• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Replacing the Subs

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
990
The US does not build non nuclear subs and unlikely we will buy US nuclear attack subs, even if they were willing to build them for us. So our options are German, Japanese or south Korean for large subs. Most of the subs on the market are to small for our stated needs.
Oh I know, the Americans went all nuclear ages ago. And it actually makes a lot of sense for them to have done so at the time.

I was saying hopefully we learn some lessons from how that situation evolved between the French & Aussies. And the French finish the redesign before it is proposed.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,728
Points
940
From wiki, sounds way to much like a Canadian style Cluster****

Order cancelled and alternatives
On 27 February 2014 the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration (FMV) cancelled its plans for ordering the A26 submarine from Kockums. According to FMV the new Kockums owner, the German company Thyssen Krupp has refused to allow Sweden to share the cost with any other nation, making the submarine too expensive. Sweden has instead approached Saab.[29][30] Saab plans to rehire many of Kockums submarine engineers if they receive orders for a new submarine.[31][32] As a result, Saab recruited top people from Kockums and issued a press release that the company was seeking employees for its naval division. In a letter to the Swedish Defence Materiel Administration, FMV, the head of the German ThyssenKrupp Marine Division, Dr. Hans Atzpodien begs FMV to stop Saab from recruiting key personnel from Kockums. On 2 April 2014 the Swedish government officially terminated all talks about a deal with ThyssenKrupp.[33]

On 14 April 2014 about 200 employees had left Thyssen Krupp for Saab and it was reported that Saab and Thyssen Krupp had started to negotiate about selling Kockums.[34] In June 2014 Thyssen Krupp agreed to sell Kockums to Saab.[35]

On 22 July 2014 it was announced that Saab had bought Kockums from Thyssen Krupp for 340 million SEK. The new name will be Saab Kockums.[36]

On 12 September 2014, Saab Kockums proposed a 4,000-ton variant of the submarines, known as the type 612, for the Royal Australian Navy to replace their ageing Collins-class submarine, however the DCNS entry based on the Shortfin Barracuda class was selected instead.

In December 2014 an agreement between Saab and Damen Shipyards was announced to jointly develop, offer and build next-generation submarines (based on the Type 612 design).[37] Initially focused on replacing the four Walrus-class submarines currently in use by the Royal Netherlands Navy by 2025 combined with the still existing Swedish submarine requirements after cancellation of the previous A26 program.

During a visit to Kockums facilities on 30 June 2015 the Swedish defence minister, Peter Hultqvist, announced that two submarines will be ordered for a cost of 8.2 billion SEK (US$ 867 million).[38] The two submarines were to be delivered to the Swedish Navy in 2024 and 2025. [39] However, in 2021 it was indicated that the delivery date had slipped by a further three years, to 2027–28, and the costs had risen by SEK5.2 billion (or USD600 million).[40]

A26 Blekinge submarines have been offered to Polish Navy as a possible choice for the "Orka" modernization programme which is to be introduced by 2025.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,728
Points
940
Oh I know, the Americans went all nuclear ages ago. And it actually makes a lot of sense for them to have done so at the time.

I was saying hopefully we learn some lessons from how that situation evolved between the French & Aussies. And the French finish the redesign before it is proposed.
Had we bought the Barbel Class subs from the US instead of the O-boats, it would be interesting to see how the US would have viewed non-nukes for export. From all reports the Barbels were excellent and the preferred choice of the RCN at the time.
 

KevinB

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,013
Points
910
Stoker is right. We don't need subs that are capable of breaking through the ice. We have satellites to track surface vessels in the Arctic. If necessary we can send long range patrol aircraft, when the target comes within range and weather conditions, to gather more information and watch it. If necessary the CAF can send the AOPS (depending on the ice conditions) to board it.
None of things see what is going on under the ice...
While the RCN may not need a sub to break through the ice - I firmly believe it does need a sub that can operate under the ice -- and based on what the Navy folks have posted here and elsewhere it is pretty risky to operate under the ice, if you can't break through in extremis.

Given the ability of current technology - and the state of the world - I personally believe that one would want to have the pulse of what is going on in ones own waters.

