Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[DAVID DUNLOP]

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...

I stand by my opinion that the ShortFin Barracuda class (Attack class) soon to be built by DNCS Group will have AIP technology for the RAN. If you can prove otherwise, please let me know. Even if these boats do not end up having AIP technology, they would still be "game changers" for Canada. IMOO though, the Soryu class would be the best option for Canada and the RCN.

 

[ngatimozart]

I stand by my opinion that the ShortFin Barracuda class (Attack class) soon to be built by DNCS Group will have AIP technology for the RAN. If you can prove otherwise, please let me know. Even if these boats do not end up having AIP technology, they would still be "game changers" for Canada. IMOO though, the Soryu class would be the best option for Canada and the RCN.

You have nothing to prove that assumption. There is no Australian government publication of any type to state that they intend to install AIP in the SEA1000 Future Submarine Shortfin Barracuda Class. Other posters have told you this. You provide the evidence to support your claim. Don't require others to prove you right or wrong. That speaks of arrogance and gets the Moderators troll hunting mode twitchy.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

.... 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"?

Not the Senate, it was the NDP - Jack Layton - that called them slush breakers.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

You have nothing to prove that assumption. There is no Australian government publication of any type to state that they intend to install AIP in the SEA1000 Future Submarine Shortfin Barracuda Class. Other posters have told you this. You provide the evidence to support your claim. Don't require others to prove you right or wrong. That speaks of arrogance and gets the Moderators troll hunting mode twitchy.

Yes, the Australian government has indicated that the Attack class will definitely not have AIP technology. They also seem to be not very happy with DNCS Groups progress of the Attack class ($$) and may even consider scrapping the Shortfin Barracuda class entirely and seem to be again considering other submarines with AIP technologies as per below. Don't know if they can save this project but the next few months might "tell the tail" of these tragic happenings. In my opinion though, the Barracuda Block 1A although not having AIP technologies or SMX Ocean product from France are still options on the RCN choice list along with the Japanese Soryu 29SS, the German Type 216 and the Spanish S-80 classes as long as they have some sort of AIP technology.

Australia Reportedly Looking At An Alternative To Its Costly New French-Designed Submarines

The plan to introduce 12 new and highly advanced Attack class submarines is running into political and financial flak.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Todjaeger]

Yes, the Australian government has indicated that the Attack class will definitely not have AIP technology. They also seem to be not very happy with DNCS Groups progress of the Attack class ($$) and may even consider scrapping the Shortfin Barracuda class entirely and seem to be again considering other submarines with AIP technologies as per below. Don't know if they can save this project but the next few months might "tell the tail" of these tragic happenings. In my opinion though, the Barracuda Block 1A although not having AIP technologies or SMX Ocean product from France are still options on the RCN choice list along with the Japanese Soryu 29SS, the German Type 216 and the Spanish S-80 classes as long as they have some sort of AIP technology.

Australia Reportedly Looking At An Alternative To Its Costly New French-Designed Submarines

The plan to introduce 12 new and highly advanced Attack class submarines is running into political and financial flak.

www.thedrive.com

Okay, I do not want to keep beating a dead horse, but it seems to be rather necessary at this point.

AIP, at least considering existing designs and technology, provide certain specific capabilities in terms of how long a submarine can be submerged without needing to resurface to recharge the batteries, replenish onboard oxygen stores, etc. For certain navies that operate submarines, that ability for prolonged periods (measuring in terms of multiple days) submerged can be quite valuable, given the CONOPS of those submarine services.

However, AIP systems at present do not provide a complete replacement of conventional diesel-electric propulsion and power generation, so any design considering including AIP needs to consider whether or not the AIP and associated fuel systems are worth more than using the volume and displacement for other submarine systems, like more fuel, more battery storage, more weapons, swimmer delivery systems, etc.

If the capabilities that AIP provides fits into a future RCN submarine service CONOPS, then having AIP, or at least the option for fitting AIP would make sense. OTOH mandating that AIP be included or part of the design, without also considering how any AIP capabilities would fit into how the RCN would 'fight' the sub would IMO be foolish at best. If the RCN's future subs are to have a CONOPS similar to the RAN, with patrols of significant duration in patrol areas that require long transits to and from RCN bases, then AIP would likely be of much lesser importance, and the space and displacement would likely have better uses.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

Okay, I do not want to keep beating a dead horse, but it seems to be rather necessary at this point.

