Canada's Next Submarine

Rule of cool said:
Really, I'd missed the new build.

Assuming that it works out more or less as planned I'm happy with the aukus deal. We're getting some desperately needed long range weapons in the short term.
Click to expand...
The "two refitted moderately-new + one new-build" has been in almost every press release about the contents of the agreement since it was signed.
 
Rule of cool said:
Ok, but a DSTO rrsearch manager told me that only a couple of years ago.

I agree that they could be a game changer. A sub with them could go twice as fast for twice as long, making them much more productive.
Click to expand...
Japan has found them enough of a game changer that they ripped out the AIP systems from the last couple of Soryu class boats and replaced that space with more lithium batteries, in addition to replacing all the lead-acid batteries with lithium. I believe that they are using a spaced cell system with individual cell temperature monitoring and at least mass cell cooling.

Faster to recharge, and potentially traveling farther between charges as well.

But for under ice operations like Canada needs, I'd require some flavor of AIP if not nuke power. I personally prefer Stirling engines over hydrogen fuel cells even though the Stirling engines aren't as quiet. I hate working with hydrogen.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Japan has found them enough of a game changer that they ripped out the AIP systems from the last couple of Soryu class boats and replaced that space with more lithium batteries, in addition to replacing all the lead-acid batteries with lithium. I believe that they are using a spaced cell system with individual cell temperature monitoring and at least mass cell cooling.

Faster to recharge, and potentially traveling farther between charges as well.

But for under ice operations like Canada needs, I'd require some flavor of AIP if not nuke power. I personally prefer Stirling engines over hydrogen fuel cells even though the Stirling engines aren't as quiet. I hate working with hydrogen.
Click to expand...
Most of the hydrogen enthusiasts that I have run across usually haven't worked around hydrogen.
Funny that. ....
 
Scott Kenny said:
Japan has found them enough of a game changer that they ripped out the AIP systems from the last couple of Soryu class boats and replaced that space with more lithium batteries, in addition to replacing all the lead-acid batteries with lithium. I believe that they are using a spaced cell system with individual cell temperature monitoring and at least mass cell cooling.
Click to expand...
Yeah tought they used the swedish sterling engines. So i guess that this atleast leaves the option for an hydrogen cell to be similiar if not better in capabilitys.
 
kqcke for you said:
Yeah tought they used the swedish sterling engines. So i guess that this atleast leaves the option for an hydrogen cell to be similiar if not better in capabilitys.
Click to expand...
As I've said repeatedly, I'd much rather have the much safer if noisier Stirling engines than deal with hydrogen in fuel cells.

We know how to raft vibrating machinery, and I'm sure someone is working on a fancy minimum-vibration Stirling engine layout.
 
Scott Kenny said:
As I've said repeatedly, I'd much rather have the much safer if noisier Stirling engines than deal with hydrogen in fuel cells.
Click to expand...
Stirling engines Impact mutch more. For example maximum i depth and they maybe can't give the same amount of energy.
Scott Kenny said:
We know how to raft vibrating machinery, and I'm sure someone is working on a fancy minimum-vibration Stirling engine layout.
Click to expand...
There are some like the chinese concept but i don't know if they solve all of the problem.

I mean you can do that but as far as i know it from the 212A crews then its not bad at all.
 
I recall that the last time Canada considered new submarines (not counting the rusty, used Upholders), the Mulroney government wanted nuclear subs. The Reagan administration expended considerable political capital to get the nuclear technology-transfer approved, only for the Canadian government to throw the plan into the dumpster. Since the U.S. already thinks we're pretty feckless in defence matters, there's little chance of Canada being invited to joint AUKUS, at least as far as the nuclear submarine option is concerned.

Back in the 80s, there was some suggestion of Canada buying/building submarines powered by a Slowpoke reactor (an SSn, note the lower case "n"). Could this be an option now, assuming we're serious about renewing the submarine fleet?
 
