Please do Nilgirl. Thanks!
Done...and stickied given its importance.
Latest Thread
Please do Nilgirl. Thanks!
Submarines are always going to be a contentious issue in Canada especially the bad press the Victoria class has received over the years. Canada in its procurement will ultimately in my opinion go with a blue water design able to transit the Atlantic and Arctic in a traditional cold war role, additionally they will have to be able to transit the Pacific. Any design will have to take into account both warm and cold weather operations, currently the Victoria class built for the cold North Atlantic and Nordic regions have had difficulty operating in temperate waters. This is all common sense based on current doctrine and conuse for submarines in Canada and previous use of this type of platform by Canada.
Any submarine we buy will more than likely not have AIP but will leverage lithium battery technology. The shortfin Barracuda that AUS is building has no plans for AIP. AIP is normally for coastal submarines, and the technology which reaches back into the 30's haven't advanced enough to in endurance for the needs of Canada. AIP only allows a submarine to go at slow speeds, useful for coastal submarines but not so much for open ocean transits. Additionally any new submarine for Canada that is expected to operate in the Arctic under the ice will need the power to surface at will in case of emergency, conventual submarines and even AIP cannot do that. We know the Arctic is melting and these submarines will not be built or be operational in the next decade at least. Under the ice operations will become less and less important and that is going to work in our advantage as this opens newer designs to the RCN on the drawing board and given the bad press the Victoria class has received any procurement will be done in a slow and deliberate manner.
We never had more than four submarines ever in the history of the Canadian submarine service, the RCN in my opinion will more than likely order a max of six and those will be hard enough to crew given the RCN is short 1200 sailors on the east coast alone. Six will allow one to be at high readiness on each coast, one on each coast at lower readiness, and one on each coast in maintenance. More than likely the design will take into account a lower crew size and greater automation. The senate defence committee has recommended twelve and not saying that twelve is not a better number but realistically not achievable with the resources we currently have available. Keep in mind the senate defence committee is usually not listened to and recommend all kinds of unrealistic things.
Agree, even motor technology is improving to where the storage capacity of a lithium ion powered submarine will be even more efficient.Lithium ion would be even better than AIP in my estimation.
You are spot on about your last two lines. It is why for most part I observe. I have grown weary of expecting pragmatic defence policy sustained in parliament and bureaucracy.
Good to see the RCN is thinking in the right way Ted. The Submarine Replacement Project team should visit all sub contenders IOT give the government all potential candidates a "fair shake". The ROC KSS-III is a good option along with the Japanese Sōryū-class. I would however want the team to also think of the Japanese Taipei class LIB boats or it's follow-on class from Japan as another very good options. Let's also not forget the German Type 212 CD E class or the Type 216 class as well. There are also other classes like the Spanish S 80, the Swedish repacement subs or what the Dutch are going to buy as well.So it appears things are moving towards the selection of a design for the next class of submarines for the RCN which will succeed the Victoria Class. Later this month members of the submarine replacement project will travel to Japan and Korea to look at the Korean KSS-III and presumably the Sōryū-class. Both classes leverage the lithium battery technology and AIP. While not powerful enough to surface or operate exclusively under the ice would give the RCN certainly ice edge capability. Any variants would have to be heavily modified to operate combat systems the RCN would want to acquire and modify the boats to operate in the Arctic. This is good news however realistically any new class is over 15 years away. View attachment 57166
Its not about affording it, the current government has been very clear that acquiring nuclear submarines is unacceptable and its doubtful the public will accept it.The Canada-class submarine plans should be revived. SSNs would be much better suited for Canada with our requirements to cover large distances across two coasts and operate in the Arctic. I would be extremely disappointed if we did not take the opportunity to join AUKUS and acquire nuclear submaries.
If Australia can afford nuclear submaries then we should be able to as well. Canada has a larger population and economy than Australia. We also have a larger industrial sector and much more experience and expertise in operating nuclear reactors.
