Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Underway

Member
The RCN and Govt staff have been very adamant thus far that these boats will be effectively entirely built abroad, no Canadian company will ever be able to do partial assembly on modern conventional submarines anytime soon. Canada is going to require that the successful bid actively engage and develop Canadian industry to allow us to domestically upkeep, refit and repair these submarines over their lifetime though. That is where the majority of the domestic offsets and money will come from, the lifetime upkeep of the vessels.
This is why I put Korea in the lead. Their domestic build out history for other defence contracts elsewhere (Poland and Australia as good examples) and the fact Canada has a free trade agreement with them gives them a powerful bid.

The main Canadianization would likely come only in comms and everything being in French and English.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
I think you are confusing the Type 212A with the Type 212CD, given how the former has one diesel engine and the latter has two. The CD is significantly larger than either the Type 212A or the Type 214 and presumably will have far better endurance than either variants otherwise mentioned. It seems likely that Canada would be offered the Type 212CDE which was offered to the Dutch, being an even more expanded variant of the baseline CD to better fit the requirements of the CPS program. The only other German option that is larger was the never built Type 216 pitched for Australia however, that wouldn't meet the Canadian requirements for an operational or in production submarine
Probably. German naming generally annoys me. But also I haven't been watching the German developments that closely. Even with two engines, long range transits are going to be painful. I don't know of any customer that regularly uses them for long range blue water patrols. That isn't to say its not capable of that, but many western countries worry about risk with these type of military projects, so having an operating regularly using them in a simular way is going to be attractive for selection.


“The Type 212CD E design proposed for the Netherlands shares the same core systems and components as the CD in order to manage risk,” said Isbrecht. “The pressure hull diameter is also the same.
“The difference lies in a hull insert to increase fuel capacity for longer endurance, and improve accommodation space for extended missions. The result is a slightly larger submarine of just over 80 m length and about 3,000 tonnes displacement.”
This is what happened with the Collins project, a simple lengthening may be low risk for a surface ship but for submarine its very involved. I think it would work better with the 212CD, projects are more modern, there is a bigger ecosystem for the Germans, but many of the same issues exist. Particularly taking a coastal sub to a blue water sub, its not just fuel and accommodation, many systems need to evolve. Which is where the 216 also ran into problems, although Australia's wants and needs are very high.
Conventional boats lack a lot of the major boons that SSN's have however, it is entirely possible for Canada to seemingly meet its requirements without going nuclear.
I think this is possible too. Australia sailed a sub from the UK to Australia over 100 years ago. Modern conventional can offer long range, and low discretion, but perhaps not at the same time. But in Canada's case that may not be required. Some sub capability is better than no sub capability.

The RCN and Govt staff have been very adamant thus far that these boats will be effectively entirely built abroad, no Canadian company will ever be able to do partial assembly on modern conventional submarines anytime soon. Canada is going to require that the successful bid actively engage and develop Canadian industry to allow us to domestically upkeep, refit and repair these submarines over their lifetime though. That is where the majority of the domestic offsets and money will come from, the lifetime upkeep of the vessels.
Depending on the number of subs maybe a part international part local build is possible?

I would be surprised if they order 6-18 submarines, all from a foreign yard. Ordering from Korea would be interesting. So Canada wants its main naval yard within artillery range of China? The Koreans are desperate to buy something outside of Korea and build/support stuff outside their opposition munitions. They are really really worried that they would be "Ukrained" in a conflict where they have no strategic depth, and they are dependent on small scale gifts of military aid against a vast and self reliant opposition. Yard in Australia, the US, UK or Canada would be ideal for them. Operations could be expanded in war time. They know if a conflict starts, they won't be able to use any of their yards for factories, that those sites will be under almost constant harassment. Korea is close enough to Russia, that its not just a China threat, or a NK threat, but a Russian threat too!


Its in this environment, Canada swims into and orders foreign built subs in Korea? Bold!

But I don't understand Canada and its world view and defence policies. We don't hear much from them here in Australia. And our views seem to be massively different. Certainly it would be a big ask to build them locally, but war is expensive.
 

Underway

Member
To build locally would be to build an entire yard from zero most likely unless they went and built them in Ontario (and the drydocks there on the lakes).

