• 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

Integration of systems - on a single platform, and between platforms - is a major endeavour. Even buying MOTS means that MOTS piece of equipment has to be integrated into the DND/CAF info sharing and sustainment enterprise.

But don't you think the Ukrainian Endeavour might have a salutary effect on commonality? Instead of vendors hawking the uniqueness of their solutions perhaps they might be encouraged to sell universality. USBs and Androids and Common Rails and that all systems are being netted into the Ukrainian architecture while they make it up on the fly.

Plugging ALARMS and Storm Shadows into SU-27s. NASAMs swallowing any missile that can be launched from a NATO aircraft or helicopter.

Koreans building pods that will launch home grown and US missiles. Lockheed Mk41 VLS?

Have we been making mountains out of molehills?
 
But don't you think the Ukrainian Endeavour might have a salutary effect on commonality? Instead of vendors hawking the uniqueness of their solutions perhaps they might be encouraged to sell universality. USBs and Androids and Common Rails and that all systems are being netted into the Ukrainian architecture while they make it up on the fly.

Plugging ALARMS and Storm Shadows into SU-27s. NASAMs swallowing any missile that can be launched from a NATO aircraft or helicopter.

Koreans building pods that will launch home grown and US missiles. Lockheed Mk41 VLS?

Have we been making mountains out of molehills?
In a word , No.

UKR demonstrates the importance of info sharing. Of shared awareness and coordination.

Firing missiles at targets of opportunity? Better used to shape battlespace.
 
In a word , No.

UKR demonstrates the importance of info sharing. Of shared awareness and coordination.

Firing missiles at targets of opportunity? Better used to shape battlespace.

Understood on the targets of opportunity and the need to best allocate scarce resources. No argument.
I was thinking more along the lines of ensuring that all systems operate on common buses so that any missile can be launched from any suitably sized platform. Remove the need to have an American sub to launch an American missile or a Korean sub for a Korean missile.

The Americans may balk but the rest of the world is trying to figure out how to launch American missiles from their domestic platforms. And the Marines are apparently interested in launching Israeli missiles from American platforms. They have already bought the Hero-120 and are apparently interested in the Tamir.


I was thinking about the mechanics and electronics rather than the tactics.
 

6 countries

Spain S80+
France Scorpene/Shortfin
Germany U212CD?
Sweden A26+
Japan Tagei
SK KSS-III
Interesting lineup of options being explored, although I think there is some definite better and worse options.

Spain's S-80+ is a design that I hope Canada would avoid at all costs. That design has been in development and construction hell for nearly a decade, faced numerous delays and even suffered from being nearly 100t overweight, requiring a US company to be brought in to redesign and fix the vessels. Spain has been slow to build these ships and their attempts to export them abroad previously have bore no fruit. Canada cannot afford to hitch ourselves to a lemon.

France's Scorpene seems too small for Canadian requirements considering that the Spanish ditched it and went for a larger design for their own requirements. It is also dated at its core, the design originates from the late 1990's even if it does see upgrades and improvements. Canada should be shooting for something more capable, larger and modern.

France's Shortfin Barracuda seems like a great design on paper however, it is unclear if the design offered is effectively the Australian Attack class variant or some other new variant. This would be the largest design on offer with great range, endurance and weapon load although I am unsure if it ever incorporated effective AIP into the design. This design has serious potential to be delayed and have issues with construction considering it is unproven and originally converted from a nuclear design. Very risky but potentially a big payoff in the end if things go smoothly. The French are pretty experienced submarine builders and exporters as well, so they are a fairly good choice for partners especially if we build them overseas in France.

Germany's Type 212CD seems like another great offering, being very modern and advanced with novel new features to deal with active sonar. Germany is one of the nations seemingly on the cutting edge regarding submarine design, development and technology with a fairly robust portfolio of experience exporting boats abroad. Type 212CD might be a bit small for Canada, which might mean the larger Type 216 design would be more suitable. That design lacks the dramatic new outer hull and only exists on paper however, it is very large at 4,000t and 90m in length. Germany potentially has VLS capability to offer as well.

Sweden's A26 looks similarly advanced to the German offerings however like the Spanish, this program languished for a variety of reasons. Saab has had a lapse in building and exporting submarines abroad, so it is a definite risk going with a nation who just managed to lay down their first of the class in 2022 when it was originally planned for 2012. They also offer a variety of different sizes and configurations, with some models including VLS capability and tonnages in excess of 3,000-4,000 tons. Potentially a great and modern submarine but a questionable partner in my opinion.

