• 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

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
So you need something like an underwater proximity fuze?
They exist (magnetic, pressure, for example). It's that an underwater explosion has to rely on the explosive pressure wave to damage a torpedo, not submunitions. This isn't as reliable to damage them as say old submarines, which have air inside of them.

You could knock it off course and make it use more fuel or damage its control surfaces/propulsion and that would be a kill. Still not the easiest. Or just get really close when your ATT blows up.

The US gave up on their system for a few reasons, one was false detection rates. Atlas Electronik solution is interesting as it uses the ships current ASW sensors to help with targeting, as well as using rocket propulsion to get the ATT out quickly towards the incoming enemy torp.

I don't know too much about it other than the nerdy publicly available info.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
Seems like a trend...

Well the old cold war "non-proliferation" environment is dead so great powers that are non-nuclear no longer feel constrained by those rules.

As a side note I recently read that the Aussie nuke boat deal wasn't really about the boats, but about locking in US and UK help in conflict with China. Makes sense.
 

calculus

Member
Reaction score
127
Points
630

RDBZ

Member
Reaction score
2
Points
180
Well the old cold war "non-proliferation" environment is dead so great powers that are non-nuclear no longer feel constrained by those rules.

As a side note I recently read that the Aussie nuke boat deal wasn't really about the boats, but about locking in US and UK help in conflict with China. Makes sense.
It was about the boats. Australia was already "locked in" the US alliance pretty deeply.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
670
Points
1,040
Might these not be an option for us as well?

South Korea on a defence equipment salethon. Get your new tanks, subs, ships and aircraft here. They also se the only county able to build all you need at prices you can afford lol
 

rmc_wannabe

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,933
Points
1,310
South Korea on a defence equipment salethon. Get your new tanks, subs, ships and aircraft here. They also se the only county able to build all you need at prices you can afford lol
But really though.

The South Korean manufacturing industry is booming. Samsung, KIA, Hyundai; would not surprise me at all that their defense companies are churning out cost effective hardware as well.

They seem to also have the same kind of philosophy as Sweden: our neighbours are crazy, we don't have the time or money to screw around with R&D and production, let's get this right the first time.

If it weren't for the fanatical "defence spending is a stimulus package" ideals baked into every procurement we attempt, we might be able to capitalize like Poland has.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
670
Points
1,040
But really though.

The South Korean manufacturing industry is booming. Samsung, KIA, Hyundai; would not surprise me at all that their defense companies are churning out cost effective hardware as well.

They seem to also have the same kind of philosophy as Sweden: our neighbours are crazy, we don't have the time or money to screw around with R&D and production, let's get this right the first time.

If it weren't for the fanatical "defence spending is a stimulus package" ideals baked into every procurement we attempt, we might be able to capitalize like Poland has.
Even Poland is looking to onshore production after the first builds.

My view is "defence as a stimulus" can work but the way we do it is not the best. GD in London is great example. That works. I think the problem lays with making an huge international Defence firm team with tiny Canada Inc. Then markups and added costs get out of hand. Let the large companies pitch direct and then see about what Canada Inc. do to help. Over on the NSS Irving being able to pick the design and what huge international defence company inc to choose was backwards. Plus stop the boom bust cycle.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
It's not defense as a stimulus that is driving this "onshoring" entirely. The return of great power competition has a vote. The most sovereign of capabilities is a country's military and if you buy or get your equipment from somewhere else then you are vulnerable to supply chain shocks and interdiction. Ukraine conflict is driving this home.

All countries should have some domestic military production. This is why Colt Canada exists, why we maintain our own ammunition manufacturing even at a low level, why NSS was started (build/repair our own ships), why GDLS will always get contracts (build/repair our own armoured vehicles) etc....
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,298
Points
1,260
It's not defense as a stimulus that is driving this "onshoring" entirely. The return of great power competition has a vote. The most sovereign of capabilities is a country's military and if you buy or get your equipment from somewhere else then you are vulnerable to supply chain shocks and interdiction. Ukraine conflict is driving this home.

All countries should have some domestic military production. This is why Colt Canada exists, why we maintain our own ammunition manufacturing even at a low level, why NSS was started (build/repair our own ships), why GDLS will always get contracts (build/repair our own armoured vehicles) etc....

Domestic defense production is great when you actually get the defense products.

But the problem lays more with government than it does industry. If we were serious about putting hulls in the water and not vote buying... Err I mean job creation then we would have gone off shore to fill the gaps while our industry can tool and spool for the long term.

