Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Git_Kraken

Member
The people that I deal with is thinking 6 so not to have any operation gaps and to account for unexcepted incidents. The crews are going to be reduced as well or at least that's the intent through automation and really available crew will be a major deciding factor on any purchase we make.
Six is the minimum. Three each coast. Then you can run the one in maintenance, one training/transition, one operational dance. Always have at least one submarine per coast available likely two in a pinch. Though I really think more subs west coast would be better.
 
Last edited:

HaroldBloggins

New Member
Six is the minimum. Three each coast. Then you can run the one in maintenance, one training/transition, one operational dance. Always have at least one submarine per coast available likely two in a pinch. Though I really think more subs west coast would be better.
Concur, more than likely more on the WC given the potential of issues from China.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Concur, more than likely more on the WC given the potential of issues from China.
I wouldn't discount Russia causing problems at the same time that the situation with the PRC livens up. Putin will take advantage of the Indo-Pacific situation to further his own agenda, which appears to be the reestablishment of the Russian Empire back to the boundaries of either the former USSR or the former Romanov Dynasty. In some ways he sees himself as Tsar Vladimir.
 

HaroldBloggins

New Member

Git_Kraken

Member
I wouldn't discount Russia causing problems at the same time that the situation with the PRC livens up. Putin will take advantage of the Indo-Pacific situation to further his own agenda, which appears to be the reestablishment of the Russian Empire back to the boundaries of either the former USSR or the former Romanov Dynasty. In some ways he sees himself as Tsar Vladimir.
True, however, I don't lose sleep over Russia. China, an aggressive superpower (let's just call it what it is at this point) that is driving toward technical parity with the west, I lose sleep over.
 

HaroldBloggins

New Member
On Tues HMCS Harry DeWolf will deploy to the Arctic with HMCS Goose Bay and ships of the USCG. While there HMCS Harry DeWolf will transit back to Halifax via the NW passage and the Panama Canal. This is a major milestone for the RCN conducting sovereignty patrols in the Arctic, the NW passage and recreating HMCS Labradors transit in 1954.
Picture courtesy of DND.
116018185_10158393128635761_679225083704870590_n.jpg
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
On Tues HMCS Harry DeWolf will deploy to the Arctic with HMCS Goose Bay and ships of the USCG. While there HMCS Harry DeWolf will transit back to Halifax via the NW passage and the Panama Canal. This is a major milestone for the RCN conducting sovereignty patrols in the Arctic, the NW passage and recreating HMCS Labradors transit in 1954.
Picture courtesy of DND.
View attachment 48391
Further to this, new video from the warm weather and gun trials:
 

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
A very interesting and thought-provoking article by the CNR Webmaster on Canadian submarine acquisition and political bungling by Canadian governments over the last 70 years. We never seem to learn from our mistakes on Naval procurements. In my opinion (IMO), once the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP) is stood up by the RCN, one of its first mandates would be to immediately create a public document for the Canadian people explaining why Canada desperately needs to quickly proceed with a modern AIP submarine acquisition program, give them specific options and numbers required. There have never been so many options in the past as there are now. They must enlighten Canadians with the different types of modern AIP Submarines and specifically discuss submarine requirements for the future RCN submarine fleet with pros and cons of building them in Canada. There are now several types of ocean-going AIP submarines being built by France, Germany, Spain and Japan that may “fit the bill” where once there were no options at all. These include the 12 French Barracuda Block 1A class (based on their Suffern class SSN) now being built in Australia for the RAN by the French DCNS Group; the Spanish S80 Plus class being built by Spanish company Navantia; the Soryu 29SS class with Lithium Ion Battery (LIB) technology from Japan being built by Kawasaki Heavy Industries and the German type 216 now being developed by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS). All have different AIP technologies, have displacements of over 4000 tons with pros and cons in all of these AIP designs. They all would however be game changers as future Canadian submarines. The Canadian Senate recommended to the government in 2017 to swiftly acquire 12 modern AIP replacements for the beleaguered Victoria class but the government quickly rejected that recommendation. Lets then have the Canadian people contribute to the RCNs recommendations to the government for its final decision and quickly push forward on this!

 

swerve

Super Moderator
No submarines are "now being built in Australia". The Attack class, based on the French Shortfin Barracuda, is expected to begin building in 2023 or so. The Australians & Naval Group (formerly DCNS) are still working on details.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
No submarines are "now being built in Australia". The Attack class, based on the French Shortfin Barracuda, is expected to begin building in 2023 or so. The Australians & Naval Group (formerly DCNS) are still working on details.
Additionally, I cannot find any confirmation from official sources that the planned Attack-class SSG will feature AIP. Even looking any various publications, I only came across one reference here that the RAN's planned sub would have AIP. Given that Australia trialed an AIP setup using a Stirling engine on a test rig to be potentially fitted to the Collins-class subs via a hull plug, but instead after the tests were concluded packed the AIP setup back up and put it on a pallet...
 

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
No submarines are "now being built in Australia". The Attack class, based on the French Shortfin Barracuda, is expected to begin building in 2023 or so. The Australians & Naval Group (formerly DCNS) are still working on details.
Not now being built. I should have said "soon" to be built. Cheers!;)
 

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
Additionally, I cannot find any confirmation from official sources that the planned Attack-class SSG will feature AIP. Even looking any various publications, I only came across one reference here that the RAN's planned sub would have AIP. Given that Australia trialed an AIP setup using a Stirling engine on a test rig to be potentially fitted to the Collins-class subs via a hull plug, but instead after the tests were concluded packed the AIP setup back up and put it on a pallet...
Navy Recognition states that the German Type 216 will have AIP characteristics with propulsion from Air independent propulsion: 4x PEM FC modules 120 kW and 2x Methanol reformer along with Energy storage from Lithium ion batteries.