AIP, at least considering existing designs and technology, provide certain specific capabilities in terms of how long a submarine can be submerged without needing to resurface to recharge the batteries, replenish onboard oxygen stores, etc. For certain navies that operate submarines, that ability for prolonged periods (measuring in terms of multiple days) submerged can be quite valuable, given the CONOPS of those submarine services.

However, AIP systems at present do not provide a complete replacement of conventional diesel-electric propulsion and power generation, so any design considering including AIP needs to consider whether or not the AIP and associated fuel systems are worth more than using the volume and displacement for other submarine systems, like more fuel, more battery storage, more weapons, swimmer delivery systems, etc.

If the capabilities that AIP provides fits into a future RCN submarine service CONOPS, then having AIP, or at least the option for fitting AIP would make sense. OTOH mandating that AIP be included or part of the design, without also considering how any AIP capabilities would fit into how the RCN would 'fight' the sub would IMO be foolish at best. If the RCN's future subs are to have a CONOPS similar to the RAN, with patrols of significant duration in patrol areas that require long transits to and from RCN bases, then AIP would likely be of much lesser importance, and the space and displacement would likely have better uses.

Discussing future Canadian submarine capabilities at this point when future replacement boats that will likely not even happen for at least 15-20 years down the road, seems to be premature at first glance. But when you think of how long it takes to develop these capabilities, it is time for Canada to at least start the the conversation now. [Mod edit: Text deleted for failure to provide proper sourcing on unfounded speculation. You seem to like to assert your opinion as fact; at the same time, you ignore the information others provide which run counter to what you assert.]

 

[Todjaeger]

Discussing future Canadian submarine capabilities at this point when future replacement boats that will likely not even happen for at least 15-20 years down the road, seems to be premature at first glance. But when you think of how long it takes to develop these capabilities, it is time for Canada to at least start the the conversation now. [Mod edit: Text deleted for failure to provide proper sourcing on unfounded speculation. You seem to like to assert your opinion as fact; at the same time, you ignore the information others provide which run counter to what you assert.]

Do you have a link for the where the Canadian Parliament was pushing to replace the Victoria-class with AIP subs? Aside from the issue that I have not had any success locating such information, what I do other searches for information relating to the RCN replacing the current subs, it all suggests that Canada is currently in what could be described as the programme definition phase. This would be where the expected future CONOPS, as well as some of the capability requirements would be first set for a future sub design.

While I have been looking specifically for references to AIP systems, I did come across a paper uploaded here on the Naval Association of Canada's website titled, "Towards a Renewed Canadian Submarine Capability." The paper itself covers a number of issues, including current sub power/propulsion systems. What I found most interesting were the last two complete sentences (quoted below) on page five;

Although Japan has adapted Sweden’s Stirling engine to its larger Sōryū-class, to date, AIP engines continue to be designed for smaller European submarines (i.e., less than 2,000 tonnes) aimed at shorter patrols operating within close proximity to support infrastructure. This does not suit Canada’s operating environment which would involve long distances, far from support infrastructure.

The above does match up with information which has come out of Australia regarding AIP, that as I understand it can be reduced to an either/or decision. A sub design which features a conventional diesel-electric configuration will be able to make longer and faster transits at the risk of increased indiscretion rates due to needing to periodically surface or snort to run the diesel engines and recharge the batteries. A sub design of the same size and displacement as the conventional diesel-electric but featuring an AIP system could have a lower indiscretion rate and be able to remain submerged for longer periods of time, but would have less ability to reach and maintain distant patrol stations, as well as longer transit times.

Right now, I would be interested to see more information from the RCN about what they feel is wanted to needed in the future sub, as that would provide guidance on whether AIP is something which is needed or not. I suspect that if the CONOPS would involve the RCN operating subs mostly in littoral waters and near Canadian ports, then AIP would be important. OTOH if the expectation is that the future subs would have patrol areas far from Canadian ports, which is quite possible given some of the distances involved then the RCN might, like the RAN did, find AIP interesting but ultimately not worth pursuing.