Side question, where is our ammo production? I was under the impression we don't produce ammo.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
GD-OTS Canada, IMT Corp, Magellan Aerospace and Colt Canada all are domestic producers and suppliers of ammunition in Canada.

Canada has an Munitions Supply Program (MSP) in place since the 1980's. We are gun shy (pun intended) since WW1 about supply problems regarding ammunition for our own military (ie UK screwed us). Our domestic ammo production is a bit overpayed to ensure that they have an excess production capacity in case of a conflict. However they are internationally competitive in the ammo selling market and our ammo goes all over the place. Our expertise is such that just before the war (Jan timeframe) Ukraine was asking Canada to assist them in developing their own domestic ammunition production system, like ours.

Here's a pretty good article from the G&M on the industry. Not sure if it's behind a paywall....

Ammonopoly: General Dynamics’ sweet deal to supply Canada’s ammunition
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,325
Points
1,090
It was put (a long while ago) that the NSS project is a jobs project, from which ships are a byproduct.

The priority was never about getting combat capable ships and auxiliaries. It's always been about the jobs - the pork-barrel politics that is Canada.

If we were to build a yard to assemble submarines...that would be a level of pork that no-one has seen since the Sponsorship Scandal.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
498
Points
930
Domestic defense production is great when you actually get the defense products.

But the problem lays more with government than it does industry. If we were serious about putting hulls in the water and not vote buying... Err I mean job creation then we would have gone off shore to fill the gaps while our industry can tool and spool for the long term.

Side question, where is our ammo production? I was under the impression we don't produce ammo.
So you buy the first products off-shore. That means you are paying to establish an assembly process somewhere else for the first tranche and then paying again to do the same thing on-shore. Or maybe you keep the run going off-shore to equip the fleet but then you are never going to develop your own capabilities. Better not to have closed the industry down in the first place. Having done that, bite the bullet and re-build it right which means establishing a multi-party acquisition process that isn't voter dependent or at least limits the politics
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,534
Points
1,090
So you buy the first products off-shore. That means you are paying to establish an assembly process somewhere else for the first tranche and then paying again to do the same thing on-shore. Or maybe you keep the run going off-shore to equip the fleet but then you are never going to develop your own capabilities. Better not to have closed the industry down in the first place. Having done that, bite the bullet and re-build it right which means establishing a multi-party acquisition process that isn't voter dependent or at least limits the politics
I think I need to just post this in every naval thread about why our warship construction industry is in the state it is.

After WWII we had a fairly mature shipbuilding capability although I'm unsure if any of the Tribals being built in Halifax actually saw action. Then from 1953 to 1972 there was a continual build of RCN ships and we grew from the DDE's to refitted DDE to DDH (Fraser) to DDH from the keel up (Annapolis and Nipigon) to the Tribals with their twin helo's and SAM missiles. We also tossed in 3 AORs (1 refit and 2 purpose built). By 72 we had rid ourselves of the Nav Architect community, the will to build upon previous experience, and a government hell bent on gutting the CAF (willingly or unwillingly). We come to 1985 and we realize that we've wrung the last bit usefulness from the steamers and made the decision to replace them. Did the government actually look at building offshore? I'm not sure but the result was to pour oodles of money and sweat into resurrecting a warship building capability that by 1996 was pumping out frigates at a good rate and with the knowledge that EOL of the TRUMPs and AORs was rapidly approaching. So instead of having the yard pivot to next requirements the decision was made to shut the whole thing down again. And now we find ourselves in the early teens and the entire government fleet is on the verge of falling apart and rightly the PM forced (?) the GoC to come up with the NSS to address the rust out issue of the fleets of the GoC. Any person who had an ounce of experience with government programs knew that there will be cost overruns because that is just the way things work. The NSS is a MASSIVE program, much more complex than the child care or I'd even argue the Medicare system but if we power through there will be a decent payoff in the end.
The one problem is see in the future is that we've built a whole group of ships in one go and they are not staggered enough and we'll be in the same situation again in 30/40 years. I'm hoping that we decide not to do mid life refits, or do them at year 12 and get rid of them at year 25, instead of refit at year 22 and them sinking on their own at year 45.
 

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
285
Points
730
It was put (a long while ago) that the NSS project is a jobs project, from which ships are a byproduct.

The priority was never about getting combat capable ships and auxiliaries. It's always been about the jobs - the pork-barrel politics that is Canada.

If we were to build a yard to assemble submarines...that would be a level of pork that no-one has seen since the Sponsorship Scandal.

