Canada Navy Canada SSK program

[urban mine]

It’s unfortunate, but TKMS—or rather, Germany—won. As a Korean, I’m disappointed, but there’s nothing we can do about it. We’ll just have to do better next time.
As the Canadian prime minister said, there will surely be other areas for cooperation with Canada outside of the defense sector.

 

[TR_123456]

Also in that article Stephen Fuhr, Canada’s Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said the federal decision would ultimately “come down to cost, timeline and economic benefits to Canada.”

Can you explain this,how can the German deal be better then the South-Korean one?

 

[oldcpu]

Can you explain this,how can the German deal be better then the South-Korean one?

I don't know the details so I can't explain such. The Canadian PM stated the two were very close proposals. I assume (speculate) that means assessed pretty much overall mostly equal - so as to what were the deciding factors ? I can't say.

While I was hoping to see the South Korean KSS-III batch-II chosen, both boats are good, and it was IMHO a win-win for the Canadian navy no matter which boat the Canadian government chose IMHO.

Its now the German TKMS contract to lose, if they should fail in the upcoming negotiations with Canada.

 

[Nilgiri]

From my pessimistic ex-RCN friend:

It’s unfortunate, but the project goes on. Hopefully it’ll get cancelled before it destroys the rest of the defence budget in general and the RCN in particular.

1) single largest project in Canadian military history. Potential for massive blowouts on top of already budgeted cost.
2) the RCN would not know what to do with 12 submarines. They couldn’t figure it out with 4, which is why they normally operate with 3 of them tied up.
3) the RCN cannot even man the 4 they have now and that’s with 4 ships paid off and a lot of the rest running on minimum crew.
4) they can’t get effective help from the building nation, because they can’t keep their 4 submarines working either.

Hopefully this gets cancelled before the budgets blow out and can the surface fleet like the SSN project did in the 80’s. Unfortunately it’s a political project rather than a military one, and it’s unlikely to go away before it’s sponsoring government.

 

[oldcpu]

From my pessimistic ex-RCN friend:

I think 'pessimism' may be the operative word there.

It’s unfortunate, but the project goes on. Hopefully it’ll get cancelled before it destroys the rest of the defence budget in general and the RCN in particular.

1) single largest project in Canadian military history. Potential for massive blowouts on top of already budgeted cost.

I agree that there is a risk here. I think the South Korean Hanwha Ocean with its KSS-III-batch II has a lower risk of a cost over run, given (1)Hanwha Ocean already has a boat in the water under going trials, and (2) given KSS-III change from batch I to batch II is no where near the scope of the change of TKMS change from Type-212A to to Type-212CD.

However, having typed that, TKMS already have more than one Type-212CD hull being built, with the design pretty much frozen, so that helps mitigate the risk to a large extent.

2) the RCN would not know what to do with 12 submarines. They couldn’t figure it out with 4, which is why they normally operate with 3 of them tied up.

I believe this misstated or inaccurate. Typically to keep one warship operational at sea, one needs at least 3 warships. The remaining two are tied up along side, or undergoing trials. For submarines it is even more difficult, and instead of a 3-to-1 (operational) ratio, a 4-to-1 (operational) ratio is not uncommon.

In the case of the Victoria Class, the RCN has major issues. NO other navy operates those used submarines. They were already used and not operational when the RCN procured them. The RCN had to make and try to keep them operational, and find some way to have adequate parts.

Given both Norway and Germany (and Hanwha Ocean had the KSS-III been chosen) have active submarine programs for that class of subs, obtaining parts, and benefiting from other countries experiences will be massively superior to what RCN has struggled with in the Victoria class. So I am optimistic here.

In regards to the numbers (12 submarines) ... Canada has 3 oceans: Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic. If one assumes a pessimistic 4-to-1 (operational) ratio, then 12 submarines would pessimistically give 3 operational - one for each ocean. So the numbers IMHO makes sense.

3) the RCN cannot even man the 4 they have now and that’s with 4 ships paid off and a lot of the rest running on minimum crew.

Agreed. That is a major problem. But that also applies to the Kingston class, to the Harry de Wolf class, to the Halifax class and the up and coming Type-26 River Class destroyers. The RCN has major manpower issues. The recent year has shown an uptick in finally meeting recruitment goals, but one year of success in recruitment will not in itself solve the RCN manpower problem. Both recruitment and retaining existing sailors, on a continual basis, needs to be seen. Thus far that has NOT been seen. The RCN is IMHO suffering from a 'crisis of invisibility' in the Canadian public, making it difficult not only to recruit and retain, but also to obtain (in the past) financial support. The current PM is leading a strategy of supporting Canada's military, but that could change for the worse in a future election.