It would also delay the project to far. Now depending on the bid perhaps a foreign yard would partner with a local one to get the later subs built here, and there certainly will be local suppliers.

The problem is that the govt isn't interested in boom bust shipbuilding anymore. So unless they comitted to a continuous submarine build program it's probably not worth it.
 

CorvetteCrunch

New Member
Probably. German naming generally annoys me. But also I haven't been watching the German developments that closely. Even with two engines, long range transits are going to be painful. I don't know of any customer that regularly uses them for long range blue water patrols. That isn't to say its not capable of that, but many western countries worry about risk with these type of military projects, so having an operating regularly using them in a simular way is going to be attractive for selection.

This is what happened with the Collins project, a simple lengthening may be low risk for a surface ship but for submarine its very involved. I think it would work better with the 212CD, projects are more modern, there is a bigger ecosystem for the Germans, but many of the same issues exist. Particularly taking a coastal sub to a blue water sub, its not just fuel and accommodation, many systems need to evolve. Which is where the 216 also ran into problems, although Australia's wants and needs are very high.
Canada's current submarines only have two diesel engines and for all of their issues, they have proven capable of deployments across the Atlantic and Pacific. The Portuguese NRP Arpão (Type 214) has deployed abroad to Africa, South America and even India alongside a recent 70 day deployment where 4 days were spent north of Nuuk, Greenland under the ice there. Obviously there was some port calls throughout these periods but I don't think only having two diesel engines is going to be a disqualifier here. More engines might help but the reliability of those engines and the ability to meet the requirements are going to be key.

S-80+ has 3 diesel engines, Taigei/Soryu has 2 diesel engines, Type 212CD has 2 diesel engines, KSS-III has 3 diesel engines and I am unsure how many engines the French Barracuda variant or Swedish C71 will boast.

Depending on the number of subs maybe a part international part local build is possible?

I would be surprised if they order 6-18 submarines, all from a foreign yard. Ordering from Korea would be interesting. So Canada wants its main naval yard within artillery range of China? The Koreans are desperate to buy something outside of Korea and build/support stuff outside their opposition munitions. They are really really worried that they would be "Ukrained" in a conflict where they have no strategic depth, and they are dependent on small scale gifts of military aid against a vast and self reliant opposition. Yard in Australia, the US, UK or Canada would be ideal for them. Operations could be expanded in war time. They know if a conflict starts, they won't be able to use any of their yards for factories, that those sites will be under almost constant harassment. Korea is close enough to Russia, that its not just a China threat, or a NK threat, but a Russian threat too!

Its in this environment, Canada swims into and orders foreign built subs in Korea? Bold!

But I don't understand Canada and its world view and defence policies. We don't hear much from them here in Australia. And our views seem to be massively different. Certainly it would be a big ask to build them locally, but war is expensive.
As Underway mentioned above, domestic construction is going to be effectively impossible for Canada. We have never undertaken submarine construction and thus, the industrial base is nowhere near established. We've had issues with our contractors domestically being able to competently upkeep and refit our current boats, there isn't any way we would be able to build boats from scratch or even assemble from pre-built parts. We planned out our procurements of surface ships at the Irving Yard so that the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships would be built first, bringing the yard up to snuff before the Canadian Surface Combatants would be built. There is no shipyards able to take on the order realistically even if we wanted to spend years getting them ready, all three main shipyards are entirely full with orders for the Navy and Coast Guard for the next decade atleast.

The only reason a submarine procurement is viable for Canada right now is that we can outsource it abroad, it would take far too long to get anything remotely workable out of domestic production. There is very few potential partners abroad that can deliver the type of submarine Canada wants, in the quantities we want and on the timelines we want. The Korean KSS-III is one of the most attractive designs for Canada given its size, payload options, vertical launch systems, the willingness of the Koreans to export and their willingness to also work with Canadian industry to maintain, refit and help produce these systems. There is risks buying from South Korea but I don't think North Korea is coming flooding over the border anytime soon and if they do, we have far larger issues at hand than submarines being delayed. Japan has similar risks as well given their situation, although I think their inexperience with export customers is more the problem than anything else there.