Flying Sorcerer said:
Since the U.S. already thinks we're pretty feckless in defence matters, there's little chance of Canada being invited to joint AUKUS, at least as far as the nuclear submarine option is concerned.
Click to expand...

Australia has to invest over $3 billion in expanding US nuke sub yards as one of the prerequisites for being allowed to buy some. Is Canada willing to pay that sort of price
 
Rule of cool said:
Australia has to invest over $3 billion in expanding US nuke sub yards as one of the prerequisites for being allowed to buy some. Is Canada willing to pay that sort of price
Click to expand...
Probably not. But if Canada joins, maybe they can split that cost with Australia with each only paying 1.5 billion a piece.
 
SSgtC said:
Probably not. But if Canada joins, maybe they can split that cost with Australia with each only paying 1.5 billion a piece.
Click to expand...
Maybe tought i think its unlikely and more probaly that they would have to pay the 1.5 billion in addition. And even then those 12 Virginia could probaly cost around 51,6 billion dollar if not more. Then they also need more money for the infrastructure and those 1,5-3 billion or more to even get SSNs if they even get some.
 
SSgtC said:
Probably not. But if Canada joins, maybe they can split that cost with Australia with each only paying 1.5 billion a piece.
Click to expand...

Canada would have to pay whatever it costs for the US to expand their production capacity to include however many SSNs Canada would want to buy. Australia wants to buy 3-5 Virginias before build the joint RN-RAN SSN in Australia, so we pay the $3b+ it takes for the US to build and extra 3-5 boats to cover our needs.

Can Canada build submarines? It certainly has the nuclear infrastructure to run then, vastly more so than Australia, so things are good from that perspective. However if Canada can't build its own SSNs it would have to pay for the US to expand its own production capacity to cover Canada's requirements as well as its own. If its costing Australia $3b+ to get 3 used boats then it would probably cost Canada double.

Australia is no doubt going to be involved in the war in the West Pacific if it happens, the sea lanes to our north are one of China's biggest problems. What does Canada have to compare with that?
 
Flying Sorcerer said:
I recall that the last time Canada considered new submarines (not counting the rusty, used Upholders), the Mulroney government wanted nuclear subs. The Reagan administration expended considerable political capital to get the nuclear technology-transfer approved, only for the Canadian government to throw the plan into the dumpster. Since the U.S. already thinks we're pretty feckless in defence matters, there's little chance of Canada being invited to joint AUKUS, at least as far as the nuclear submarine option is concerned...
Click to expand...

The Mulroney-era SSN plans went into the dumpster, as you say, because the 1989 recession was the beginning of the worst downturn in the Canadian economy since the 1930s. The SSNs were then kicked into the long grass because the Tories knew that they were on the way out in the next election.

Had that programme gotten further along, we would have seen something akin to the New Shipboard Aircraft cancellation ... except with Jean Chrétien saying: "Zéro sous-marin!"

I realize that we have drifted into the political realm but, frankly, discussing potential Canadian defence procurements without realistic economic or political considerations is rather pointless. At any rate, right now, the Cabinet seems more interested in UORs for the Latvian deployment and freeing up funding for Ukraine than in submarines.
 
Rule of cool said:
...Australia is no doubt going to be involved in the war in the West Pacific if it happens, the sea lanes to our north are one of China's biggest problems. What does Canada have to compare with that?
Click to expand...

Bingo!

The key to Canada's Arctic sovereignty is securing the Northwest Passage. And the most overt challenges to Canada's claims to the NWP as internal waters have always come from our allies ...
 
kqcke for you said:
Maybe tought i think its unlikely and more probaly that they would have to pay the 1.5 billion in addition. And even then those 12 Virginia could probaly cost around 51,6 billion dollar if not more. Then they also need more money for the infrastructure and those 1,5-3 billion or more to even get SSNs if they even get some.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's how that works. AIUI, that 3 billon is a one time investment into US Shipbuilding capacity in order to allow the US Industrial Base to increase their production rate without impacting US Navy procurement. Once that investment is made, the extra capacity will still be there. So the only costs would be the cost of actually buying the boat. Alternatively, the costs could theoretically be split allowing both countries to secure future purchase rights. Hell, doing this may drive down the costs of the boats for everyone since it adds what? Another 15-17 Virginia class to the order? That's easily enough to support a 3 or even 4 boat per year purchase.