But still, I would still love for the RCN to have SSNs.
I know it's a snowballs chance in hell, but I think it is honestly the only credible submarine option for Canada.

I honestly think IF the RCN attempted to explain this to the .gov and Canadian public - that it would probably get a lot of support -- I mean you can squeeze "True North Strong and Free" for all it's worth - and even the non nuke beatnik's can't make much of a fit - because at the end of the day, it is a cleaner, and safer way to patrol CANADA's Oceans.
 

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
106
Points
580
It wouldn't shock me if the French were to offer us the opportunity to take over the Australian Shortfin Barracuda program. On paper the sub is a fairly good fit for us (US combat systems, etc.) and they could offer it at a reduced rate due to the amount of pre-work already done by the Aussies (which wouldn't have to be duplicated unlike any other Canadianized conversion of other existing designs) and an additional reduction on the price to have them built in France (keeping French shipyards working) since our yards are already at capacity with the current shipbuilding program.
From the little that I know of this program, the Australian Gov't and Armed Forces were taking a beating from the general public for the massive cost over runs and seemingly insurmountable complex engineering / design issues in adapting a SSN into a SSK. Based on this alone I would be extremely cautious about signing a contract for a conventionally powered Barracuda.

I am not sure which conventional submarine meets our needs as the RCN has not issued a Statement of Requirements (SOR). I would presume that the submarine must better than the current Victoria Class submarines:
  • Speed: 12 knots (surfaced), 20 knots (submerged)
  • Patrol endurance: approximately 8 weeks
  • Complement: 49 crew and 10 trainees
  • Diving depth: > 200 metres
Weapons:
  • M48 torpedoes
  • be able to launch missiles (Harpoon)
  • must be able to deploy mines

Stealth: Must incorporate the latest technology / design in order to reduce detection

Special Forces
- must be able to carry a detachment of Special Forces with their equipment

I made no mention of combat, communication and sonar systems as this is beyond my expertise and knowledge. Besides this would be classified anyway.
 
Last edited:

calculus

New Member
Reaction score
22
Points
180
From the little that I know of this program, the Australian Gov't and Armed Forces were taking a beating from the general public for the massive cost over runs and seemingly insurmountable complex engineering / design issues in adapting a SSN into a SSK. Based on this alone I would be extremely cautions about signing a contract for a conventional powered Barracuda.

I am not sure which conventional submarine meets our needs as the RCN has not issued a Statement of Requirements (SOR). I would presume that the submarine must better than the current Victoria Class submarines:
  • Speed: 12 knots (surfaced), 20 knots (submerged)
  • Patrol endurance: approximately 8 weeks
  • Complement: 49 crew and 10 trainees
  • Diving depth: > 200 metres
Weapons:
  • M48 torpedoes
  • be able to launch missiles (Harpoon)
  • must be able to deploy mines

Stealth: Must incorporate the latest technology / design in order to reduce detection

Special Forces
- must be able to carry a detachment of Special Forces with their equipment

I made no mention of combat, communication and sonar systems as this is beyond my expertise and knowledge. Besides this would be classified anyway.
With regards to the combat system and sonar, the upgraded Victorias actually set the bar pretty high, so a follow-on class has relatively big shoes to fill.

 
Last edited:

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
333
Points
1,010
From the little that I know of this program, the Australian Gov't and Armed Forces were taking a beating from the general public for the massive cost over runs and seemingly insurmountable complex engineering / design issues in adapting a SSN into a SSK. Based on this alone I would be extremely cautions about signing a contract for a conventional powered Barracuda.
I'm not suggesting that Canada should accept such an offer. I'm just saying that to my little mind it would make sense for the French to make such an offer. They've already sunk a bunch of their own costs into the design conversion and don't have any sales to show for it.

By offering a deal to Canada they could keep their project team intact and employed, get the actual construction work on the subs for their shipyards and in the end possibly have a good conventional sub design which would be sellable to other US allies that prefer to use American technology and systems over European ones.
 

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
106
Points
580
I'm not suggesting that Canada should accept such an offer. I'm just saying that to my little mind it would make sense for the French to make such an offer. They've already sunk a bunch of their own costs into the design conversion and don't have any sales to show for it.

