we need x subs, they will cost y if built in Canada, z if we buy OTS overseas." Government will baulk at this because requirements are for more than 4 subs they currently have, so will ask what is the cost of 4 replacement subs. They will then baulk at the cost of these 4 subs and either cancel program entirely or reduce requirements. If the navy can convince the government they absolutely need submarines the government will insist they are built in Canada and so cost per sub will skyrocket.

My guess will be the navy goes to government with "we need x subs, they will cost y if built in Canada, z if we buy OTS overseas. If you only want 4 it will cost y or z. Cheapest option is to join onto another countries orders. of which there are ~5 that fit our requirements (2 nuclear, 3 conventional), the Walrus, the Attack, the Soryu, the Barracuda or the Astute class." Doubt the nuclear ones are an option (if they are still being built) so that leaves the Australian, Japanese or the Dutch.

The Japanese didn't fit the Australian requirements, they have never exported anything as complex as a sub and are new to building overseas if this is a requirement. Most of these adjustments needed to fit Australian requirements I reckon are also needed for Canadian requirements.

Dutch Walrus class would probably come closest to current Victoria class specs you can get, though are likely to go through similar issues to the Australian and Japanese programs.

Australian Attack class would probably come closest to requirements with minimal modifications. Australia has however had problems with this program, though hopefully by the time the Canadians make a decision the first of class should be under construction, costs are more likely to be known and most of the issues resolved. It is also known Australia has capacity to speed up construction to fit in 4 submarines, though it is unlikely Canada could get any before ~2040 timeframe when Victoria class would have already hit end of life.

All three non-nuclear options remaining are possible but have their disadvantages (mainly cost) so possible government decides to go with a design from Europe (etc type 212) with reduced requirements. I reckon this is probably most likely outcome, particularly if being built in Canada is a requirement, though any made in Canada solution will require a shipyard built/modified to be able to build subs which will add cost.

 

[John Fedup]

Best case likely scenario, 4 subs built somewhere in Europe, worst case, end of RCN submarine capability. If the polar ice cap is lost then perhaps shorter endurance less expensive subs could be based up North.

 

[ngatimozart]

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.

Can they do a 3000nm transit to the patrol area, the patrol and then the 3,000nm transit back to their base without outside support and any logistics stops. That's what the Collins Class do. Have a look a map of Australia and the North Pacific. The Royal Australian Navy submarine base is just outside of Perth in Western Australia.

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 is one thing doing a transit from one sub base to another and totally different undertaking a patrol that maybe 2, 3 or 4 times the length of that transit. I know that you reside in Canada but it doesn't mean that you are fully aware of the Canada AOMI. There will be people in Canada who are seablind. I live in an island maritime nation with our nearest neighbour 900nm miles to our west. We pride ourselves in our prowess in yacht racing and water sports. Our largest city is called the city of sails, yet 90% of our population and 100 % of our political and government bureaucratic elite are seablind. The reason why I tell people to look at a map is that it visually represents the data in a way that is easily and quickly understood and grasped.

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.

The operative word is patrol and as it is an adjective in its usage it is dimensionless. When it is used as a noun then it can have a dimension attached which would be length measured in nm. That will determined in the requirements that the government eventually decide. Logic would suggest that given rising geopolitical and geostrategic tensions, plus the impacts of climate change upon the Arctic marine environment, the government most likely would look at patrols across the top of Canada with start and end points on each coast. For example a sub homeported on the east coast would start its patrol there go across the top and have a logistics stop at the west coast sub base before doing the second leg of its patrol back to its home port. Whether that actually happens is a totally different story.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

You are dreaming wrt slowpoke. Really don’t think the Japanese have the capacity now for export, their geopolitical situation is approaching sooner so they will be looking after their own expanded needs. It’s Euro or Australia-France and the latter doesn’t really look like an export possibility any time soon.

If the French sub export is not a possibly any time soon, why is it they have just sold 12 of their Barracuda design to Australia? IMO the German and Dutch designs, though great designs for Europe, are never-the-less inferior designs for Canadian waters. I believe we have 5 options here in Canada. Nuclear subs-Astute/Virginia class (That will never happen!); The French AIP Barracuda Block 1A class (A good possibility); The Japanese LIB AIP Soyou 29ss class (Another great option); Perhaps even the German Type 216 long range AIP sub (another good option) or scrap the submarine service entirely (The Canadian people would never stand for that!). Lets just let the process find its way for the RCN, and leave the politics out of it (for now)!

 

[Git_Kraken]

For example a sub homeported on the east coast would start its patrol there go across the top and have a logistics stop at the west coast sub base before doing the second leg of its patrol back to its home port. Whether that actually happens is a totally different story.