Apophenia said:
The key to Canada's Arctic sovereignty is securing the Northwest Passage. And the most overt challenges to Canada's claims to the NWP as internal waters have always come from our allies
Click to expand...
However, having said all that, this is the main reason that I don't think Canada will ever get nuclear boats unless and until they design and build them themselves. Both the US and the UK have a vested interest in making sure Canada can't patrol the Arctic too effectively and keep their own subs out.
 
SSgtC said:
However, having said all that, this is the main reason that I don't think Canada will ever get nuclear boats unless and until they design and build them themselves. Both the US and the UK have a vested interest in making sure Canada can't patrol the Arctic too effectively and keep their own subs out.
Click to expand...
Barring maybe buying them from the French, but yeah US and UK are going to expend all the political capital to prevent that deal from going through.

So AIP it is.

Like I said, 4 weeks submerged time between batteries and AIP system, so that they can do a full Arctic crossing submerged. Pacific to Atlantic or A to P.
 
From what I hear Norway and Germany have offered to have Canada join their joint submarine program. This is producing the 212CD class, a larger and improved 212A class using Hydrogen Fuel Cells.

Based on how advanced the negotiations are between Norway and Germany I suspect Canada’s involvement would be to provide the funds which ensure the program will keep going until the initial German and Norwegian orders are complete and then join the queue for boats, with sustainment facilities built in Canada and possibly construction in time to build the last few.

South Korea has also offered the export version of their own KSS-III (though which of the two export versions I am not sure). This also uses hydrogen fuel cells but also incorporates lithium-ion batteries. This would come with help setting up sustainment facilities in Canada.

Sweden has apparently also expressed interest. Presumably a version of the A26 class. They would likely appreciate orders stabilizing the program beyond the two currently ordered by Sweden, but I am not sure what facilities in Canada this would entail.
 
ArtosStark said:
From what I hear Norway and Germany have offered to have Canada join their joint submarine program. This is producing the 212CD class, a larger and improved 212A class using Hydrogen Fuel Cells.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the 212CD has enough submerged endurance for Canada's needs. Remember, a Canadian submarine needs to be able to go from the Pacific to the Atlantic without snorkeling once.


ArtosStark said:
South Korea has also offered the export version of their own KSS-III (though which of the two export versions I am not sure). This also uses hydrogen fuel cells but also incorporates lithium-ion batteries. This would come with help setting up sustainment facilities in Canada.
Click to expand...
That would not have enough submerged endurance, either. Only 20 days submerged.


The 212CD seems to be the best of the bunch, currently. Even the much larger Soryu-class only have about 100hrs on the AIP (~6100nmi at 6.5kts), less than a week on AIP.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I'm not sure the 212CD has enough submerged endurance for Canada's needs. Remember, a Canadian submarine needs to be able to go from the Pacific to the Atlantic without snorkeling once.
Click to expand...
The 212A could do e weeks without snorkeling so given the use of Lithium battery and the new AIP its highly likely to be 4 weeks if Not more.
 
ArtosStark said:
From what I hear Norway and Germany have offered to have Canada join their joint submarine program. This is producing the 212CD class, a larger and improved 212A class using Hydrogen Fuel Cells.
Click to expand...
It also has new lithium batteries and fuel cells.
ArtosStark said:
Based on how advanced the negotiations are between Norway and Germany I suspect Canada’s involvement would be to provide the funds which ensure the program will keep going until the initial German and Norwegian orders are complete and then join the queue for boats, with sustainment facilities built in Canada and possibly construction in time to build the last few.
Click to expand...
We know that atleast more subs are going to be bought my germany so so 9-12 are planned for germany and norway tought i heard that if needed / wished they could produce twice as many in the same time / the slots for production are free.