Japan's Taigei is a fairly large, modern and capable design, being fairly unique in replacing its AIP with lithium ion batteries. I have heard rumors that the Canadian CPSP staff were specifically interested in Japanese submarines for one reason or another, this might very well be the reason albeit take that with a grain of salt. These boats are very capable and top of their class but being built by Japan is concerning. Japan has been trying to break into the export market for military hardware but has not had much luck as of yet. Partnering with a nation with such a lack of export experience in any program is risky, doubly so for submarines considering their inherent complexity and triple so considering this is a Canadian submarine program. The fact that they are considering Japan shows to me that they might be willing to take that risk however, I am unsure if it is wise to do so. I am also unsure if Japan has the capability to accommodate our submarine order alongside their own domestic orders.

South Korea's KSS-III is quite large, modern and similarly capable to the Taigei class but has some aces up its sleeve. South Korea is also offering lithium ion battery technology in these boats alongside AIP and VLS. This design is rather new and somewhat untested but seems promising and is not overly risky as a design itself. South Korea is a shipbuilding powerhouse and can likely build these submarines fairly quickly and efficiently compared to some of the more shipyard constrained European options, they are also a new entry into the military export sales market and rapidly gaining experience. They seem more than willing to cut deals and accommodate customers, they very well might be a nation we should look to partner with.

There is a lot of good options, mostly good options but I think the South Koreans, Japanese and Germans are going to be the three most likely to win the eventual contract. Spain and Sweden both are likely to suffer from issues actually building the submarines Canada needs in a reasonable and efficient timeframe while France's design is risky and they also might have some issues with timelines and full shipyards. Germany is the safe bet here while Japan and South Korea are wildcards with potentially a lot of upsides associated with them.

How risk adverse Canada is and and what capabilities we ultimately wants is going to heavily shape who wins this competition, hopefully requirements will be upcoming in the new defense review.
 
Flying stuff from Korea in the middle of a conflict with China however might be somewhat problematic compared to flying it from Florida.
If one kept a decent stock of parts and weapons (torpedo) that should not be a major issue. The South Koreans seem adept at integrating different systems and it would likely be fairly easy for them to integrate the Mk 48 into their KS III, plus being on good terms with the US would make the ITAR issues a lot easier.
 
Interesting lineup of options being explored, although I think there is some definite better and worse options.

Spain's S-80+ is a design that I hope Canada would avoid at all costs. That design has been in development and construction hell for nearly a decade, faced numerous delays and even suffered from being nearly 100t overweight, requiring a US company to be brought in to redesign and fix the vessels. Spain has been slow to build these ships and their attempts to export them abroad previously have bore no fruit. Canada cannot afford to hitch ourselves to a lemon.

France's Scorpene seems too small for Canadian requirements considering that the Spanish ditched it and went for a larger design for their own requirements. It is also dated at its core, the design originates from the late 1990's even if it does see upgrades and improvements. Canada should be shooting for something more capable, larger and modern.

France's Shortfin Barracuda seems like a great design on paper however, it is unclear if the design offered is effectively the Australian Attack class variant or some other new variant. This would be the largest design on offer with great range, endurance and weapon load although I am unsure if it ever incorporated effective AIP into the design. This design has serious potential to be delayed and have issues with construction considering it is unproven and originally converted from a nuclear design. Very risky but potentially a big payoff in the end if things go smoothly. The French are pretty experienced submarine builders and exporters as well, so they are a fairly good choice for partners especially if we build them overseas in France.

Germany's Type 212CD seems like another great offering, being very modern and advanced with novel new features to deal with active sonar. Germany is one of the nations seemingly on the cutting edge regarding submarine design, development and technology with a fairly robust portfolio of experience exporting boats abroad. Type 212CD might be a bit small for Canada, which might mean the larger Type 216 design would be more suitable. That design lacks the dramatic new outer hull and only exists on paper however, it is very large at 4,000t and 90m in length. Germany potentially has VLS capability to offer as well.

Sweden's A26 looks similarly advanced to the German offerings however like the Spanish, this program languished for a variety of reasons. Saab has had a lapse in building and exporting submarines abroad, so it is a definite risk going with a nation who just managed to lay down their first of the class in 2022 when it was originally planned for 2012. They also offer a variety of different sizes and configurations, with some models including VLS capability and tonnages in excess of 3,000-4,000 tons. Potentially a great and modern submarine but a questionable partner in my opinion.