I personally do not see the Spanish, French and Swedish proposals as especially impressive for one reason or another, meaning I'm stuck looking at the Japanese, German or Korean proposals. Each of those have their positives and negatives.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
...
I would be surprised if they order 6-18 submarines, all from a foreign yard. Ordering from Korea would be interesting. So Canada wants its main naval yard within artillery range of China? The Koreans are desperate to buy something outside of Korea and build/support stuff outside their opposition munitions. They are really really worried that they would be "Ukrained" in a conflict where they have no strategic depth, and they are dependent on small scale gifts of military aid against a vast and self reliant opposition. Yard in Australia, the US, UK or Canada would be ideal for them. Operations could be expanded in war time. They know if a conflict starts, they won't be able to use any of their yards for factories, that those sites will be under almost constant harassment. Korea is close enough to Russia, that its not just a China threat, or a NK threat, but a Russian threat too!
....
HHI's submarine yard is 325 km from the DMZ, & about twice that from China. It's in SE Korea. It's closer to Japan than to North Korea.

Hanwha's yard is even further from the DMZ - about 390 km. It's only 220 km from Fukuoka.

They're both within missile range of China, of course, but not what most people think of when they hear "artillery".
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
HHI's submarine yard is 325 km from the DMZ, & about twice that from China. It's in SE Korea. It's closer to Japan than to North Korea.

Hanwha's yard is even further from the DMZ - about 390 km. It's only 220 km from Fukuoka.

They're both within missile range of China, of course, but not what most people think of when they hear "artillery".
I think it is fair say that any serious shooting war between these three nations within the next few years (as many are suggesting) won't have any effect on Canada's sub acquisition because firstly, no order is likely before 2028-29, and secondly, the whole world will almost certainly be an ash heap.
 

Underway

Member
Canada's current submarines only have two diesel engines and for all of their issues, they have proven capable of deployments across the Atlantic and Pacific. The Portuguese NRP Arpão (Type 214) has deployed abroad to Africa, South America and even India alongside a recent 70 day deployment where 4 days were spent north of Nuuk, Greenland under the ice there. Obviously there was some port calls throughout these periods but I don't think only having two diesel engines is going to be a disqualifier here. More engines might help but the reliability of those engines and the ability to meet the requirements are going to be key.

S-80+ has 3 diesel engines, Taigei/Soryu has 2 diesel engines, Type 212CD has 2 diesel engines, KSS-III has 3 diesel engines and I am unsure how many engines the French Barracuda variant or Swedish C71 will boast.



As Underway mentioned above, domestic construction is going to be effectively impossible for Canada. We have never undertaken submarine construction and thus, the industrial base is nowhere near established. We've had issues with our contractors domestically being able to competently upkeep and refit our current boats, there isn't any way we would be able to build boats from scratch or even assemble from pre-built parts. We planned out our procurements of surface ships at the Irving Yard so that the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships would be built first, bringing the yard up to snuff before the Canadian Surface Combatants would be built. There is no shipyards able to take on the order realistically even if we wanted to spend years getting them ready, all three main shipyards are entirely full with orders for the Navy and Coast Guard for the next decade atleast.

The only reason a submarine procurement is viable for Canada right now is that we can outsource it abroad, it would take far too long to get anything remotely workable out of domestic production. There is very few potential partners abroad that can deliver the type of submarine Canada wants, in the quantities we want and on the timelines we want. The Korean KSS-III is one of the most attractive designs for Canada given its size, payload options, vertical launch systems, the willingness of the Koreans to export and their willingness to also work with Canadian industry to maintain, refit and help produce these systems. There is risks buying from South Korea but I don't think North Korea is coming flooding over the border anytime soon and if they do, we have far larger issues at hand than submarines being delayed. Japan has similar risks as well given their situation, although I think their inexperience with export customers is more the problem than anything else there.

I personally do not see the Spanish, French and Swedish proposals as especially impressive for one reason or another, meaning I'm stuck looking at the Japanese, German or Korean proposals. Each of those have their positives and negatives.
I think the French sub is very close to the requirements as Canada basically cut and paste Dutch requirements then added ice ops to the list. Any sub on that list could meet the requirements.
But there is a lot of road left and timlines are important. Given those non-capability constraints I also see Korean subs as the early leader. Won't be long before we know though.
 