Under ice operations for a submarine are limited not only by their endurance but also by their ability to do damage control. A small diesel submarine cannot break through much of the arctic icepack in the event of a casualty or fire to reach the surface. There are plenty of spots where a nuke can't either, but a nuke boat's advantage is they can make unlimited O2 with their unlimited (essentially) power. Thus they could fight a fire or deal with smoke should they be unable to reach the surface. They can sustain their under ice operations indefinitely as well, as a diesel will need to find thinner ice to recharge eventually.

Image site found here:


Northwest passage transit for any submarine is a nice fiction that is used to stir up "But the Russians/American subs in our arctic!" but the icepack often (even in summer if the winds drive the ice) can go all the way to the bottom at four main NWP chokepoints, either as ice dams, a freeze or iceburgs scouring or dragging on the seafloor (Cambridge Bay, Simpson Strait, Bellot Strait and Prince of Wales Strait). Any arctic operations for a submarine in the Canadian arctic archipelago will likely be constrained to the entrances and exits of the NWP (Beaufort Sea and Baffin Bay).

There is a more consistant ice-free(ish) route that goes north of Baffin Island (M' Clure Straight through to Lancaster Sound) because the seas are more open there, with little risk of ice damming and the water is fairly deep. The government has placed a refueling station at Nanisivik (right beside Arctic Bay) which was christened two years ago now.

As far as range a 3000nm range is not enough to reach Nanisivik from the West Coast bases, one might be able to refuel in Yukon but that's a bit touch and go from what I understand. It's enough from St. Johns, Newfoundland (~2000nm, measured here).

All of this to say, diesel subs can do near ice and under edge ice operations in Canada's arctic, (with appropriate ice detecting sonar) but for true arctic submarine patrol you need a nuke. I don't expect RCN subs will spend that much time up north. Their CONOPS will likely have a nice nod to near and edge ice but the focus will be on Canada's southern waters, NATO, and our Pacific allies.

*edited for spelling/grammar

 

[John Fedup]

If the French sub export is not a possibly any time soon, why is it they have just sold 12 of their Barracuda design to Australia? IMO the German and Dutch designs, though great designs for Europe, are never-the-less inferior designs for Canadian waters. I believe we have 5 options here in Canada. Nuclear subs-Astute/Virginia class (That will never happen!); The French AIP Barracuda Block 1A class (A good possibility); The Japanese LIB AIP Soyou 29ss class (Another great option); Perhaps even the German Type 216 long range AIP sub (another good option) or scrap the submarine service entirely (The Canadian people would never stand for that!). Lets just let the process find its way for the RCN, and leave the politics out of it (for now)!

The Australian-French export deal is for supplying Australia with a custom designed boat for Australian CONOPS (which would be almost 100% compatible for the RCN). IMHO these two countries will be fully occupied with their own needs with very limited room for outside exports. Even with a partial construction in Canada, the limited build number would be small and the unit cost per boat would be a political $hitshow which pollies of all stripes would run away from. A French nuke boat would be nice if it was quiet enough but I doubt it would be cost competitive enough to justify the the extra advantages of endurance and under ice capability. Main Canadian opposition would be cost not the nuclear issue which according to our OZ colleagues is a show stopper for the Australian public.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

The Australian-French export deal is for supplying Australia with a custom designed boat for Australian CONOPS (which would be almost 100% compatible for the RCN). IMHO these two countries will be fully occupied with their own needs with very limited room for outside exports. Even with a partial construction in Canada, the limited build number would be small and the unit cost per boat would be a political $hitshow which pollies of all stripes would run away from. A French nuke boat would be nice if it was quiet enough but I doubt it would be cost competitive enough to justify the the extra advantages of endurance and under ice capability. Main Canadian opposition would be cost not the nuclear issue which according to our OZ colleagues is a show stopper for the Australian public.

Hi John. IMHO there would be no problem for DNCS to agree to build enough Barracuda class boats to address any of our own CONOPS. An 8 boat buy/build with options for more would be prudent. I might even give you the German Type 216 AIP as well. Lets leave the numbers to the RCN requirements and leave politics out of it for now. I disagree with the main Canadian opposition issue for nucs. Costs are indeed steep, but the main opposition would again, be the Canadian people.

 

[John Fedup]

Hi John. IMHO there would be no problem for DNCS to agree to build enough Barracuda class boats to address any of our own CONOPS. An 8 boat buy/build with options for more would be prudent. I might even give you the German Type 216 AIP as well. Lets leave the numbers to the RCN requirements and leave politics out of it for now. I disagree with the main Canadian opposition issue for nucs. Costs are indeed steep, but the main opposition would again, be the Canadian people.