Edit: do we know about the Sonar suit of KSS-III? Because for the 212CD we only know the Mine avoidance and navigation and Sea bed navigation sonar suite.
 
Last edited:
ArtosStark said:
From what I hear Norway and Germany have offered to have Canada join their joint submarine program. This is producing the 212CD class, a larger and improved 212A class using Hydrogen Fuel Cells.
..
Click to expand...

That offer has been covered in another thread. In a nutshell, Pistorius floated the idea in May 2024 during a visit to Ottawa. And his Canadian opposite avoided any direct response. Boris was trying it on, Bill Blair then kicked this notion into the long grass. So, for now at least, that's the end of that.

-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...victoria-class-replacement.41550/#post-697459
 
SSgtC said:
... Both the US and the UK have a vested interest in making sure Canada can't patrol the Arctic too effectively and keep their own subs out.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And with friends like that ...

This also gets us into the Yanks' left hand being oblivious to what its right hand is doing. There may be no Canadian interest in a Norway/Germany sub deal but Biden has orchestrated a deal (ICE Pact) for Canada and Finland to help supply the US with Polar-class icebreakers.

The contrast between attitudes around AUKUS and Washington requesting assistance through ICE Pact will not be lost on Ottawa.
 
Apophenia said:
That offer has been covered in another thread. In a nutshell, Pistorius floated the idea in May 2024 during a visit to Ottawa. And his Canadian opposite avoided any direct response. Boris was trying it on, Bill Blair then kicked this notion into the long grass. So, for now at least, that's the end of that.

-- https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...victoria-class-replacement.41550/#post-697459
Click to expand...
That does not necessarily rule collaboration out. Blair would not have been able to make that decision himself anyway. As far as I know there is not even an official statement of what Canada would need in a submarine. So Blair definitely could not enter into an agreement in a conversation with a visiting minister. Most likely when the RCN has a spec to work from, they will be evaluating what options are available to them. Which would, presumably, include the German/Norwegian offer, if it at least comes close to meeting criteria.
 
ArtosStark said:
That does not necessarily rule collaboration out. Blair would not have been able to make that decision himself anyway. As far as I know there is not even an official statement of what Canada would need in a submarine. So Blair definitely could not enter into an agreement in a conversation with a visiting minister. Most likely when the RCN has a spec to work from, they will be evaluating what options are available to them. Which would, presumably, include the German/Norwegian offer, if it at least comes close to meeting criteria.
Click to expand...

Well no. Prior to the heat death of the universe, anything remains theoretically possible. Probability is another matter.

That the MND is considered a minor Cabinet post was noted in the linked post. So, no, Bill Blair cannot unilaterally commit Canada to anything - policy or procurement. However, the CPSP has reached Project status so the MND and NDHQ have at least convinced Cabinet to allow them to investigate the possibilities.

Officially, 'options analysis' begins long before DND requirements (and the underlying RCN specs) are established. Invariably, this is where PMOs will confuse 'operational requirement' with 'sparkly thing in the slick brochure'. The definition stage then becomes that phase where you try to make the requirement sound exactly like your objet de désir. </nerd mode>

Anyway, I'm sure that the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project procurement will provide hours of distracting (if unfruitful) fun in the months, years, and decades to come. If NDHQ and the Canadian citizenry put our minds to it, I'm confident that we can beat our current procurement record (that half-century to get from SKR to MHP) ;)
 
On the off-chance that anyone from the CDA Institute is reading SPF: You guys really have to create your own transcripts for YouTube. Leaving it to AI give us ...

5:13 the like um but their Achilles heel has and continues to be um their overall uh
Click to expand...