 

[HaroldBloggins]

Discussing future Canadian submarine capabilities at this point when future replacement boats that will likely not even happen for at least 15-20 years down the road, seems to be premature at first glance. But when you think of how long it takes to develop these capabilities, it is time for Canada to at least start the the conversation now. [Mod edit: Text deleted for failure to provide proper sourcing on unfounded speculation. You seem to like to assert your opinion as fact; at the same time, you ignore the information others provide which run counter to what you assert.]

You keep mentioning the parliamentary senate as something the government actually listens to. A recommendation of 12 modern AIP boats is at best a pipedream, where we would get sailors? I can tell you right now even at the recommended number of 6 to 8 and more than likely 6 from what is talked about in the submarine cell in Ottawa, we would be hard pressed to crew those things, we can even crew the four that we have. That also is true for our surface fleet.

I'll keep saying it that AIP is not suitable for the Arctic because it does not have the endurance or the power necessary to surface through the ice in an emergency which is essential for any under the ice operations. We are risk averse and we will not risk lives in that manner. Have any modern conventional submarines ever conduced a surfacing through the ice? and there's good reason why it hasn't happened. In 15 years right around where we are building these boats ice in the Arctic is going to be less of a problem for us so keep that in mind.

Canada needs a conventional submarine leveraging new battery technology with a decent endurance of 40 to 60 days for the Pacific and the Atlantic, in my opinion AIP is not going to make the cut. More batteries, less AIP.

 

[ngatimozart]

Discussing future Canadian submarine capabilities at this point when future replacement boats that will likely not even happen for at least 15-20 years down the road, seems to be premature at first glance. But when you think of how long it takes to develop these capabilities, it is time for Canada to at least start the the conversation now. [Mod edit: Text deleted for failure to provide proper sourcing on unfounded speculation. You seem to like to assert your opinion as fact; at the same time, you ignore the information others provide which run counter to what you assert.]

You are not getting the message. AIP isn't the miracle pill for the RCN and especially for the RAN. You are pushing this idea of the RAN looking at AIP technology and maybe going down that route in the future. You have no clues about the RAN and Australian thinking about the idea. You don't even have a clue about Australian sub CONOPS. There are those on this forum who do and know a shitload more than you do HOWEVER they keep quiet upon specific issues because of OPSEC which they and we take really seriously. To put it plainly and generally RAN subs have a tad huge large transit distance to their patrol areas and the distances they cover in their patrols are not short either. Furthermore they go places that we can only guess. Then there is the long transit home. The transits are done without outside support.

The patrols that you think the RCN subs do are short in comparison. Like the RAN sub CONOPS the RCN CONOPS are also very closely held and outsiders can only guess where they go and what they do. You're basing your claims on open source material that may or may notbe correct, especially if it is related to a political process. Also the date of it has to be accounted for because the technology and application of it is changing quickly, especially WRT batteries as of late.

You also are showing your ignorance of submarines in general and submarine design and construction in particular. It's all very nice wanting this very fancy kit, but in conventional subs tare always trade offs and what will you delete or reduce in your sub to include your AIP and ALL of its ancillary requirements? Even a sub as large as the Attack class will have to make these trade offs.

So before you go any further on this topic you had better understand that you are required to undertake some thorough research into the topic and before commenting any further on the RAN Attack Class programme you are to have a thorough read through the RAN thread taking particular note of discussion on the SEA1000 Future Submarine Project, which is the Collins Class replacement.

 

[Todjaeger]

To provide some context for the vast distances RAN and possibly RCN subs might need to transit for patrols or operations, here is some info that is available.

A RCN sub based in BC would need to transit ~3,200 n miles to reach a patrol area in part of the Beaufort Sea, and would need to transit nearly 4,000 n miles to reach a patrol area in the Arctic Ocean off the north coast of Ellesemere Island. These distances are one-way, and any subs would need to have sufficient fuel and victuals to make the transit there and back, plus whatever was needed for the duration of the patrol once on station. The victuals issue comes up because AFAIK most subs & sub crews are based around a 70 to 80 day mission endurance. If a sub takes too long to transit to the patrol area, then the patrol would need to be cut short. An average transit speed of ~10 kts would take about two weeks to arrive on station, OTOH a 4 kts transit which an AIP system could likely sustain, would take over a month (and set a new record for duration and distance covered) just to get the start of a distant patrol area.