From an Ontario perspective (and perhaps the Maritimes) I doubt there would be much opposition against a SSN versus SSK, cost would be more dominant. Quebec is anti-nuke but maybe the France connection neutralizes this. Even if a decision were made 5 years from now, I don’t think an eight boat fleet could be sailing by 2050 regardless of type or country of origin. By then I will be greenhouse gas assisting in the melting of the polar ice cap thus eliminating the under ice requirement at least.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

From an Ontario perspective (and perhaps the Maritimes) I doubt there would be much opposition against a SSN versus SSK, cost would be more dominant. Quebec is anti-nuke but maybe the France connection neutralizes this. Even if a decision were made 5 years from now, I don’t think an eight boat fleet could be sailing by 2050 regardless of type or country of origin. By then I will be greenhouse gas assisting in the melting of the polar ice cap thus eliminating the under ice requirement at least.

I believe the majority of people in the Maritimes (although perhaps diminished somewhat) would still not agree with Canadian Nucs in Halifax harbour. There is still stiff opposition every time a US Nuc boat comes into Haliax harbour for a port visit. They are still not allowed to tie up on the Halifax dockyard side but tie up by the ESSO refinery in Dartmouth. Even the US Nuc Carriers must anchor between Georges and the MacDonald bridge although that has more to do with Jetty space and draft than anything else. Like I said....we will see what we will see.

 

[John Fedup]

I believe the majority of people in the Maritimes (although perhaps diminished somewhat) would still not agree with Canadian Nucs in Halifax harbour. There is still stiff opposition every time a US Nuc boat comes into Haliax harbour for a port visit. They are still not allowed to tie up on the Halifax dockyard side but tie up by the ESSO refinery in Dartmouth. Even the US Nuc Carriers must anchor between Georges and the MacDonald bridge although that has more to do with Jetty space and draft than anything else. Like I said....we will see what we will see.

I’m afraid we won’t see anything that is crewed and works underwater.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

I Don't think the Arctic will be ice free any time soon. "Ice free" as defined by the IPCC is less than 20% pack ice (or some such). And all the predictions only call for ice free in the summer - meaning the end of September each year, at the end of the summer melt. At current rates of warming, it will be 1000 years or more before the arctic was ice free all year. So any boat we get either needs to get under ice, or we just leave that to the Americans (like we do now) and just deal with our two other oceans (Pacific and Atlantic), which is plenty.

 

[John Fedup]

I Don't think the Arctic will be ice free any time soon. "Ice free" as defined by the IPCC is less than 20% pack ice (or some such). And all the predictions only call for ice free in the summer - meaning the end of September each year, at the end of the summer melt. At current rates of warming, it will be 1000 years or more before the arctic was ice free all year. So any boat we get either needs to get under ice, or we just leave that to the Americans (like we do now) and just deal with our two other oceans (Pacific and Atlantic), which is plenty.

.

Yes, maybe a limited summer cruise to the Arctic and leave the 24/7/12 effort to the USN, probably what both governments are content with.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

.

Yes, maybe a limited summer cruise to the Arctic and leave the 24/7/12 effort to the USN, probably what both governments are content with.

I take it then John you are content with any foreign government, with or without our permission, taking over the responsibility of our own sovereignty? If that is your view then our country will become a protectorate and not a free and sovereign nation. I for one would not like that as many Canadians would not as well.

 

[John Fedup]

I would 10-12 boats capable of long endurance and under ice capable. Unfortunately myself and perhaps a few thousand citizens out of millions are willing to fund this thus it won’t happen. As for sovereignty in the Arctic Canada only has it above the surface , never had it underwater. With diminishing ice cover our surface sovereignty will diminish without increased naval presence, again limited support will likely mean not enough naval presence.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

I would 10-12 boats capable of long endurance and under ice capable. Unfortunately myself and perhaps a few thousand citizens out of millions are willing to fund this thus it won’t happen. As for sovereignty in the Arctic Canada only has it above the surface , never had it underwater. With diminishing ice cover our surface sovereignty will diminish without increased naval presence, again limited support will likely mean not enough naval presence.

I think you will find more Canadians than you say (just a few thousand out of millions) are willing to do what it takes to keep our military capable and current. Perhaps most of us feel that way. 10-12 AIP boats is very doable. We just have to have the political will to let it happen.

 

[Git_Kraken]

10-12 AIP boats are not doable. With AOPS, CSC, MCDV's, JSS and now the subs we have back in the water the number of sailors is stretched pretty thin. Retention isn't something we're doing very well right now.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

10-12 AIP boats are not doable. With AOPS, CSC, MCDV's, JSS and now the subs we have back in the water the number of sailors is stretched pretty thin. Retention isn't something we're doing very well right now.

Yes, it will take more sailors for the extra boats but this is doable as I have said. Thank goodness Canadians are not so pessimistic.

 

[HaroldBloggins]

The RCN has unofficially has been working on a Victoria Class replacement for some time now. The consensus is that it will be foreign built, long distance patrol, no AIP. The numbers I have seen is 6 to prevent gaps in available boats.