Hello Ted. let's not forget that this Technical Cooperation Agreement between two companies is just that; -an agreement between two companies (Babcock & HD HHI) and nothing more. The CPSP has just begun its search for replpacement proposals for the Next Generation Canadian Submarine Replacement of the Victoria class SSK. I anticipate the "team" will visit other "potential" candidates in other countries in the next several months to come and ultimately pare it down to the most acceptable candidates for the RCN with recommendations to Ottawa for the best option. Just because Babcock has the contract to keep the Victoria class going until a future submarine can be acquired, does not mean that Babcock and South Korea's KSS-III submarine is a "shoe-in" for this contract.Babcock and HHI Sign a Technical Cooperation Agreement for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project - Naval News
Babcock has signed a Technical Cooperation Agreement with HD HHI to collaborate on the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP).www.navalnews.com
Home»Event News»MADEX 2023»Babcock and HHI Sign a Technical Cooperation Agreement for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project
Babcock has signed a Technical Cooperation Agreement with HD HHI to collaborate on the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP).
Babcock And HHI Sign A Technical Cooperation Agreement For The Canadian Patrol Submarine Project
Babcock Canada (Babcock), a world leader in submarine support, has signed a Technical Cooperation Agreement with HD Hyundai Heavy Industries Co., Ltd (HD HHI) to collaborate on the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP).
Naval News Staff 07 Jun 2023
Babcock press release
HD HHI will leverage its world-class construction capabilities, while Babcock will contribute its expertise in providing in-service support and sustainment of Canada’s Victoria Class submarines, which it has been doing since 2008.
John Howie, Babcock’s Chief Corporate Affairs Officer, signed the agreement alongside Young-seuk Han, Vice Chairman & CEO of HD HHI, at the International Maritime and Defence Exhibition (MADEX) in Busan, South Korea.
John Howie said: “As a world leader in submarine sustainment, this agreement enables Babcock to build on our longstanding relationship with HD HHI and combine both organisations’ extensive experience on the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project.”
Young-seuk Han said: “Through close collaboration between leading companies in Canada and South Korea in shipbuilding and defense industry, we will propose the optimal submarine to the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project, equipped with the latest technology in both Canada and South Korea.”
The agreement cements Babcock’s commitment to supporting the Royal Canadian Navy’s current and future Maritime programmes.
Let's not kill off the SSN option just yet Ted. Governments and attitudes towards SSNs may very well change. I believe all options are still on the table.Its not about affording it, the current government has been very clear that acquiring nuclear submarines is unacceptable and its doubtful the public will accept it.
Hello rai456. Unfortunately, for Canada, under the present government, Canada will never buy an SSN. Even if attitudes & governments were to change, it is going to be a long haul before we could join AUKUS (If the US would let us) however joining AUKUS Pillar 1, may be an option though. Although I personally would like to see a fleet of Canadian SSNs, the only way Canada gets to build and operate its own SSNs would be to develop our own SMR technology to be able to do that which both you and I may not be around to see in the future.The Canada-class submarine plans should be revived. SSNs would be much better suited for Canada with our requirements to cover large distances across two coasts and operate in the Arctic. I would be extremely disappointed if we did not take the opportunity to join AUKUS and acquire nuclear submaries.
If Australia can afford nuclear submaries then we should be able to as well. Canada has a larger population and economy than Australia. We also have a larger industrial sector and much more experience and expertise in operating nuclear reactors.
They already visited a number of counties including Japan and they have been looking for several years at options. KSS II is on the short list and very smart of them to get their foot in the door now, especially with the government leaning towards a deal with Korea.Hello Ted. let's not forget that this Technical Cooperation Agreement between two companies is just that; -an agreement between two companies (Babcock & HD HHI) and nothing more. The CPSP has just begun its search for replpacement proposals for the Next Generation Canadian Submarine Replacement of the Victoria class SSK. I anticipate the "team" will visit other "potential" candidates in other countries in the next several months to come and ultimately pare it down to the most acceptable candidates for the RCN with recommendations to Ottawa for the best option. Just because Babcock has the contract to keep the Victoria class going until a future submarine can be acquired, does not mean that Babcock and South Korea's KSS-III submarine is a "shoe-in" for this contract.
