Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[Sender]

River Class now in Full-rate production:

Full rate production begins on River-class destroyers for Canadian Navy

The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) has achieved a series of major milestones in Canada’s national shipbuilding program, advancing the renewal of its fleet.

www.navaltoday.com

 

[shadow99]

Short video of HMCS Vancouver launching a explosive laden drone, then attacking and destroying a moving surface drone.

 

[76mmGuns]

I honestly didn't expect Canada to start building the River class for several more years, given how their military projects get delayed for years or decades. This is good.

 

[John Fedup]

I honestly didn't expect Canada to start building the River class for several more years, given how their military projects get delayed for years or decades. This is good.

With the RCN and CCG Dewolfe class program nearing completion, it is essential to proceed full speed with the River class to keep Irving's workforce in place. The geopolitical situation helps along with an adult business minded PM as opposed to the failed ex-drama teacher loser "junior".

 

[John Fedup]

The Kingston class will be paid off starting in the fall. Still no award on a replacement.

Canadian Navy to decommission eight Kingston-class ships - Naval Today

Hopefully this might be a possibility.

Canada Unveils ‘Vigilance’ Next-Gen Offshore Patrol Vessel – The Defense Post

 

[Sender]

Final of the 6 AOPVs (AOPS) for the RCN:

Irving Shipbuilding names Canadian Navy's sixth and final AOPS

Irving Shipbuilding has marked the official naming ceremony of the future HMCS Robert Hampton Gray, the sixth AOPS.

www.navaltoday.com

10 years to build all 6, or about 20 months each, on average. However, the first ship took 4 years, and the last 2 were built in 13 months, so the build process gained a great deal of efficiency throughout. This bodes well for the River Class.

 

[Sender]

Submarine project office has down selected to the Germans and South Koreans for the submarine replacement project (Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP)):

Government of Canada advances to next step in Canadian Patrol Submarine Project procurement - Canada.ca

Through Canada’s defence policy, Our North, Strong and Free, the Government of Canada is providing members of the Royal Canadian Navy with the equipment they need to keep Canadians safe and maintain current and future operational readiness. Canada has the longest coastline in the world, and it...

www.canada.ca

Canada down selects two shipbuilders for future Canadian Patrol Submarine Project - Naval News

The Government of Canada has announced that it has shortlisted two major shipbuilders to continue the procurement process for Canada's future patrol submarine project (CPSP), which will replace the current fleet of Victoria-class submarines.

www.navalnews.com

This is further evidence a decision is coming soon, possibly before Christmas this year.

 

[John Fedup]

Delivery, support, experience, and price, all important factors in the decision. I guess the relative weighting of these parameters will determine the outcome. I believe the Hanwha Ocean option offers a vertical missile launch capability, unsure if this is option is available with TKMS option. Could be another factor that might favour Hanwha Ocean.

 

[Sender]

Both excellent choices.

Here is Hanwha's Canadian website, with a few details:

Hanwha KSS-III

Canadian Patrol Submarine

kss-iii.ca

 

[Bluey 006]

Hopefully it comes to fruition; if it does, they will likely be the only non-nuclear submarines operated within the Anglosphere. This could prove to be a unique and strategically important capability, particularly in regions where stealth, agility, and low acoustic signatures are critical to operational success.

 

[OldTex]

Delivery, support, experience, and price, all important factors in the decision. I guess the relative weighting of these parameters will determine the outcome. I believe the Hanwha Ocean option offers a vertical missile launch capability, unsure if this is option is available with TKMS option. Could be another factor that might favour Hanwha Ocean.

The ability to deliver the first submarine within 6 years of contract signature (according to the Hanwha OceanCPS site) would seem to count in its favour. The VLS, if it is close to being missile agnostic, would also be an advantage if it can use missles the equivalent of sub-Harpoon (UGM-84). The only concern is that if the VLS is only configured for the SLBM (Hyunmoo 4.4) given the political sensitivity of both the Canadian Government and the Canadian electors, that may well cinch the deal for the TKMS option.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

TKMS (but they could also outsource some work to their ally Fincantieri and/or to local companies, if the canadian gov agrees) can build SSKs with VLS.
The point is: does the RCN have a need for such systems? Are they ready to choose a VLS design and a missile?
Those kind of weapon systems are not cheap, even when we are talking about submarines (very expensive themselves) so Canada should really think carefully if they want to go with vertical launch or the more classical path of turpedo-tubes launched missiles.

The israeli INS-Drakon was built in Europe by TKMS and is believed to have a VLS in the sail.