Jobs and the capability, my memory of the news reports of the time were to rebuild our ability to build ships at home. The NSS was supposed to be a slow process so that it never had to stop. Instead of building ships as fast as possible then having none to build for 20 years. The plan was to have continuous domestic shipbuilding (and the related jobs) for ever. It was never about the fastest way to get hulls in the water.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Myth
Reaction score
4,443
Points
1,110
If we depended on Canadian yards to build subs …I don’t think the final product would meet the requirements. I’m cynical and honestly I don’t know much about sub building.
 

Rainbow1910

Guest
Reaction score
42
Points
280
While I am aware that it is going to be awhile until Canada seriously starts looking into a specific design of submarine to procure, I thought it would be an interesting to have some discussion and look at what is currently/going to be on the market to see what is suitable. I will preface this by saying that I think Canada needs a relatively high endurance conventionally powered submarine, something not especially commonly offered on the export market. Other key factors I think are risk mitigation with a mature partner who can build these boats outside of Canada, I do not see domestic production as something realistic. I won't be mentioning Spain as their submarine program has seen many flaws, missteps and issues. The UK and US would both be ideal options for building Canada conventionally powered submarines but as both powers have been out of the process for many decades, they are also off the table. In no particular order:

Germany
I think out of everybody listed here, the Germans have the most constant experience in designing and exporting modern conventional submarines. That being said, they are mainly smaller types and that experience doesn’t necessarily transfer over to a successful large high endurance diesel submarine on a 1:1 basis. The Type 216 was a German design concept pitched to Australia which might be acceptable for Canada but from what I can see, it’s nothing but a concept at this point. Norway and Germany are both partnering for the Type 212CD variant which is large and features a novel "stealth" hull shape, that is another option.

Sweden
Sweden seems like another reasonable contender with their A26 design but I do have my reservations. Their competency alongside the Australians for their past Collins class throws up some red flags while the A26 variant for Sweden itself and it’s construction has been languishing for sometime. Their experience building submarines recently has gaps and while they promise a lot on paper which looks like, I am getting some Gripen E vibes for over promising and underperforming. I am skeptical of the A26 although it might be one of the best options on paper, it is a completely untested shot in the dark.

Japan
One of the stronger contenders due to the fact their submarines are excellent on paper however, Japan itself as an exporter is a major hurdle. They have effectively no experience in exporting such large, complex and expensive pieces of military hardware especially when you have demanding nations like Canada which will likely asking for huge modifications to the original design. It’s quite the substantial leap of faith and I’m not sure Japan can pull it off effectively. I’ve heard the Japanese submarines had accommodation issues for larger western sailors alongside not really enough range for Australian sensibilities but take those with a grain of salt. Their boats themselves such as Soryuu and Taigei seem advanced and very capable but partnering with them could turn into a nightmare.

France
Although France has a soured reputation after the Attack class debacle, they are a proven exporter of basically any piece of military hardware especially submarines. Building in France could seemingly avoid many of the Attack class pitfalls and between the conventional Barracuda design and the proven Scorpène class, France has options suitable to Canada they can offer in their current or modified state. One of the major upsides I see with France is that they have experience in modifying export designs to integrate foreign tech, which is a risk mitigater potentially. There is some questions to be had due to the insane complexity and risky nature of the conventional Barracuda and the Scorpene is a very old design at its core but France is an option it seems for a mature partner.

South Korea
Seemingly the new player on the block, South Korea is starting to export smaller submarines into Asia while also working on larger domestic boats for their own Navy. There isn't the pedigree of long term export experience for submarines however, South Korea has a reputation of being reasonable and quick to build ships for foreign customers. They have already attempted to export their larger boat design to India which seems to be doing well in that competition. They seem to be the black horse in my opinion with the KSS-III/DSME-3000 design.

If there is anything I missed or anything you'd like to add, feel free!
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,682
Points
1,040
If we depended on Canadian yards to build subs …I don’t think the final product would meet the requirements. I’m cynical and honestly I don’t know much about sub building.
Subs are on par with building space shuttles; it's massively complicated and very specialized. We can fix ours up to a point, but we have zero capability to build one, and there was a massive learning curve just to do repairs.

NSS to build surface ships makes sense, as we already build commercial ships and have facilities/ equipment. Subs are way more complicated, and would need to build infrastructure to do critical things like make the pressure hull.

My $0.02 is we should buy and off the shelf design (without changes) and have them built at a foreign yard, and then focus on the maintenance side of things for 'Canadian content' and job development. Would be a bit of a transition period but that would make sense, and actually completely allowed under the 'Build in Canada' policy because the facilities don't exist in Canada, which is one of the exemption criteria.
 
Top