So yes - IMHO, manpower is a serious problem, despite the recent uptick.

4) they can’t get effective help from the building nation, because they can’t keep their 4 submarines working either.

That not correct. The Upholder class (ie Victoria class) have been out of service for decades. The RN has no interest in providing much help there (the RCN have their own problems). This is not the same for the German's and Norwegians who are actively procuring the Type-212CD (nor for that matter, for the South Koreans who are actively procuring the KSS-III-batch-II).

Hopefully this gets cancelled before the budgets blow out and can the surface fleet like the SSN project did in the 80’s. Unfortunately it’s a political project rather than a military one, and it’s unlikely to go away before it’s sponsoring government.

This is a military project. It orginates from a military (naval) requirement. And with respect, your ex-RCN friend is wrong.

Not that it matters, but I am also ex-RCN.

 

[mehmed beg]

As I have said before, for Canada only nuclear submarines make a sense. If you dive under the ice and have such huge coastline then only nuclear submarines would do. 4 or 5 would have been enough.

 

[oldcpu]

As I have said before, for Canada only nuclear submarines make a sense. If you dive under the ice and have such huge coastline then only nuclear submarines would do. 4 or 5 would have been enough.

I think if cost were not a factor, everyone would agree with you.

But after adding up acquisition and lifetiime maintenance costs, 4 to 5 nuclear propulsion submarines will cost a lot more than 12 conventional (AIP/Lithium battery) boats. I suspect Canada would struggle to get even 1 out of 4 to 5 nuclear submarines operational. Both the UK (in a major way) and the USN (to a lessor extent but still have big issues) are having major troubles keeping their current nuclear submarine fleets operational, and they have decades of experience in maintenance.

So if one does not have the funds (politically allocated) for nuclear propulsion, I argue that AIP with lithium batteries is the next best thing for propulsion.

Arguably as well, despite the very best efforts to keep nuclear submarines quiet (and massive progress has been made here), the newer AIP/lead acid battery (and even better AIP/Lithium battery propulsion boats), have significantly more quiet power plants for propulsion. These new conventional propulsion boats are much harder to detect than a nuclear propulsion submarine - albeit I concede - both are difficult to detect.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

As I have said before, for Canada only nuclear submarines make a sense. If you dive under the ice and have such huge coastline then only nuclear submarines would do. 4 or 5 would have been enough.

Hello "mehmed beg". In a "real world" Canadian Nucs make all the sense in the world! However with our southern neighbours not letting Canada buy that sub technology, we must shake our heads and go with what we can control. I do believe though that your suggestion of a 4-5 Canadian Nuc Fleet is a bit short. A more reasonable fleet of 8-10 boats would be more effective overall. Cheers!!

 

[NEKO]

As I have said before, for Canada only nuclear submarines make a sense. If you dive under the ice and have such huge coastline then only nuclear submarines would do. 4 or 5 would have been enough.

Will need more than that because need to be split betwen MARPAC and MARPLANT, + possible MRO, rotation etc.
Atleast 8.
6 is barely ok.
>8 is ideal.

 

[mehmed beg]

I don't understand, how Canada and UK can't run submarine forces. France at any moment has 3 subs on patrol or ready to sail.
It seems to me that for a long time, people who are in Armed forces are of very low quality.

 

[Nilgiri]

I don't understand, how Canada and UK can't run submarine forces. France at any moment has 3 subs on patrol or ready to sail.
It seems to me that for a long time, people who are in Armed forces are of very low quality.

Long prolonged budget cuts + low spending on the important training and capital.

Many NATO countries only now are ramping from like 1% to 4%+ of GDP levels. It will take time for old stalwarts of naval domain to bulk up.

 

[oldcpu]

I don't understand, how Canada and UK can't run submarine forces. France at any moment has 3 subs on patrol or ready to sail.
It seems to me that for a long time, people who are in Armed forces are of very low quality.

I think it a bit harsh to state Canada can't run submarine forces. Canada has some superb submariners IMHO and who of an excellent quality and professionalism - especially considering the equipment that they have to use.

While for warships a 3 ships needed to keep 1 operational is standard, Canada is achieving a 4 subs for 1 sub operational ratio with the Victoria (Upholder) class.

Also, the Victoria are used old Upholder class submarines, which were NOT even in use when procured, and they needed immediate refurbishment before use at sea again, and further they are in use by no other navy, where parts procurement in such a case is a big issue.

As noted, its NOT just the UK (and Canada). USA also has major issues in keeping their nuclear propulsion submarines operational.

Reference the French submarines thou, i like your comparison example.