For the RAN, I am aware of stories that during the Cold War, at least one RAN Oberon-class sub took photos of Vladivostok's harbour. That is over 5,000 n miles from FBW near Perth WA, and again, that is a one-way transit.

With distances like this, the RAN and likely the RCN need subs which are capable of not only transiting significant distances, but are also be do so quite quickly. Otherwise the sub and crew would have too little time in potential assigned areas, and/or too little endurance to achieve much of effect since much of the endurance would get used up either getting onto station, or in departing from a patrol area and returning to port.

 

[Redlands18]

The other thing too for both the RAN and RCN Fleets until they get fairly close to their Patrol Areas, Stealth is not going to be a critical issue. The transit lanes are thousands of NMs outside of the Home waters of any adversary, well outside the range of any Maritime Patrol Aircraft, they can surrender some Stealthiness for speed.

 

[Todjaeger]

The other thing too for both the RAN and RCN Fleets until they get fairly close to their Patrol Areas, Stealth is not going to be a critical issue. The transit lanes are thousands of NMs outside of the Home waters of any adversary, well outside the range of any Maritime Patrol Aircraft, they can surrender some Stealthiness for speed.

Indeed, it would likely be that in at least some patrol area assignments, the subs would be forced to or otherwise consume half or more of the victuals before even arriving on station. A 4,000 n mile transit, @4 kts would take ~1,000 hours or over 41 days to complete. If a sub only has an endurance of 80 days, then it would need to turn back before even arriving on station.

I have no idea how long would be deemed "desirable" for a sub to operate on station or in a patrol area but I would not honestly expect that a patrol duration measured in hours, or even a few days, would be considered acceptable when it might take one or two weeks or longer for a sub to arrive on station. Otherwise a nation's sub fleet would likely need to be much larger in order to manage to have sufficient subs in position at patrol areas at any given time.

 

[ngatimozart]

Also of note is that battery technology is advancing these days as new technologies come online and that will eventually be a game changer. There is also possibility of new fuel cell technologies as well, but that is another story.

 

[Todjaeger]

Also of note is that battery technology is advancing these days as new technologies come online and that will eventually be a game changer. There is also possibility of new fuel cell technologies as well, but that is another story.

True, both energy storage (batteries) have been improving, as has the technology involved in fuel cells and alternate fuels for use in AIP systems. However, both batteries and AIP systems of various sorts have been around for quite some time. The development of batteries actually predates the development of the diesel engine by about 60 years, with the first AIP systems coming about 40 years after diesel engines. However, developments in either area have yet to provide a viable replacement for the energy which can be harnessed from hydrocarbons.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Japan is no longer fitting Stirling engines. Instead adopting lithium Ion. Even in the narrow band of operations, the Japanese are moving onto other technology that suits them better. The Japanese are very close to their area of operations.

AIP technologies tend to suit European CONOPs much better, smaller subs, smaller crews, low energy levels, small transits. Move outside of that and things become and issue for AIP power delivery and endurance.

It of course depends where you want to operate the submarine. Australia tends to operate very far away from home, outside of its territorial waters. European conventional submarines tend to operate in and around their immediate territorial waters.

 

[swerve]

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.

You referred to it having AIP & linked to an article about it being offered to Australia, in reply to someone saying that he could find no confirmation of the Attack-class having AIP. If you weren't linking it to the Attack-class, why quote Todjaeger's post?

 

[Todjaeger]

You referred to it having AIP & linked to an article about it being offered to Australia, in reply to someone saying that he could find no confirmation of the Attack-class having AIP. If you weren't linking it to the Attack-class, why quote Todjaeger's post?