CorvetteCrunch

New Member
I think the French sub is very close to the requirements as Canada basically cut and paste Dutch requirements then added ice ops to the list. Any sub on that list could meet the requirements.
But there is a lot of road left and timlines are important. Given those non-capability constraints I also see Korean subs as the early leader. Won't be long before we know though.
The French design seems like it meets the Canadian requirements but I am unsure if they are able to meet the timelines required for the program. Naval Group needs to finish producing the orders for domestic SSN and SSBN's plus the Dutch order of four boats. Poland is also potentially looking at up to four boats and France is an option there as well. This also applies to Germany, who will entirely be off the table to Canada if Norway and Germany take up their option for additional boats. Poland's program is also looking at the Type 212CD built in Germany as well. The Swedish might have excess capability but Poland is also looking at them as well, although I would likely bet Saab have minimal capability given their lack of continuous building of submarines over the years. Nobody seems willing to give the Spanish a chance for good reason, although it looks like they don't have excess capability given how long their class of boats is seeming to bring into service.

It is hard to know regarding the excess capability of Japan but South Korea has two separate shipyards working on their KSS-III boats, which seemingly provides a good deal of excess capability.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
This article pretty much sums up Canada’s submarine acquisition plan wrt need and risk. The biggest problem though is geography and the huge transit distances involved. This acquisition should have started years ago with a heavy lean towards SSNs. Australia’s needs and previous sub building experience (Collins) got them an invite into AUKUS. A serious intention to obtain subs 10 years ago together with Canada’s nuclear industry involvement might have got us an invite into AUKUS. Sadly, too late for that and maybe even for SSKs.

 

CorvetteCrunch

New Member
This article pretty much sums up Canada’s submarine acquisition plan wrt need and risk. The biggest problem though is geography and the huge transit distances involved. This acquisition should have started years ago with a heavy lean towards SSNs. Australia’s needs and previous sub building experience (Collins) got them an invite into AUKUS. A serious intention to obtain subs 10 years ago together with Canada’s nuclear industry involvement might have got us an invite into AUKUS. Sadly, too late for that and maybe even for SSKs.

I explained why on the last page of the forum why nuclear powered subs were and remain effectively an impossibility for Canada in basically every aspect, the end of the Harper Govt or beginning of the Trudeau Govt a decade ago wouldn't have wanted to touch nuclear submarine procurement with a 10 ft pole. Australia has fundamentally been viewed as a more serious partner given their long term commitments and the face they have China in their backyard threatening them, Canada does not seemingly have the government support nor the justification to get involved with an eye wateringly expensive nuclear sub procurement.

Canada is doing everything right with this SSK procurement thus far, it is basically the best they can ever realistically hope for. Canada has attempted nuclear submarines to one degree or another twice in the past and failed both times.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I explained why on the last page of the forum why nuclear powered subs were and remain effectively an impossibility for Canada in basically every aspect, the end of the Harper Govt or beginning of the Trudeau Govt a decade ago wouldn't have wanted to touch nuclear submarine procurement with a 10 ft pole. Australia has fundamentally been viewed as a more serious partner given their long term commitments and the face they have China in their backyard threatening them, Canada does not seemingly have the government support nor the justification to get involved with an eye wateringly expensive nuclear sub procurement.

Canada is doing everything right with this SSK procurement thus far, it is basically the best they can ever realistically hope for. Canada has attempted nuclear submarines to one degree or another twice in the past and failed both times.
Canada will very shortly have serious threats in our “top yard”. Sub procurement should have happened a long time ago, perhaps with 4-6 SSKs that worked instead of the crap Chrétien suck us with. This would then have been an entry point into AUKUS which would result in subs for the 2040s onwards.

You are right about the pollies though, neither Harper or junior wanted to invest to subs…or much of anything else for that matter. However it is the electorate that shares the blame mostly, free stuff is more important. They still haven’t figured out out Canada’s diminishing reputation diplomatically is due to not realizing peace making is what counts, not peace keeping. All those resources in the Arctic, pretty much up for grabs.
 

downunderblue

New Member
What is it about liberal democracies that just can't get procurement decisions right? Governments not actually governing (short term wins vs long term need), declining local industry, declining workforce, cost blowouts etc.