Well we should as it a waste of time. Even another government won't go that way as the sticker shock and public backlash would be too late. More than likely another minority government with the NDP pulling the Liberal or Conservatives chain.Let's not kill off the SSN option just yet Ted. Governments and attitudes towards SSNs may very well change. I believe all options are still on the table.
Surely they‘ll also visit Naval Group and TKMS as well. Germany‘s Type 216 is an interesting design for Canada IMO: 4.000 tons surfaced displacement, double hull structure, 6x 533 mm tubes, diesel electric with fuel cell and methanol reformer AIP in combo with Li-Ion batteries, Vertical Multi Purpose Lock, highly automated with 34 minimum crew and max. 63 personnel etc. would be an excellent choice as well based on paper specs.They already visited a number of counties including Japan and they have been looking for several years at options. KSS II is on the short list and very smart of them to get their foot in the door now, especially with the government leaning towards a deal with Korea.
Well said Chocopie! NG & TKMS build great submarines! Especially the Germans who make some of the best steel in the world for submarines. IMO the Type 212 CD & the Type 216 would be great AIP/SSK options for Canada!Surely they‘ll also visit Naval Group and TKMS as well. Germany‘s Type 216 is an interesting design for Canada IMO: 4.000 tons surfaced displacement, double hull structure, 6x 533 mm tubes, diesel electric with fuel cell and methanol reformer AIP in combo with Li-Ion batteries, Vertical Multi Purpose Lock, highly automated with 34 minimum crew and max. 63 personnel etc. would be an excellent choice as well based on paper specs.
As others said: Nuclear subs like French Suffren-class suit Canadian requirements better. Albeit politically a tough sell.
I don't think the article mentioned anything about Babcock taking the deal just because they are already operating in Canada supporting Victoria Class. They just made some PR statements and that's it. Of course Babcock Canada having Canadian operations (and RCN being familiar with them) and offering industrial benefits as a result of their capacity in Canada are a deal sweetner.Hello Ted. let's not forget that this Technical Cooperation Agreement between two companies is just that; -an agreement between two companies (Babcock & HD HHI) and nothing more. The CPSP has just begun its search for replpacement proposals for the Next Generation Canadian Submarine Replacement of the Victoria class SSK. I anticipate the "team" will visit other "potential" candidates in other countries in the next several months to come and ultimately pare it down to the most acceptable candidates for the RCN with recommendations to Ottawa for the best option. Just because Babcock has the contract to keep the Victoria class going until a future submarine can be acquired, does not mean that Babcock and South Korea's KSS-III submarine is a "shoe-in" for this contract.
Good to see the RCN is thinking in the right way Ted. The Submarine Replacement Project team should visit all sub contenders IOT give the government all potential candidates a "fair shake". The ROC KSS-III is a good option along with the Japanese Sōryū-class. I would however want the team to also think of the Japanese Taipei class LIB boats or it's follow-on class from Japan as another very good options. Let's also not forget the German Type 212 CD E class or the Type 216 class as well. There are also other classes like the Spanish S 80, the Swedish repacement subs or what the Dutch are going to buy as well.
Surely they‘ll also visit Naval Group and TKMS as well. Germany‘s Type 216 is an interesting design for Canada IMO: 4.000 tons surfaced displacement, double hull structure, 6x 533 mm tubes, diesel electric with fuel cell and methanol reformer AIP in combo with Li-Ion batteries, Vertical Multi Purpose Lock, highly automated with 34 minimum crew and max. 63 personnel etc. would be an excellent choice as well based on paper specs.
As others said: Nuclear subs like French Suffren-class suit Canadian requirements better. Albeit politically a tough sell.
Yes, the German-Norwegian Type 212 CD slipped my mind, less displacement than Type 216. Could Canada get onboard in this ongoing project? Downside of German sub shipyards is capacity and construction speed.
Koreans (HHI, DSME) practically learned building modern SSK (U209, U214) from HDW in development stages over the last decades. KSS-III itself is heavily influenced by German sub design philosophy.
Not gonna lie, as a Korean, would love to see our naval industry hitting a major sales jackpot with a NATO member like Canada.