Credits: Navalnews.com and HISutton

 

[John Fedup]

The ability to deliver the first submarine within 6 years of contract signature (according to the Hanwha OceanCPS site) would seem to count in its favour. The VLS, if it is close to being missile agnostic, would also be an advantage if it can use missles the equivalent of sub-Harpoon (UGM-84). The only concern is that if the VLS is only configured for the SLBM (Hyunmoo 4.4) given the political sensitivity of both the Canadian Government and the Canadian electors, that may well cinch the deal for the TKMS option.

I don't think political sensitivity over missiles is an issue any more. If VLS is limited to SKorean missiles only, the Hanwha Ocean advantage reduces sum what. The biggest advantage for Hanwha Ocean is delivery time and the promised support infrastructure to be built in Canada.

 

[John Fedup]

TKMS (but they could also outsource some work to their ally Fincantieri and/or to local companies, if the canadian gov agrees) can build SSKs with VLS.

Doubt Canada would want another contractor involved

The point is: does the RCN have a need for such systems? Are they ready to choose a VLS design and a missile?

Might as well have the capability for VLS even if missiles aren't purchased right away.

 

[hauritz]

Submarine project office has down selected to the Germans and South Koreans for the submarine replacement project (Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP)):

Government of Canada advances to next step in Canadian Patrol Submarine Project procurement - Canada.ca

Through Canada’s defence policy, Our North, Strong and Free, the Government of Canada is providing members of the Royal Canadian Navy with the equipment they need to keep Canadians safe and maintain current and future operational readiness. Canada has the longest coastline in the world, and it...

www.canada.ca

Canada down selects two shipbuilders for future Canadian Patrol Submarine Project - Naval News

The Government of Canada has announced that it has shortlisted two major shipbuilders to continue the procurement process for Canada's future patrol submarine project (CPSP), which will replace the current fleet of Victoria-class submarines.

www.navalnews.com

This is further evidence a decision is coming soon, possibly before Christmas this year.

In service by 2035. Never thought I would say this but I find myself envying the efficiency Canada is showing in moving ahead with this project. Australia started the process of finding a replacement for its Collins class with its Future Submarine Program back in 2007. So far all we have is what I would regard as a 50/50 chance we might see a second hand boat in service sometime in the mid to late 2030s.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

Canada isn't efficient, it's the Australian saga that has been ridiculous.

 

[downunderblue]

I'm urprised NG wasn't downselected.

Maybe I'm seeing this with an Australian lense but with those three patrol oceans your politicians keep referencing, any boat selected ideally would need to be big enough to sustain prolonged operations involving long transits across each domain?

Is it the case that the TKMS Type 212CD or the Hanwha KS-III are the best available options from a series of bad to average options?

I'm not having a go at either design, but both likely excel in the Baltic or Sea of Japan, drifting at a few knots for extended peiods both close to their respective home port as well as their AOR. That clearly affects the type of submarine you would design and you can get away with a much smaller AND cheaper boat.

I'm not saying NG Barracuda is better than both designs, but the larger sized sub does help on many levels.

I assume NG after taking the Dutch order don't have the yard or industrial capacity to commit to the requested timeframes? From what I've heard one of the major fears was losing crew, knowledge and capability if RCN has a multi-year gap of no submarines, so the timeframes are a big issue (see RAN et al) forcing their hand at what is available in a relatively short timeframe.

There is of course the issue of operating submerged under sea ice for a prolonged period which usually is speciality of an SSN, but let's not go there shall we. Operating from Victoria then heading north past the Barents into the northern iced approaches sounds like a bloody long and difficult patrol, at slow speeds and not long on station when you finally get there. Doing it in a sub designed for small transit doesn't seem logical to me, albeit I of course may be wrong (from a person so far and not used to the region, nor only can access open source etc), but it may be the case like we've had over here, that if you had your time all over again you clearly would have acted sooner and more decisively to ensure the right capability is build/ deployed rather than this spilt milk merry-go-round we endure frustrated because ultimately 'we get what we get and we don't get upset' ...

Again just my 2 cents from far far away land.

Assume Hanwha would be the early favourite, but only just.

 

[John Fedup]

I'm urprised NG wasn't downselected.

NG would be a tough political choice outside of Quebec, IMHO.

Maybe I'm seeing this with an Australian lense but with those three patrol oceans your politicians keep referencing, any boat selected ideally would need to be big enough to sustain prolonged operations involving long transits across each domain?

Is it the case that the TKMS Type 212CD or the Hanwha KS-III are the best available options from a series of bad to average options?

I think so.

I assume NG after taking the Dutch order don't have the yard or industrial capacity to commit to the requested timeframes? From what I've heard one of the major fears was losing crew, knowledge and capability if RCN has a multi-year gap of no submarines, so the timeframes are a big issue (see RAN et al) forcing their hand at what is available in a relatively short timeframe.