I seriously hope that Canada gets this right- the right capability meeting strategic needs, on time and on budget, but who in this forum thinks this magical formula will actually work here?

No one wants to be needlessly negative, but ...
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Given Canada’s track record, it is completely understandable to expect a negative outcome. As for liberal democracies, whining electorates and pollies who only see out to the next election cause the short term outlook. WRT Canada there is also a bureaucracy that enhances dumb procurement decisions made by pollies into supreme C-Fs.
 

CorvetteCrunch

New Member
Canada will very shortly have serious threats in our “top yard”. Sub procurement should have happened a long time ago, perhaps with 4-6 SSKs that worked instead of the crap Chrétien suck us with. This would then have been an entry point into AUKUS which would result in subs for the 2040s onwards.

You are right about the pollies though, neither Harper or junior wanted to invest to subs…or much of anything else for that matter. However it is the electorate that shares the blame mostly, free stuff is more important. They still haven’t figured out out Canada’s diminishing reputation diplomatically is due to not realizing peace making is what counts, not peace keeping. All those resources in the Arctic, pretty much up for grabs.
Canada does not view what is going on in our North with the same amount of alarm as how Australia views China in the Indo-Pacific, nothing will be done until it is far too late regarding our Arctic sovereignty.
 

Sender

Active Member
It is hard to know regarding the excess capability of Japan but South Korea has two separate shipyards working on their KSS-III boats, which seemingly provides a good deal of excess capability.
Good questions, but I suspect those two countries are more able to accommodate an order of up to 12 boats than any of the Europeans are. I know there are concerns about Japanese lack of experience with defence exports, but I think their new PM would solve that problem quickly. I really like the Japanese boats. They appear to be very sophisticated, and well built. I don't think they should be discounted from this race.

 

Underway

Member



Podcast from CDA Institute. In particular the Part 3 AUKUS and whether its important to Canada, and where they talk about nuclear submarines being a terrible idea. Timelines, crewing, cost, lost opportunity cost (what else could you spend that money on that would provide important capabilities). Lots of good stuff in the other two as well.
 

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
It is hard to know regarding the excess capability of Japan but South Korea has two separate shipyards working on their KSS-III boats, which seemingly provides a good deal of excess capability.
Japan has two ship yards building their submarines. However, Japan takes 100% of their production capability for itself, has already increased production and also extended service lives to get more boats in service. There is talk of them extending this further. 22 subs is due to their fairly short life, mid life refits for subs are very expensive, they are already producing subs at maximum capacity.

Korea runs a similar model, but while the Japanese have had quite a large number of subs for decades, Korea is following a bit of a newer model. Korea aims to have 27 submarines.

By 2030 the Korean submarine fleet size is expected to stabilize at ~27, and they have to continuously build to replace existing boats, like the Japanese do at the rate of one submarine per year, which is tremendously fast for submarine building.

So both countries with two yards if operating subs for 30 years will have a fleet size of ~30 and will not have any spare or excess capacity.

Also, it is expected that both countries are going to priorities domestic capability, the years of targeting foreign builds to build a bigger domestic industry are now behind them, they now need that industry to provide capability right now. So offers of additional submarines to other countries previously are not as perhaps relevant now as it used to be.

Countries like Korea and Japan have recently become very concerned about their defence capabilities. In particular they are looking for over seas yards and countries that can supply them, less of them supplying overseas yards.

Korea's recent arms sales, have almost always come with new production capabilities. Australia is building a K9 SPG factory, for an order of just 30 K9's. Poland is building a factories/shipyards with the Koreans, and Turkey has some supply capability.

IMO The Koreans are actively looking for underutilized shipyards in western nations. They are more likely to buy a Canadian ship yard(s), than Canada buying a fleet of submarines made in Korea.


Both Japan and Korea are pretty worried about China. They are planning for a high intensity peer, perhaps even existential, conflict to start within 5 years. Japan and Korea are actively reaching out to build supply and alliances within that period, and beyond, post conflict.

