Six is the minimum. Three each coast. Then you can run the one in maintenance, one training/transition, one operational dance. Always have at least one submarine per coast available likely two in a pinch. Though I really think more subs west coast would be better.
Concur, more than likely more on the WC given the potential of issues from China.
I wouldn't discount Russia causing problems at the same time that the situation with the PRC livens up. Putin will take advantage of the Indo-Pacific situation to further his own agenda, which appears to be the reestablishment of the Russian Empire back to the boundaries of either the former USSR or the former Romanov Dynasty. In some ways he sees himself as Tsar Vladimir.
www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca
Yes with the upgrades to the MK 48 and the BQQ-10 which are fitted on the Virginia Class attack subs makes them a very potent combination. BTW this story is about a month old.The Canadian Navy's most "modern" submarine is now back in the water:
Navy News | Canada’s most modern submarine returns to the water
Canada’s most modern submarine returns to the water
True, however, I don't lose sleep over Russia. China, an aggressive superpower (let's just call it what it is at this point) that is driving toward technical parity with the west, I lose sleep over.
BTW this story is about a month old. Yes I know HaroldBloggins. Just thought the rest of the forum members would like to know that's all.
Further to this, new video from the warm weather and gun trials:
www.navalreview.ca
Additionally, I cannot find any confirmation from official sources that the planned Attack-class SSG will feature AIP. Even looking any various publications, I only came across one reference here that the RAN's planned sub would have AIP. Given that Australia trialed an AIP setup using a Stirling engine on a test rig to be potentially fitted to the Collins-class subs via a hull plug, but instead after the tests were concluded packed the AIP setup back up and put it on a pallet...
Not now being built. I should have said "soon" to be built. Cheers!
Navy Recognition states that the German Type 216 will have AIP characteristics with propulsion from Air independent propulsion: 4x PEM FC modules 120 kW and 2x Methanol reformer along with Energy storage from Lithium ion batteries.
That's about a design offered to Australia- linked article is from 2011 and is unrelated to anything chosen by the GoANavy Recognition states that the German Type 216 will have AIP characteristics with propulsion from Air independent propulsion: 4x PEM FC modules 120 kW and 2x Methanol reformer along with Energy storage from Lithium ion batteries.
Type 216 U-216 Conventional Submarine SSK AIP TKMS HDW Submarine Class 216 Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Royal Australian Navy datasheet pictures images photos video specification
The German shipyard HDW has released information about a proposed conventional propulsion long-range submarine project, called Type-216. Based on the Type 214, the Type 216 is designed specifically to meet the larger conventional submarine needs of countries like Australia, India and Canada.navyrecognition.com
It would be stretch to call it thought provoking in my opinion and not once in the article it mentions AIP so that's your spin. From what I'm being told most sub programs will be looked at and the usual statement of requirements will be put out eventually to industry I will tell you with a certainty that the RCN will not be rushing into this program given the flack they received with the Victoria Class purchase and the issue other countries have trying to procure. The RCN will be methodical and careful with this.A very interesting and thought-provoking article by the CNR Webmaster on Canadian submarine acquisition and political bungling by Canadian governments over the last 70 years. We never seem to learn from our mistakes on Naval procurements. In my opinion (IMO), once the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP) is stood up by the RCN, one of its first mandates would be to immediately create a public document for the Canadian people explaining why Canada desperately needs to quickly proceed with a modern AIP submarine acquisition program, give them specific options and numbers required. There have never been so many options in the past as there are now. They must enlighten Canadians with the different types of modern AIP Submarines and specifically discuss submarine requirements for the future RCN submarine fleet with pros and cons of building them in Canada. There are now several types of ocean-going AIP submarines being built by France, Germany, Spain and Japan that may “fit the bill” where once there were no options at all. These include the 12 French Barracuda Block 1A class (based on their Suffern class SSN) now being built in Australia for the RAN by the French DCNS Group; the Spanish S80 Plus class being built by Spanish company Navantia; the Soryu 29SS class with Lithium Ion Battery (LIB) technology from Japan being built by Kawasaki Heavy Industries and the German type 216 now being developed by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS). All have different AIP technologies, have displacements of over 4000 tons with pros and cons in all of these AIP designs. They all would however be game changers as future Canadian submarines. The Canadian Senate recommended to the government in 2017 to swiftly acquire 12 modern AIP replacements for the beleaguered Victoria class but the government quickly rejected that recommendation. Lets then have the Canadian people contribute to the RCNs recommendations to the government for its final decision and quickly push forward on this!
Another Canadian Submarine Program: Some Useful Lessons of History – Canadian Naval Review
Apollo, 6 August 2021 So, the RCN is going to put itself through the submarine acquisition wringer again. Unfortunately, there is a sad history of such programs over the last 70 years; most of which, if not all, follow the same tedious pattern from which many lessons can still be learned.
From my limited knowledge, it does not seem that the "maturity" of AIP technology is really an issue. It seems rather, that the capabilities AIP provides work better for some submarine CONOPS than others. CONOPS which value prolonged (relatively) dives, without the need to transit long distances in fairly short periods of time would likely value current AIP systems. I could be mistaken, but such CONOPS would suggest to me that the normal patrol areas assigned to such subs would be (again, relatively) close to where these subs were home ported and/or had friendly ports nearby.
Hello swerve. Yes, I know the "Attack class" will be built in Australia for the RAN by the DNCS Group. I never said the German type 216 had anything to do with the Attack class. Just that they were both options for Canada.