Japan's Taigei is a fairly large, modern and capable design, being fairly unique in replacing its AIP with lithium ion batteries. I have heard rumors that the Canadian CPSP staff were specifically interested in Japanese submarines for one reason or another, this might very well be the reason albeit take that with a grain of salt. These boats are very capable and top of their class but being built by Japan is concerning. Japan has been trying to break into the export market for military hardware but has not had much luck as of yet. Partnering with a nation with such a lack of export experience in any program is risky, doubly so for submarines considering their inherent complexity and triple so considering this is a Canadian submarine program. The fact that they are considering Japan shows to me that they might be willing to take that risk however, I am unsure if it is wise to do so. I am also unsure if Japan has the capability to accommodate our submarine order alongside their own domestic orders.

South Korea's KSS-III is quite large, modern and similarly capable to the Taigei class but has some aces up its sleeve. South Korea is also offering lithium ion battery technology in these boats alongside AIP and VLS. This design is rather new and somewhat untested but seems promising and is not overly risky as a design itself. South Korea is a shipbuilding powerhouse and can likely build these submarines fairly quickly and efficiently compared to some of the more shipyard constrained European options, they are also a new entry into the military export sales market and rapidly gaining experience. They seem more than willing to cut deals and accommodate customers, they very well might be a nation we should look to partner with.

There is a lot of good options, mostly good options but I think the South Koreans, Japanese and Germans are going to be the three most likely to win the eventual contract. Spain and Sweden both are likely to suffer from issues actually building the submarines Canada needs in a reasonable and efficient timeframe while France's design is risky and they also might have some issues with timelines and full shipyards. Germany is the safe bet here while Japan and South Korea are wildcards with potentially a lot of upsides associated with them.

How risk adverse Canada is and and what capabilities we ultimately wants is going to heavily shape who wins this competition, hopefully requirements will be upcoming in the new defense review.
I dont find the S-80 that scary, Electric Boat came in and straightened them out just like they had to do with the Brits .
The Koreans interest me the most both in the kit they have on offer, their ability to get it together and lately their sales success
The Germans and Swedish offerings are probably the front runner on the Dutch program and we are suppossed tohear that decision by early next year so we should have better info after that. I think the Dutch/Sweden sub will owe its design more to the Collins than anything else. Likely as you say something similar with the offering from France. Really only SK and Japan have a good continuous build program going on.

Id rank them KSS3, U212CD, A26 right now

A big thing will be do we want or need an AIP and is it the one that is offered by our preferred sub manufacturer. On batteries by the time we get around to it the Li-ion will have be replaced with Li-S or something
 
So hypothetically speaking if I wanted oh lets say 10 SSK type subs, would I get a list of options that I could order? Sensors, weapons load outs etc?

And with further developments after the first few are built can I change the options? It would cost me I bet.
 
I dont find the S-80 that scary, Electric Boat came in and straightened them out just like they had to do with the Brits .
The Koreans interest me the most both in the kit they have on offer, their ability to get it together and lately their sales success
The Germans and Swedish offerings are probably the front runner on the Dutch program and we are suppossed tohear that decision by early next year so we should have better info after that. I think the Dutch/Sweden sub will owe its design more to the Collins than anything else. Likely as you say something similar with the offering from France. Really only SK and Japan have a good continuous build program going on.

Id rank them KSS3, U212CD, A26 right now

A big thing will be do we want or need an AIP and is it the one that is offered by our preferred sub manufacturer. On batteries by the time we get around to it the Li-ion will have be replaced with Li-S or something
With the amount of good options available on the market, I don't see any major upside in considering a design with such a lineage of issues except for holding the threat of competition over other partners heads. Having to lengthen the hull by 10m and add 100t to the overall displacement to fix the issues does not bode well in my mind for Navantia being a worthwhile partner. I have heard horror stories about them working with the Australians on the Hobart class destroyers, I would rather avoid those if possible.

I would rank A26 higher but I am skeptical of a design which foundered so long being built by a nation which hasn't built a submarine in house since the 1990's (Gotland) and hasn't assisted building submarines abroad since the early 2000's (Collins). If Sweden does win in the Netherlands, are they going to have enough production bandwidth to accommodate Canada's potentially 4, 6, 8 or even 12 boat order within a reasonable timeframe? They already have a pair of their own subs being built which the first was just laid down in 2022, the Dutch will be ahead of us taking up major work in Swedish yards/supply chains.