 

swerve

Super Moderator
But the Attack class is not connected to the Type 216. They are completely separate designs, from different builders, in different countries.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Navy Recognition states that the German Type 216 will have AIP characteristics with propulsion from Air independent propulsion: 4x PEM FC modules 120 kW and 2x Methanol reformer along with Energy storage from Lithium ion batteries.

That's about a design offered to Australia- linked article is from 2011 and is unrelated to anything chosen by the GoA

oldsig
 

Redlands18

Well-Known Member
Everything we have seen so far coming from the RAN and Naval Group suggests Australia is far more interested in advanced Battery technology then AIP systems. From what i can gather AIP has a major issue with speed, it’s great to be able to stay underwater for 18 straight days but if you are only travelling at 5kt then you are limited to what you can do in those 18 days.
 

HaroldBloggins

New Member
A very interesting and thought-provoking article by the CNR Webmaster on Canadian submarine acquisition and political bungling by Canadian governments over the last 70 years. We never seem to learn from our mistakes on Naval procurements. In my opinion (IMO), once the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP) is stood up by the RCN, one of its first mandates would be to immediately create a public document for the Canadian people explaining why Canada desperately needs to quickly proceed with a modern AIP submarine acquisition program, give them specific options and numbers required. There have never been so many options in the past as there are now. They must enlighten Canadians with the different types of modern AIP Submarines and specifically discuss submarine requirements for the future RCN submarine fleet with pros and cons of building them in Canada. There are now several types of ocean-going AIP submarines being built by France, Germany, Spain and Japan that may “fit the bill” where once there were no options at all. These include the 12 French Barracuda Block 1A class (based on their Suffern class SSN) now being built in Australia for the RAN by the French DCNS Group; the Spanish S80 Plus class being built by Spanish company Navantia; the Soryu 29SS class with Lithium Ion Battery (LIB) technology from Japan being built by Kawasaki Heavy Industries and the German type 216 now being developed by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS). All have different AIP technologies, have displacements of over 4000 tons with pros and cons in all of these AIP designs. They all would however be game changers as future Canadian submarines. The Canadian Senate recommended to the government in 2017 to swiftly acquire 12 modern AIP replacements for the beleaguered Victoria class but the government quickly rejected that recommendation. Lets then have the Canadian people contribute to the RCNs recommendations to the government for its final decision and quickly push forward on this!

It would be stretch to call it thought provoking in my opinion and not once in the article it mentions AIP so that's your spin. From what I'm being told most sub programs will be looked at and the usual statement of requirements will be put out eventually to industry I will tell you with a certainty that the RCN will not be rushing into this program given the flack they received with the Victoria Class purchase and the issue other countries have trying to procure. The RCN will be methodical and careful with this.
Addressing the AIP issue again, it is in my opinion that the technology is not mature enough and probably never meet the requirements of the RCN. Like was just mentioned better battery storage technology will more than likely be leveraged. I also wouldn't consider the Canadian senate an expert on anything naval as aren't they the ones that called the AOPS "slush breakers"?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
It would be stretch to call it thought provoking in my opinion and not once in the article it mentions AIP so that's your spin. From what I'm being told most sub programs will be looked at and the usual statement of requirements will be put out eventually to industry I will tell you with a certainty that the RCN will not be rushing into this program given the flack they received with the Victoria Class purchase and the issue other countries have trying to procure. The RCN will be methodical and careful with this.
Addressing the AIP issue again, it is in my opinion that the technology is not mature enough and probably never meet the requirements of the RCN. Like was just mentioned better battery storage technology will more than likely be leveraged. I also wouldn't consider the Canadian senate an expert on anything naval as aren't they the ones that called the AOPS "slush breakers"?
From my limited knowledge, it does not seem that the "maturity" of AIP technology is really an issue. It seems rather, that the capabilities AIP provides work better for some submarine CONOPS than others. CONOPS which value prolonged (relatively) dives, without the need to transit long distances in fairly short periods of time would likely value current AIP systems. I could be mistaken, but such CONOPS would suggest to me that the normal patrol areas assigned to such subs would be (again, relatively) close to where these subs were home ported and/or had friendly ports nearby.

Now if AIP systems were sufficiently advanced and capable, including power generation and energy density, to completely replace the conventional diesel engines aboard a diesel-electric sub, then the discussion would be a bit different. AFAIK though, there is no AIP system which can match the power generation of a diesel engine, or the energy density of naval-grade diesel/fuel oil.

It also might be worth noting that AIP systems had been designed as far back as the early 1930's, and examples were commissioned between 1943 and 1944 by the Kriegsmarine. Elements of the technologies involved have been around for some time, but it has been problematic managing to overcome some of the engineering challenges and delivering operationally useful capabilities.
 

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
But the Attack class is not connected to the Type 216. They are completely separate designs, from different builders, in different countries.
Hello swerve. Yes, I know the "Attack class" will be built in Australia for the RAN by the DNCS Group. I never said the German type 216 had anything to do with the Attack class. Just that they were both options for Canada.
 
Top