Still, I note thou, France has avoided the chronic, systemic shipyard backlogs of the US and UK by utilizing a centralized, state-controlled naval industrial pipeline and a predictable 10-year LEU refueling cycle. Despite that, this has not spared them from severe individual maintenance crises, multi-year programmatic delays, and acute industrial bottlenecks when things go wrong.

Nuclear propulsion submarines (and old used limited quantity conventional submarines) are difficult to keep operational.

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

Long prolonged budget cuts + low spending on the important training and capital.

Many NATO countries only now are ramping from like 1% to 4%+ of GDP levels. It will take time for old stalwarts of naval domain to bulk up.

Well said "Nilgiri"!! It doesn't matter what percentage of GDP for defence Canada gets to by 2033. The fact of the matter is, we cannot get past the US lead Nuclear Technology that they are unwilling to share with anyone (with one exception-AUKUS-ESPECIALLY THE BRITISH!). The French as well, are not interested in ruffling any "feathers" (DJT) in order for Canada to have their Nuclear Technology as well. Unless Canada develops it's own enriched uranium technology in the future, we will always have to settle for "second-best".

 

[NEKO]

The fact of the matter is, we cannot get past the US lead Nuclear Technology that they are unwilling to share with anyone (with one exception-AUKUS-ESPECIALLY THE BRITISH!).

What make Canada differ with Australia? Both are kinda US sidekick. What make US give nod to SSN for Australia but not to Canada?

Is it proximity? US dont want non US SSN operating close to US mainland?

 

[oldcpu]

What make Canada differ with Australia? Both are kinda US sidekick. What make US give nod to SSN for Australia but not to Canada?

My view is Australia is willing to spend extra$$ to obtain nuclear propulsion in submarines. Canada is not.

Is it proximity? US dont want non US SSN operating close to US mainland?

There may be some truth to that, 4 decades ago. Perhaps less today.

Back in the late 1980s there was a 1987 White Paper of the Canadian Department of National Defence outlining a plan to acquire SSNs. It was 'torpedoed' by the Canadian government due to cost, ... but even if the SSN proposal was not sunk by the Canadian government, speculation is that the USA back then would not have allowed the UK to sell nuclear technology to Canada, as the US did not want Canada exercising sovereignty in the arctic north with such submarines.

However the US (back then) could not stop the French from selling such nuclear propulsion technology to Canada ... But as often happens in those days with Canada, the cost was simply too much, even for French nuclear propulsion submarine technology (together with build/operations/maintenance costs).

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

What make Canada differ with Australia? Both are kinda US sidekick. What make US give nod to SSN for Australia but not to Canada?

Is it proximity? US dont want non US SSN operating close to US mainland?

Hello "NEKO". Although Canada has a great relationship with Australia, right now the geo-political landscape with the US is kind of in the toilet, if you will. It has been that way since "you know who" has taken over the world so to speak!! Australia's AUKUS decision, if you remember was made by President Biden before DJT took office......again. Canada's relationship with Australia has never waivered and we are great allies with them, as the new high tech, High Arctic Radar purchase from Australia has demonstrated. Ever since the POTUS comments about a 51st State was shoved down Canada's palette so to speak, relations with our closest "friend" have been altered possibly forever! Just ask Denmark with DJT's position on Greenland!!! Getting by the RHETORIC from "you know who" is half the battle with so-callled "Trade Negotiations not doing so well right now. You are right on one thing though; the US does not want US made Nuclear Technology to be in the hands of any close "friend" like Canada. If US SSN's are operating within Canadian waters, it will be crewed by USN Sailors with US Weapons and Technology. That's if....., and only if....., the US let's Canada know when and where these boats are within our own territories. Trump seem's to think the Canadian High Arctic is his own little playground to do with whatever he wants. ELBOWS UP.....AGAIN!!

 

[DAVEBLOGGINS]

What make Canada differ with Australia? Both are kinda US sidekick. What make US give nod to SSN for Australia but not to Canada?

Is it proximity? US dont want non US SSN operating close to US mainland?

 

[Nilgiri]

Well said "Nilgiri"!! It doesn't matter what percentage of GDP for defence Canada gets to by 2033. The fact of the matter is, we cannot get past the US lead Nuclear Technology that they are unwilling to share with anyone (with one exception-AUKUS-ESPECIALLY THE BRITISH!). The French as well, are not interested in ruffling any "feathers" (DJT) in order for Canada to have their Nuclear Technology as well. Unless Canada develops it's own enriched uranium technology in the future, we will always have to settle for "second-best".

Yes, but it will certainly help in having 12 sub fleet compared to 4.

They may not be SSNs (and thus the operating endurance, range, etc) but top of the line SSKs are also quieter so there are advantages there too for RCN to harness when dealing with say the Russian threat in the arctic.