The other thing which is also rather confusing, is that the Type 216 is a design concept which was offered to Australia by HDW/KMS in the design competition which resulted in Australia selecting DCNS as the designer for what will become the Attack-class. AFAIK it never got as far as anything resembling the detailed design schematics and "blueprints" which would be required for construction to actually be carried out. Part of the reason for that not happening would of course be that Australian sub requirements are rather different in key areas from the requirements of virtually every other conventional sub operator. Canada, depending on the CONOPS for the future subs, could have similar requirements. I am unaware of the Type 216 concept being offered to Canada for development at present, and I believe that such an offering at present would most likely be premature. IMO, Canada would be most likely to be in the process of defining what role a Victoria-class replacement sub would have within the RCN, and what the desired CONOPS would be for the replacement. This work would in turn drive what capability requirements the future sub would have, as well as provide a base of criteria for any RFP's which sub designers and builders could then respond to.

 

[DAVID DUNLOP]

You are not getting the message. AIP isn't the miracle pill for the RCN and especially for the RAN. You are pushing this idea of the RAN looking at AIP technology and maybe going down that route in the future. You have no clues about the RAN and Australian thinking about the idea. You don't even have a clue about Australian sub CONOPS. There are those on this forum who do and know a shitload more than you do HOWEVER they keep quiet upon specific issues because of OPSEC which they and we take really seriously. To put it plainly and generally RAN subs have a tad huge large transit distance to their patrol areas and the distances they cover in their patrols are not short either. Furthermore they go places that we can only guess. Then there is the long transit home. The transits are done without outside support.

The patrols that you think the RCN subs do are short in comparison. Like the RAN sub CONOPS the RCN CONOPS are also very closely held and outsiders can only guess where they go and what they do. You're basing your claims on open source material that may or may notbe correct, especially if it is related to a political process. Also the date of it has to be accounted for because the technology and application of it is changing quickly, especially WRT batteries as of late.

You also are showing your ignorance of submarines in general and submarine design and construction in particular. It's all very nice wanting this very fancy kit, but in conventional subs tare always trade offs and what will you delete or reduce in your sub to include your AIP and ALL of its ancillary requirements? Even a sub as large as the Attack class will have to make these trade offs.

So before you go any further on this topic you had better understand that you are required to undertake some thorough research into the topic and before commenting any further on the RAN Attack Class programme you are to have a thorough read through the RAN thread taking particular note of discussion on the SEA1000 Future Submarine Project, which is the Collins Class replacement.

Absolutely correct ngatimozart. AIP is not a "miracle pill" as you say however it may be a critical Canadian requirement for Littoral Ops in the high Arctic for our future submarines. The RCN will be the experts as to what their CONOPs will be for our next submarine fleet. Our process is just beginning where the RAN process is much farther along. We can certainly learn from each other and learn from our mistakes. I have served my country in the RCN for over 41 1/2 years and I think I know much more about CONOPs and OPSEC for both surface and sub-surface Canadian fleets than you may realize. Our submarines have, and will, operate world-wide in the past as well as deep within the Asia/Pacific Regions. To say that Canadian submarine patrols are short in duration compared to RAN patrols is just not true (See Below). By the time Canada makes a final decision as to submarine types, the technology of AIP, LIBs and and solid state fuel cells will have advanced significantly to the point where under-ice operations will be much more feasible. You are correct in that there will be trade-offs for Canadas final submarine design no matter which submarine is chosen. By the way your choice of words "excrement-load" is inappropriate, not within the forum rules and an apology for that remark should be the minimum requirement. Have A Great Navy Day!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational...dian-submarine-prowling-the-pacific-1.4512960

https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Collins-Submarine-Capabilities.pdf

Standing Senate Committee on National Security & Defence-11th Report-May 08 2017
"Reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces-AA Plan For The Future-pgs 35-38 (Recommendation #13)
Recommendation 13:
Commence the procurement process before the end of 2018 to acquire 12 new submarines equipped with air independent propulsion systems, six to be based on each coast.
)-unfortunately the PDF file is too large to send. Please visit the Canadian Senate website.