By offering a deal to Canada they could keep their project team intact and employed, get the actual construction work on the subs for their shipyards and in the end possibly have a good conventional sub design which would be sellable to other US allies that prefer to use American technology and systems over European ones.
ACK. My radar (which has been wrong many times before) is telling me to stay away from the the conventionally powered Barracuda, but the nuclear powered one - go for it!
 

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
106
Points
580
With regards to the combat system and sonar, the upgraded Victorias actually set the bar pretty high, so a follow-on class has relatively big shoes to fill.

Thanks. Even after reading that on the Lockheed Martin website I still don't understand what it means. I simply don't have the background to comprehend its effect. I'll take your word for it that it is impressive.
 
Last edited:

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
990
Thanks. Even after reading that on the Lockheed Martin website I still don't understand what it means. I simply don't have the background to comprehend its effect. I'll take your word for it that it is impressive.
I’m nowhere near a submarine expert. We did have a guy posting on here for a short period who claimed, believably, that he worked on our subs - I wish he was still here, especially for this thread.

But the CMS (combat management system) is state of the art, and the same system the US was installing on it’s new boats at the time. (This was a year or so ago.)

The sonar not only does a better job of ‘doing sonar things’ - but the post processing means it can tell the Sonar Ops onboard more information, more accurate information, and much faster than previous.

The screens actually are a big deal. They can display the image more clearly, and from different selectable angles than previous. Think of it like an old PC monitor from the early 90’s (big, bulky, heavy, pixels, etc) - compared to a 4K screen today.

And we purchased a fair number of the most recent version of the mk48 torpedo, and quite a few upgrade kits for the ones in stock. (I don’t know about you guys but the size of that purchase surprised me.)

Point of the above is that while they may not be the newest or most stealthy subs out there, the Victoria class really will leave big shoes to fill.



The above information was based on a very brief tour a few of us received on board a submarine just over a year ago. We didn’t see much, it didn’t last long, and most of it didn’t make sense. But the lad giving the tour was talking about this upgrade quite enthusiastically - it hadn’t happened yet, so we didn’t actually physically see anything. Just relaying what was said, how I understood it. Absolutely feel free to correct anything I got wrong.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
357
Points
910
Why is it important (IMO, at least) for Allied submarines to be able to operate under the icepack.....hmmmmm.


Three Russian missile submarines carrying up to 200 nuclear weapons surfaced in the Arctic Ocean last week...
 

Happy Guy

Member
Reaction score
106
Points
580
I think that most all Parliamentary MPs do not understand the significance of this - the threat to Canadian sovereignty that these submarines pose to us. I think that our Senior Leadership and particularly their staffs must be articulate and personable enough to brief the MPs of what DND/CAF is there for besides fighting forest fires and providing fresh water to our communities. Even more significantly we need a switched on MND to help us with getting capital equipment, besides fixing our issues with sexual misconduct and sexual harassment. While fixing our cultural is pressing, our ability to defend the country must not suffer too.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
111
Points
430
Corporal Frisk has a good article (as usual) on the swedish sub, I'm pretty sure TKMS was sabotaging Kockums on purpose, if Saab doesn't land the Dutch project they may have problems with the economics going forward.


Trouble brewing in Australia before they even get started?


While Naval Group might be a pain in the ass to deal with, it's possible the Australian's aren't that easy to deal with themselves on this. The French-Brazilian collaboration seems to be progressing including the Brazilian nuclear submarine derivative of the scorpene


So to me Naval Group has two new nuclear designs and the Scorpene's to work off of. Still unlikely we ever see a nuclear sub ourselves but I will continue to hope
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
380

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,350
Points
940
The BQQ-10 sonar suites in the Victoria-class boats are also in the Virginia-class subs.
That's the thing - despite our older frames (air, sea, etc) the upgraded insides are generally world-class.

Bit of a side note - the current Aurora acoustics system (which we've had for quite a few years now) is what GA was proposing for the next upgrade for the P-8A fleet. This was a couple of years ago, so I'm not sure if Boeing accepted it or not.
 
Top