I am sure Canada has its own world view, but I am not sure how keen it will be met by others that are in a more realistic and frantic build up. This type of program maybe should have been started 10-20 years ago.

Both Korea and Japan have been burnt by 3rd party countries with bold defence programs, that then amounted to nothing except wasting a whole bunch of time and resources. Canada's submarines acquisitions are famous case studies for that.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Japan has two ship yards building their submarines. However, Japan takes 100% of their production capability for itself, has already increased production and also extended service lives to get more boats in service. There is talk of them extending this further. 22 subs is due to their fairly short life, mid life refits for subs are very expensive, they are already producing subs at maximum capacity.

Korea runs a similar model, but while the Japanese have had quite a large number of subs for decades, Korea is following a bit of a newer model. Korea aims to have 27 submarines.

By 2030 the Korean submarine fleet size is expected to stabilize at ~27, and they have to continuously build to replace existing boats, like the Japanese do at the rate of one submarine per year, which is tremendously fast for submarine building.

So both countries with two yards if operating subs for 30 years will have a fleet size of ~30 and will not have any spare or excess capacity.

Also, it is expected that both countries are going to priorities domestic capability, the years of targeting foreign builds to build a bigger domestic industry are now behind them, they now need that industry to provide capability right now. So offers of additional submarines to other countries previously are not as perhaps relevant now as it used to be.

Countries like Korea and Japan have recently become very concerned about their defence capabilities. In particular they are looking for over seas yards and countries that can supply them, less of them supplying overseas yards.

Korea's recent arms sales, have almost always come with new production capabilities. Australia is building a K9 SPG factory, for an order of just 30 K9's. Poland is building a factories/shipyards with the Koreans, and Turkey has some supply capability.

IMO The Koreans are actively looking for underutilized shipyards in western nations. They are more likely to buy a Canadian ship yard(s), than Canada buying a fleet of submarines made in Korea.


Both Japan and Korea are pretty worried about China. They are planning for a high intensity peer, perhaps even existential, conflict to start within 5 years. Japan and Korea are actively reaching out to build supply and alliances within that period, and beyond, post conflict.

I am sure Canada has its own world view, but I am not sure how keen it will be met by others that are in a more realistic and frantic build up. This type of program maybe should have been started 10-20 years ago.

Both Korea and Japan have been burnt by 3rd party countries with bold defence programs, that then amounted to nothing except wasting a whole bunch of time and resources. Canada's submarines acquisitions are famous case studies for that.
Not just Canadian submarine acquisitions, CCV, helicopters, fixed wing search and rescue aircraft, and other stuff, either cancelled or acquired at glacial speed.

Interesting point about SKorea sub capability and that they would likely buy a Canadian yard instead of supplying boats built at home. Politically popular for our electorate no doubt but probably a disaster for quick acquisition. With only three choices (and Quebec based Davey is a non-starter IMO), that leaves two yards which both have large commitments already. Don’t think EU yards are a particularly good option so it seems the next government has an easy bail out option for no subs.
 
Last edited:

CorvetteCrunch

New Member
IMO The Koreans are actively looking for underutilized shipyards in western nations. They are more likely to buy a Canadian ship yard(s), than Canada buying a fleet of submarines made in Korea.
Not just Canadian submarine acquisitions, CCV, helicopters, fixed wing search and rescue aircraft, and other stuff, either cancelled or acquired at glacial speed.

Interesting point about SKorea sub capability and that they would likely buy a Canadian yard instead of supplying boats built at home. Politically popular for our electorate no doubt but probably a disaster for quick acquisition. With only three choices (and Quebec based Davey is a non-starter IMO), that leaves two yards which both have large commitments already. Don’t think EU yards are a particularly good option so it seems the next government has an easy bail out option for no subs.
It would make little sense for South Korea to buy a shipyard in Canada, it makes absolutely zero sense for South Korea to buy a shipyard in Canada and then try to build Canada's submarines domestically. Seaspan, Irving and Davie will not be allowed to be bought out by a foreign actor given their importance to Canada and any other shipyard is not remotely equipped to tackle the issue of submarine construction within the next few decades. If South Korea isn't willing to build Canada's submarines in their own yards, they won't get the contract.
 
Top