 

[HaroldBloggins]

Absolutely correct ngatimozart. AIP is not a "miracle pill" as you say however it may be a critical Canadian requirement for Littoral Ops in the high Arctic for our future submarines. The RCN will be the experts as to what their CONOPs will be for our next submarine fleet. Our process is just beginning where the RAN process is much farther along. We can certainly learn from each other and learn from our mistakes. I have served my country in the RCN for over 41 1/2 years and I think I know much more about CONOPs and OPSEC for both surface and sub-surface Canadian fleets than you may realize. Our submarines have, and will, operate world-wide in the past as well as deep within the Asia/Pacific Regions. To say that Canadian submarine patrols are short in duration compared to RAN patrols is just not true (See Below). By the time Canada makes a final decision as to submarine types, the technology of AIP, LIBs and and solid state fuel cells will have advanced significantly to the point where under-ice operations will be much more feasible. You are correct in that there will be trade-offs for Canadas final submarine design no matter which submarine is chosen. By the way your choice of words "excrement-load" is inappropriate, not within the forum rules and an apology for that remark should be the minimum requirement. Have A Great Navy Day!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational...dian-submarine-prowling-the-pacific-1.4512960

https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Collins-Submarine-Capabilities.pdf

Standing Committee on National Security & Defence-11th Report-May 08 2017
"Reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces-AA Plan For The Future-pgs 35-38 (Recommendation #13)

Lots of assumptions on AIP and its easy to say wait and see. Weren't you just saying that we should move ahead with the procurement? It kind of negates your assumption that AIP and solid state fuel cells will have advanced significantly when its a decades old technology that is starting to be moved away from as advantages in battery technology starts to come on line. From what I can tell AIP will work for coastal navies on trips of short durations not long transits.

 

[Todjaeger]

Absolutely correct ngatimozart. AIP is not a "miracle pill" as you say however it may be a critical Canadian requirement for Littoral Ops in the high Arctic for our future submarines. The RCN will be the experts as to what their CONOPs will be for our next submarine fleet. Our process is just beginning where the RAN process is much farther along. We can certainly learn from each other and learn from our mistakes. I have served my country in the RCN for over 41 1/2 years and I think I know much more about CONOPs and OPSEC for both surface and sub-surface Canadian fleets than you may realize. Our submarines have, and will, operate world-wide in the past as well as deep within the Asia/Pacific Regions. To say that Canadian submarine patrols are short in duration compared to RAN patrols is just not true (See Below). By the time Canada makes a final decision as to submarine types, the technology of AIP, LIBs and and solid state fuel cells will have advanced significantly to the point where under-ice operations will be much more feasible. You are correct in that there will be trade-offs for Canadas final submarine design no matter which submarine is chosen. By the way your choice of words "excrement-load" is inappropriate, not within the forum rules and an apology for that remark should be the minimum requirement. Have A Great Navy Day!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/thenational...dian-submarine-prowling-the-pacific-1.4512960

https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Collins-Submarine-Capabilities.pdf

Standing Senate Committee on National Security & Defence-11th Report-May 08 2017
"Reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces-AA Plan For The Future-pgs 35-38 (Recommendation #13)
Recommendation 13:
Commence the procurement process before the end of 2018 to acquire 12 new submarines equipped with air independent propulsion systems, six to be based on each coast.
)-unfortunately the PDF file is too large to send. Please visit the Canadian Senate website.

Found the actual PDF of the report, it can be viewed or downloaded here. On page 37, the report does mention that a dozen modern AIP kitted subs would be more appropriate for Canada. Given that the report also seemed to assert that AIP was suitable for permitting prolonged duration dives (true) and also provided an under-ice capability, which TBH I do not consider to be accurate.

There are also a few other things worth noting from the final report which is now over four years old, with evidence having been most recently heard sometime in 2016. One of which referenced the RNoN planning to purchase Type 212 subs with AIP starting in the mid-2020's. The actual contract for Norway to order Type 212CD submarines was in fact signed just over a month ago (8 July, 2021) with the lead sub expected to be delivered to Norway some time in 2029. What the report fails to mention, and in fact I would not be at all surprised if most if not all the people involved in the report were oblivious to the issue, is that the size and area of concern for Norway is significantly different than for Canada. To that end, the Type 212CD sub order is actually a joint German-Norwegian order, with examples intended to service in both navies.

In the end, I was left with the impression that the report drafters had heard about AIP, but did not have a real grasp of what the capability provided, or particularly what the limitations were, or even that the capability had limitations.

EDIT: Additional comment. That linked Naval Association of Canada is one that I linked and referred to previously in post #3007 from yesterday, with a note to pay attention to the last two complete sentences on page 5.