Also wouldn't be a bad idea to coach your guests to avoid hackneyed phrase like 'goat path'.*

__________________________________________

* For non-Canadian, 'goat path' is a trite commonplace for letters-to-the-editor types describing anything less than a freshly-paved superhighway. (If the Northwest Passage does qualify for that term, commentators on the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project will need to have hands-on 'goat' experience, won't they?)
 
Apophenia said:
* For non-Canadian, 'goat path' is a trite commonplace for letters-to-the-editor types describing anything less than a freshly-paved superhighway. (If the Northwest Passage does qualify for that term, commentators on the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project will need to have hands-on 'goat' experience, won't they?)
Click to expand...
Where I live, we call one of the major two-lane roads the "goat trail" because it's usually in disrepair, often blocked by avalanche or landslide, and depending on where exactly the blockage is grounds for a multiple-day change in route that adds several hundred miles to whichever way you planned on going (without reversing course!). US95 in Idaho sucks.
 
For Canadian military procurement projects this, this is the equivalent of traveling at light speed.
Mind you I suspect this is most likely as far as the project is going to go. Both the current government and any future one don't believe war is something that doesn't happen anymore...at least to Canadians.
 
View: https://youtu.be/ysZtJnO4rkA?si=WzwBy89Y-JNMe6dG


South Korea is actively pursuing a "strategic partnership" with Canada, having apparently already provided a quote on four (!) submarines by 2035 (!). Includes local maintenance, crew training etc. The partnership would involve much more, K9 howitzers feature prominently in the report, as does Poland's experience in expedited procurement. A much deepened partnership between the two, at least on first glance, seems to make a lot of sense. Very interested to see where this is headed.
 
I almost expect our political leadership to screw this up somehow. It's an amazing deal that fulfills our every need.....how can they resist not screwing this up .
 
4 subs, if you have dual crews, will let you have 2-3 out most of the time, barring weirdness around systems breaking that are statistically improbable but still end up happening (see the times when the UK had zero deployable submarines).

4 subs with single crews means 1 boat out and every few months you'll have 2 out at the same time.

My recommendation would be 12-15 subs in service, 4-5 on the Pacific coast, 4-5 on the Atlantic coast, and 4-5 on the Arctic coast. And dual crews.
 
Scott Kenny said:
4 subs, if you have dual crews, will let you have 2-3 out most of the time, barring weirdness around systems breaking that are statistically improbable but still end up happening (see the times when the UK had zero deployable submarines).

4 subs with single crews means 1 boat out and every few months you'll have 2 out at the same time.

My recommendation would be 12-15 subs in service, 4-5 on the Pacific coast, 4-5 on the Atlantic coast, and 4-5 on the Arctic coast. And dual crews.
Click to expand...

en.wikipedia.org

Upholder/Victoria-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Seems South Koreans' offer has been designed for Canada being able to retain its current quantity of operational submarines in the short to medium term until the numbers start to rise all the way to a (maximum?) total of twelve, as per the previous government's designs and (indeed) your recommendation. Don't know how much capacity other manufacturers might have but very plausibly with at least some of them there might be an capability gap - not a good thing in the current and foreseeable security environment.
 
Australia's submarine trajectory, planned and actual, is instructive for Canada's situation. In the 60s the RN maintained 3 subs in Sydney, and Canada too, to train the RAN in ASW. The RAN got 4 Oberon-class and RCN got 3 for ASW training when the RN withdrew in 1969. The RAN wanted another 4 subs to create an offensive force, but this was reduced to 6 to buy a batch of A4s. These 6 subs were replaced by the vastly more productive in terms of days at sea per sub Collins class.

In 2009 the government decided that the RAN needed 12 big diesel-electric submarines for a robust offensive force operating at long distances. The 8 SSNs proposed by AUKUS gives basically the same number of subs on station given the vastly greater productivity of SSNs.

I'd suggest 8-12 diesel subs, 3-4 in the west, the rest in the east for both Atlantic and Arctic deployment. The western basing has caused problems with crew retention in the RAN, it might be the same for Canada.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom