Replacing the Subs

[Eye In The Sky]

In a few years there won't be Russian subs able to leave ports on the current course of action of the Russian gov. Now if you change that to PLAN subs I would say very much too. They are claiming now to be near artic nation.

You’re underestimating how modern the RFN subs are then IMO. Borei class and Yasen…nothing to scoff about. Especially given our sub fleet.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

That's a decent summary of the options from this thread. Getting real here, no way we are getting SSNs, if we were, politically we'd have made those plans public and joined hands with Australia.

I think our defence dollars would be better spread across multiple arctic-capable platforms instead.

Imagine spending $50B on a handful of SSNs, or spending that on a combination of P-8s, UAVs, XLUUVs, BV replacements, ice-strengthened AORs/supply vessels, more rotary AC or C-130s. What would be more militarily useful? Heck even just investing in infrastructure projects or expanding the Rangers in some way.

The best ASW platform is…a capable sub.

The strategic value of a truly capable sub, that had a land attack ability, ICBM type capability, anti ship capability (thinking Oscar II) etc is very undervalued. WWII should have taught us the ability these systems have to choke a nation and/or it’s expeditionary forces.

 

[Spencer100]

You’re underestimating how modern the RFN subs are then IMO. Borei class and Yasen…nothing to scoff about. Especially given our sub fleet.

No I was not meaning their subs were not capable. I am talking about their ability to keep them running without access to the global supply chains. Example Semi-conductors and Computer chips. Plus the Russian military will be having many competing issues and programs to restock their inventory of jets, tanks and ships. All of those program with be looking for resources and money. I doubt everything will be funded or able to be done. But you are right that the subs maybe very high on the list. Subs look to be the area Russian equipment is up to par. But it has not been tested.

Exanple. Watched more videos of ERA tiles just filled with rubber. Who knows if true. I would suspect the market for Russian tanks is going to be much smaller now. Is there parts or systems like that in the subs. Subs maybe harder to pull BS on because when it dives you are going to find out if corners were cut.

 

[GR66]

Realistically with all the other spending priorities I think we're quite probably looking at a Submarine REPLACEMENT project rather than a Submarine ENHANCEMENT project. We have four subs currently. Likely the project will be to replace them with four new subs. I'd be pleasantly surprised if they went for six and would absolutely pass out from shock if they went for eight.

So based on those kind of numbers (lets say a maximum of four subs per coast - one coast only if we get four total and four per coast if we win the lottery and get eight) lets look at the pluses and minuses (I'm sure that I've missed many) of the options that @KevinB suggested:

Realistic options are:
1) Divest the sub surface fleet, get rid of SS trades

Plus

• Cost of new subs can be used instead for other capabilities
• Frees up PYs for other parts of the RCN
• Eliminates a full training/sustainment stream from the Navy

Minus

• We lose a whole major combat and surveillance capability that can't be fully replicated by other assets
• Lose an ASW training platform for the surface/MH/MPA fleets

2) Divest the sub surface fleet, and send SS crews on Brit and US Nuke boats.

Plus

• Cost of new subs can be used instead for other capabilities
• RCN gets experience in SSN operations
• Maintains basic capability in Submarine Ops in case we purchase new subs in the future

Minus

• A hard political sell to both nationalists and anti-nuc groups (and possibly to some Americans)
• We would not have a say in how or where the boats operate. US/British subs may undertake operations that are not in our national interest.
• Even if the boats were fully Canadian crewed there would always be serious strings attached if they were physically owned by another nation.

3) Buy new AIP boats and live with constraints (winter work conditions limited by AOPS support)

Plus

• RCN more or less maintains our current capabilities with a newer platform.

Minus

• Cost of the submarines (and their infrastructure/support/PYs) could potentially have been used on other priorities (proper comparative cost-benefit analysis should be done).
• Any conventional/AIP sub we get would face the same limitations we have currently re: Arctic operations but also in terms of expeditionary operations outside our home waters.

4) Buy insanely expensive Ice Breaching AIP bespoke fleet

Plus

• RCN maintains our current capabilities with a newer platform plus gets the added ability to conduct under ice operations without the political baggage of introducing nuclear powered boats to the fleet.

Minus

• The cost of a custom design would be much higher than any other "Canadianized" version of an existing design.
• Cost of the submarines (and their infrastructure/support/PYs) could potentially have been used on other priorities (proper comparative cost-benefit analysis should be done).
• While we would gain the capability of under ice operations, being conventionally powered the subs would still face difficulty performing distant expeditionary operations.

5) SSN buy in with Oz/UK/US.

Plus

• RCN gets the most capable submarines for the fleet with the capability for both under-ice and expeditionary operations.

Minus

• This option has the highest cost of all the options which could cut into other spending requirements or result in a smaller fleet of subs being procured compared to the other options.
• There would be political objections from some quarters to the purchase of nuclear powered subs that would have to be overcome.
• Cost of the submarines (and their infrastructure/support/PYs) could potentially have been used on other priorities (proper comparative cost-benefit analysis should be done).
• Supporting nuclear subs would require either a massive infrastructure (and training) investment or a politically tricky foreign basing agreement.

In my dream world I would love for the RCN to get 8-12 SSNs but realistically (both politically and economically) I simply can't see that happening. Similarly I don't see any government wanting to spend the political capital to pitch having Canadian submariners manning foreign submarines (beyond exchange-type arrangements).

So that really leaves divestment or conventional/AIP replacement as the realistic options (I think a bespoke design would be far too risky and far too expensive to even consider).

I think that a reasonable argument could be made for divestment. Subs and their infrastructure/support are very expensive. While submarines have great capabilities, the tiny size of our sub fleet (especially in relation to the vast maritime areas we need to defend) means that our ability to leverage that capability in an impactful way during a conflict is quite limited.

For the cost of maintaining a (small) submarine fleet you could invest in other capabilities (MPAs, UUVs/USVs, undersea sensors, satellites, etc.) that could replace some of the capabilities of the subs but in greater numbers which could provide greater overall coverage than the subs they would replace. We could also invest in novel technologies that could possibly have the ability to make submerged submarines more easily detectable.

On the other hand as @Eye In The Sky has noted, subs have proved in both World Wars (and the Falklands) that they can have a major strategic impact on a conflict.

If I honestly thought that the CAF would come up with an forward looking plan to control our maritime domain with an integrated network of manned and unmanned surface and subsurface vessels, aircraft, UAVs, remote sensors, satellites, research in new technologies, etc. that could replace the subs and increase our overall domain awareness and ability to respond to incursions and that the government would properly fund those plans then I might fall on the side of divestment.

But since I don't believe that to be the case I'd say that the RCN should push for replacement of the Victoria-class with as many AIP-equipped replacement subs that they can get away with.

 

[Maxman1]

Non-orphane options would be, for instance, joining the Type 212CD or the next Dutch Walrus-replacement, if we discard the under-ice capability.

Or there's the Shortfin Barracuda/Attack class, which France is currently offering to the Netherlands to replace the Walrus class, which is the same version that was selected (and later cancelled) by Australia. It will have an 18,000 nm range, 80 day endurance and be able to launch Harpoon and Tomahawk missiles from the torpedo tubes in addition to Mk 48s (the Barracuda/Suffren class carries Exocets, Storm Shadow cruise missiles and MICA anti-air missiles), with a crew of 60 and room for 15 commando troops.

The high cost was due to the plan to build them in Australia, which would require a transfer of technology and extensive infrastructure upgrades in Australian shipyards, something that would avoided if they were built in France by Naval Group.

 

[JMCanada]

Actually the next Dutch Walrus-replacement is still open among three contenders: French Barracuda, Swedish A26 and German Type 212 variant or Type 216 (not sure which one).

 

[Maxman1]

Actually the next Dutch Walrus-replacement is still open among three contenders: French Barracuda, Swedish A26 and German Type 212 variant or Type 216 (not sure which one).

Yes, hence "currently offering" and not "selected".

ThyssenKrupp is planning to offer the Type 212CD, which has been ordered by both the German Navy and the Norwegian Navy.

 

[suffolkowner]

I would think the smartest thing would be to tag on to whatever the Dutch go with or if the Australians decide to go with an interim SSK capability however the type 212cd looks good too as long as its not a complete orphan fleet or powertrain

Forget Collins LOTE – buy new submarines from Korea instead - APDR

South Korea is on a bit of a roll with respect to weapons sales

 

[Spencer100]

Is there a deal to be had? Lol

DSME Faces Financial Loss with Indonesian Submarine Project - Naval News

DSME is reportedly expected to face 90 billion KRW ($67 million USD) worth of financial loss. The South Korean shipbuilding company pre-ordered components for three Indonesian submarines that DSME won in 2019 while the contract has yet to take effect.

www.navalnews.com

 

[YZT580]

Is there a deal to be had? Lol

DSME Faces Financial Loss with Indonesian Submarine Project - Naval News

DSME is reportedly expected to face 90 billion KRW ($67 million USD) worth of financial loss. The South Korean shipbuilding company pre-ordered components for three Indonesian submarines that DSME won in 2019 while the contract has yet to take effect.

www.navalnews.com

I don't think a 67 mill savings would cover the cost of Canadianizing the design

 

[Spencer100]

I don't think a 67 mill savings would cover the cost of Canadianizing the design

But you could get them in a a year or two.

Plus I think the design uses US weapons and systems plus German tech. Buy as is from DSME and get Davie to upgrade to Canadianize. Win all around. Quebec gets jobs jobs jobs! And by time Davie at 2x cost to buy them get through upgrading in ten years the old subs will be totally done. This is slap on the back thinking.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I suggest you re-read the article while paying attention.

There are no submarines to be had to canadianize or anything else. The loss is for long lead items - in this case three sets of electric propulsion motors - purchased by the yard before even starting on the submarines, a start they haven't done yet.

Three sets of motors is not a sufficient deal for Canada (or anyone else) to acquire them and build whole submarines around them. Even Davie is not that good, though they may think they are .

 

[Spencer100]

I suggest you re-read the article while paying attention.

There are no submarines to be had to canadianize or anything else. The loss is for long lead items - in this case three sets of electric propulsion motors - purchased by the yard before even starting on the submarines, a start they haven't done yet.

Three sets of motors is not a sufficient deal for Canada (or anyone else) to acquire them and build whole submarines around them. Even Davie is not that good, though they may think they are .

I know was just being "tongue in cheek"

But in all seriousness would SK and DSME not be a player now for sub replacement? The newest subs for the ROC Navy looked to moved past its German TK roots. SK has landed some big defence deals lately.

 

[JMCanada]

Thanks to google translator can read this dutch article about S80. Seems like Navantia doing their job on PR. Anyway, it is quite detailed about the so called "BEST-AIP". Yet the first reformer has not yet been installed, but is about to be, on the third vessel which is under construction.

Bouw Spaanse onderzeeboten vordert, primeur op gebied van voortstuwing nadert

Bezoek aan Cartagena

marineschepen.nl

 

[daftandbarmy]

Nice tourist attraction

Canadian navy submarine performs tests off Victoria​

Canadian navy submarine performs tests off Victoria

An unusual sight at Victoria's Ogden Point on Tuesday morning was turning heads. Instead of cruise ships, onlookers were checking out a Royal Canadian Navy submarine. HMCS Corner Brook is going through two days of testing, called "trim and incline trials" as part of a program called Sub-Safe...

vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca

 

[OldSolduer]

Here is my take on the replacement of submarines in the RCN:

Once these wear out there will be no replacement.

 

[Spencer100]

Here is my take on the replacement of submarines in the RCN:

Once these wear out there will be no replacement.

I think that is the unsaid plan. There really can't be any other conclusion at this time.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Here is my take on the replacement of submarines in the RCN:

Once these wear out there will be no replacement.

That very well could be an option although with the RCN doggedly holding onto submarine capability even throughout the bevy of issues suffered to the service and its boats as a whole, it seems to point towards some kind of will to carry on. It would have been far easier to scrap the service years ago, the Canadian government has done it multiple times previously. The government did announce last July I believe that they were establishing a Canadian patrol submarine project to provide the government with options and information towards a potential replacement, however that could easily go nowhere.

It is going to be a very treacherous tight rope to walk as submarine procurement cannot work like our surface ship procurement. These replacement submarines are effectively going to be required to come largely from abroad as we've had issues even properly upkeeping our own boats domestically, let alone building modern and incredibly complex submarines in country. That kills the usual cover of "Canadian jobs" that politicians usually hide behind for these programs, add on that submarines are usually fairly expensive especially when you consider larger and longer ranged boats which we will need and you can get an idea of what kind of a mess is waiting for us. Even a modest submarine program for Canada could result in quite the considerable pile of cost overruns, delays and technical issues if we hand them in any way like we do most programs.

At the end of the day, the Canadian Government and RCN need to have a serious sit down to hash out the future and strategic goals of the submarine service before they do anything. If there is no long term plan for the service and they just plan to keep buying small classes of submarines to keep the service on life support for some grand plan that will never come, unplug the damn thing and divert the resources somewhere more useful. If they plan on actually properly utilizing, expanding and designating proper goals for the service within anybody's lifetime, put your money where your mouth is and properly support the force.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Here is my take on the replacement of submarines in the RCN:

Once these wear out there will be no replacement.

Well I heard the current CRCN say something along the lines of: "We need to consider whether we really need subs?" When he was MARPAC Comd so who knows?

I do agree with you and have a feeling these lemons are the end of the line for Canada's silent service.

 

[GR66]

Here is my take on the replacement of submarines in the RCN:

Once these wear out there will be no replacement.

Oh, there WILL be replacements. It will just be after the Victoria's are long retired and the last members with the corporate knowledge of how to run a submarine fleet are gone so we can start completely from scratch again!