The Germans might have similar issues with space for Canadian submarine orders considering the orders on the books for Norway, Israel and themselves although they actually have maintained expertise in continuous production while having larger/more capable shipyards.

As you said, I think the Asian nations have the advantage in yard space and continuous build programs ongoing albeit the German's are the gold standard in conventional submarine building and export, hard to really count them out.
 
So hypothetically speaking if I wanted oh lets say 10 SSK type subs, would I get a list of options that I could order? Sensors, weapons load outs etc?
Not without jacking up the price.
And with further developments after the first few are built can I change the options? It would cost me I bet.
Yup.

Honestly I think the RCN would be better suited to attempting to shape the battle space to make the AUKUS SSN more appealing to Canadians.

Looking at the OS requirements for a Submarine the range, speed and under ice conditions listed reduce the non Nuke power options to zero at this point in time.

Canada has a history of using nuclear power, and has vast reserves of Uranium. It is also the greenest power option out there.
I fail to see how Canadians have issues with this.
 
Flying stuff from Korea in the middle of a conflict with China however might be somewhat problematic compared to flying it from Florida.

If we are at war with China, we can likely just repair and rearm in Korea... 😉

Easier than flying stuff from Florida to Busan too.

Conversely we could do Korea a solid by providing them with a safe haven for their ships and subs to repair and refit if Busan is too hot. And a place where they could find the spare parts they need to fly in to keep their fleets running.

SeaLand has already adopted some Korean practices in their docks.
Ontario is courting battery plants.
Perhaps DeHavilland Canada and Bombardier could pick up some pointers from Korean suppliers as well.

We can't attract car factories because of our labour rules and unwillingness to subsidize them but surely National Defence would be an adequate reason to subsidize?

Do for Korea and Japan what we did for the UK in 1939.
 
Conversely we could do Korea a solid by providing them with a safe haven for their ships and subs to repair and refit if Busan is too hot. And a place where they could find the spare parts they need to fly in to keep their fleets running.
Distance for a SSK is a major issue.
Better Japan or Australia.

SeaLand has already adopted some Korean practices in their docks.
Ontario is courting battery plants.
Perhaps DeHavilland Canada and Bombardier could pick up some pointers from Korean suppliers as well.

We can't attract car factories because of our labour rules and unwillingness to subsidize them but surely National Defence would be an adequate reason to subsidize?

Do for Korea and Japan what we did for the UK in 1939.
South Korean defense from Nk is primarily Minefields. Tons of AP and AT mines. Canada isn’t in the AP Mine business anymore because of stupidity. As well as ABM (same with Japan). Canada isn’t in the AD business either these days.
 
With the amount of good options available on the market, I don't see any major upside in considering a design with such a lineage of issues except for holding the threat of competition over other partners heads. Having to lengthen the hull by 10m and add 100t to the overall displacement to fix the issues does not bode well in my mind for Navantia being a worthwhile partner. I have heard horror stories about them working with the Australians on the Hobart class destroyers, I would rather avoid those if possible.

I would rank A26 higher but I am skeptical of a design which foundered so long being built by a nation which hasn't built a submarine in house since the 1990's (Gotland) and hasn't assisted building submarines abroad since the early 2000's (Collins). If Sweden does win in the Netherlands, are they going to have enough production bandwidth to accommodate Canada's potentially 4, 6, 8 or even 12 boat order within a reasonable timeframe? They already have a pair of their own subs being built which the first was just laid down in 2022, the Dutch will be ahead of us taking up major work in Swedish yards/supply chains.

The Germans might have similar issues with space for Canadian submarine orders considering the orders on the books for Norway, Israel and themselves although they actually have maintained expertise in continuous production while having larger/more capable shipyards.

As you said, I think the Asian nations have the advantage in yard space and continuous build programs ongoing albeit the German's are the gold standard in conventional submarine building and export, hard to really count them out.

As much a fan of the Scandinavians as I am I can see the point on their subs. The yard that built those Stirling subs, Kockums, is the same yard that built the Visby corvettes. In both cases the engineering and execution, I have no doubt, were exquisite, Kockums has struggled to keep lines open and was once sold to Thyssen Krupp before Sweden essentially renationalized it on national security grounds.