Crew and loss of knowledge is absolutely a prime consideration. This same issue was why the used Upholders were acquired even though the RCN knew they were going to be problematic. They were the only option that cheap prick Chretien would sign off on.

if you had your time all over again you clearly would have acted sooner and more decisively to ensure the right capability is build/ deployed rather than this spilt milk merry-go-round we endure frustrated because ultimately 'we get what we get and we don't get upset' ...

Chretien, Martin, Harper, and ?ucking junior share one thing in common, zero defence interest so acting sooner and decisively was never going to happen.

Assume Hanwha would be the early favourite, but only just.

That is my assumption as well.

 

[Sender]

I'm urprised NG wasn't downselected.

Maybe I'm seeing this with an Australian lense but with those three patrol oceans your politicians keep referencing, any boat selected ideally would need to be big enough to sustain prolonged operations involving long transits across each domain?

Is it the case that the TKMS Type 212CD or the Hanwha KS-III are the best available options from a series of bad to average options?

I'm not having a go at either design, but both likely excel in the Baltic or Sea of Japan, drifting at a few knots for extended peiods both close to their respective home port as well as their AOR. That clearly affects the type of submarine you would design and you can get away with a much smaller AND cheaper boat.

I'm not saying NG Barracuda is better than both designs, but the larger sized sub does help on many levels.

I assume NG after taking the Dutch order don't have the yard or industrial capacity to commit to the requested timeframes? From what I've heard one of the major fears was losing crew, knowledge and capability if RCN has a multi-year gap of no submarines, so the timeframes are a big issue (see RAN et al) forcing their hand at what is available in a relatively short timeframe.

There is of course the issue of operating submerged under sea ice for a prolonged period which usually is speciality of an SSN, but let's not go there shall we. Operating from Victoria then heading north past the Barents into the northern iced approaches sounds like a bloody long and difficult patrol, at slow speeds and not long on station when you finally get there. Doing it in a sub designed for small transit doesn't seem logical to me, albeit I of course may be wrong (from a person so far and not used to the region, nor only can access open source etc), but it may be the case like we've had over here, that if you had your time all over again you clearly would have acted sooner and more decisively to ensure the right capability is build/ deployed rather than this spilt milk merry-go-round we endure frustrated because ultimately 'we get what we get and we don't get upset' ...

Again just my 2 cents from far far away land.

Assume Hanwha would be the early favourite, but only just.

It's pretty widely accepted that speed of delivery is one of the top selection criteria. The Vics, though recently upgraded, will start aging out in 2035. The RCN has a stated requirement that a new boat must be in the water and at least at initial operating capability by 2035. Hanwha has stated they can deliver 4 by that date (the first in 2029), whereas TKMS is only committing to one. In this respect, Hanwha has a clear advantage.

With regards to which is better, either one will be a vast improvement over the current fleet of boats. Between the Type 212 CD and the KSS-III, I favour the KSS-III because it has more volume for "stuff". However, there is some speculation on a Canadian defence forum that the boat TKMS has proposed is the Type 212 CD E (expeditionary), which would be roughly equivalent to the KSS-III in size. This was offered to the Dutch (and lost out to the NG proposal), but was at a very advanced level of design, so certainly a possibility. From what I can gather, it's essentially a 212 CD with a hull stretch, sharing all the same systems as the 212 CD, but with a substantially improved range and endurance.

https://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.nl/en/the-new-submarines.html

 

[Sender]

It's pretty widely accepted that speed of delivery is one of the top selection criteria. The Vics, though recently upgraded, will start aging out in 2035. The RCN has a stated requirement that a new boat must be in the water and at least at initial operating capability by 2035. Hanwha has stated they can deliver 4 by that date (the first in 2029), whereas TKMS is only committing to one. In this respect, Hanwha has a clear advantage.

With regards to which is better, either one will be a vast improvement over the current fleet of boats. Between the Type 212 CD and the KSS-III, I favour the KSS-III because it has more volume for "stuff". However, there is some speculation on a Canadian defence forum that the boat TKMS has proposed is the Type 212 CD E (expeditionary), which would be roughly equivalent to the KSS-III in size. This was offered to the Dutch (and lost out to the NG proposal), but was at a very advanced level of design, so certainly a possibility. From what I can gather, it's essentially a 212 CD with a hull stretch, sharing all the same systems as the 212 CD, but with a substantially improved range and endurance.

https://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.nl/en/the-new-submarines.html

I suspect this decision will be driven by two factors: How quickly the first boat can be delivered, and strategic considerations related to trade and offsets. As Canada has signed on the the ReArm Europe initiative, purchasing a European boat might buy us considerable good will, and lead to reciprocal purchases of Canadian goods.