Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Sender

Active Member

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
This is a pretty big prize, so interest from manufacturers will undoubtedly be quite strong.
12 subs. Wow. That seems like a huge uplift in capability. Wonder exactly what under ice capability is in terms of actual requirements. Presumably AIP, maybe conning tower ice strengthening.
 

Sender

Active Member
Interesting development re. icebreakers. Canada, Finland, and the US form a pact to share designs and best practices, and work on ways to increase capacity.

 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Interesting development re. icebreakers. Canada, Finland, and the US form a pact to share designs and best practices, and work on ways to increase capacity.

Probably too late for both Canada and the US unless both countries accept significant construction in Finland.
 

Underway

Member
12 subs. Wow. That seems like a huge uplift in capability. Wonder exactly what under ice capability is in terms of actual requirements. Presumably AIP, maybe conning tower ice strengthening.
A wide ranging interview with CRCN Rear Adm Topshee by the U.S. Naval Institute. There are a bunch of things in here that inform things going forward for the RCN.

Submarine specific he lists 6 countries that have current submarine programs (Korea, Japan, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Sweden). The goal is a true MOTS purchase as the RCN submarine fleet is to small to have a bespoke build and will just change how they do things for a submarine.

He spoke that AIP is not necessary as current battery technology is advanced enough where it may meet the indiscretion requirements alone.

The submarines are to be able to monitor the Arctic approaches.
Means mostly open water with some ice, but no large amounts of pack ice. So mast strengthening isn't likely as well as contrary to MOTS. Besides, SSK's don't have enough reserve buoyancy to break through even thin ice either way.

He also states 8-12 are the requirement, given that number that's a 15 year build program as ordering now would mean in 5-8 years we would see the first submarine, unless the Korean's would let us jump the line or something.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
If we had intelligent people in government during the last decade (or more), we might have had a seat at AUKUS as we have some nuclear expertise that Australia didn’t have. Nuclear submarine investment was what Canada needed, but it is too late now. All alternatives are coastal subs not suitable for long transit times. Proposed SSKs are ok for western Atlantic missions but for across the Pacific and the high Arctic, not so much.
 
Top