Ship nameLaid downLaunchedCommissionedServiceStatusCoat of arms
HSwMS Gotland (Gtd)10 October 19922 February 199519961st Submarine FlotillaActive
HSwMS Uppland (Upd)14 January 19948 February 199519961st Submarine FlotillaActive
HSwMS Halland (Hnd)21 October 199427 September 199619961st Submarine FlotillaActive

NumberShip nameLaid downLaunchedCommissionedServiceStatusCoat of arms
K31Visby17 February 19958 June 200016 September 20023rd Naval Warfare FlotillaActive
K32Helsingborg27 June 200316 December 20094th Naval Warfare FlotillaActive
K33Härnösand16 December 200416 December 20094th Naval Warfare FlotillaActive
K34Nyköping18 August 200516 September 20153rd Naval Warfare FlotillaActive
K35Karlstad24 August 200616 September 20153rd Naval Warfare FlotillaActive
K36Uddevalla
Cancelled​

The Swedes do good work, like the Germans, but also like the Germans they do things on their own time and their own terms. And while they do a great job of turning out Bandvagns, CV90s and Carl Gustafs I think I would be leaning more into the Asian suppliers.
 
Distance for a SSK is a major issue.
Better Japan or Australia.


South Korean defense from Nk is primarily Minefields. Tons of AP and AT mines. Canada isn’t in the AP Mine business anymore because of stupidity. As well as ABM (same with Japan). Canada isn’t in the AD business either these days.

There is a lot of things Canada isn't into these days. I wake up every morning expecting breathing to be taxed. But stupidity is fatal. Eventually it kills itself off and things change.
 
Honestly I think the RCN would be better suited to attempting to shape the battle space to make the AUKUS SSN more appealing to Canadians.

Looking at the OS requirements for a Submarine the range, speed and under ice conditions listed reduce the non Nuke power options to zero at this point in time.

Canada has a history of using nuclear power, and has vast reserves of Uranium. It is also the greenest power option out there.
I fail to see how Canadians have issues with this.
I think some aspect of shaping and a major PR campaign would be required to better have Canadians accept anything relating to nuclear and the military however, I think the public issues from the nuclear aspect is the least of our concerns.

A nuclear submarine acquisition program alongside the construction of related infrastructure and transition/enlarging of the submarine force is a hurdle that I think the Canadian government is entirely unable to get over. Such a procurement would be likely multiple decades long and would be the most expensive military procurement even past the Canadian Surface Combatant. The military budget would either need to be further extended or we would need to see cuts elsewhere, which would cripple the force and require basically a new operational doctrine from the Navy.

Canada would have to construct infrastructure to maintain these vessels at home or put ourselves at risk by piggy backing off foreign allies. Crew training standards for reactor staff are incredibly strict and rigorous to maintain the effectively perfect safety record that the West upholds. These exist separately from just buying the vessels, all of these would have to navigate likely multiple governments in an economic situation which is not particularly rosy. The US also still holds treaty power over Canada getting nuclear material and reactors if I recall correctly, so that would need to be navigated.

Having the vessels built in the first place is going to be a major concern. The only allies we have who builds nuclear submarines is the United States, the United Kingdom, France and in the future, Australia. All of these allies are going to be/are already at shipyard capacity, there is no room for Canadian orders unless they made a deal to interrupt their own procurements (unlikely especially as the US has already done this for Australia). SSN's are major strategic assets which nations very rarely are willing to accept delays on, let alone sell them to allies. Australia is the unique case but that is more because they are a major strategic boon for the US in the Pacific, having Australian SSN's in the area, the US using Australian bases and the huge cash influx of money from Australia into American SSN shipbuilders.

I do not think Canada has the political resources or even the willpower to embark on such a messy journey. Conventional submarines are far easier due to their much more lax infrastructure and training requirements alongside the comparative ease of getting exports from partners abroad. For better or for worse, it is either conventional submarines for Canada or none at all.
 
We are selling Virgina class boats to Australia as part of their AUKUS program.
We have a bunch of LA class boats that still have major lifespans left and are ready to retire them for the Virginia class.
Given that we have ports for maintenance of SSN’s near the boarder on both coasts, it would be fairly easy for training of the RCN, as well as early maintenance.

The plan down here is to double SSN production in the next few years, which would provide a potential source for hulls, and the planned AUKUS boats are smaller than the VA class so less manning issues.

My point is that if Australia a country with really no domestic experience with nuclear power can do it, it shouldn’t be an issue for Canada given the history and geographical proximity to us down here to go Nuke.
 
My point is that if Australia a country with really no domestic experience with nuclear power can do it, it shouldn’t be an issue for Canada given the history and geographical proximity to us down here to go Nuke.
Those are Chickens I would not count till they have hatched and are waddling around.
 
Back
Top