Wow interesting.... 6 continuously deployed submarines.. So 18?
Given the timeframe I am not sure TLAM is relevant. Given the AOR Im not sure TLAM will be as useful for Canada. I believe its an encapsulated capability, if Canada was really desperate, a few could be sourced from USN.
The high Arctic Islands are still a significant amount of land despite the skewed maps. Once the ice decline starts, subs will be the best ships for keeping trespassers honest.
If this acquisition idea survives, 3 continuously deployed subs is more likely so 9 seems more realistic. There will have to budget cuts to make this happen IMHO. Most cuts should be anywhere but from DND, politically difficult. Depending on how fast the ice disappears, heavy ice breakers elimination saves several billions.
Don't forget the new Indo-Pacific strategy commits Canada to maintaining a naval presence in that region. I think the absolute minimum requirement is one for the Atlantic (coastal sovereignty patrol) one for he Arctic (coastal sovereignty patrol), one for the Pacific (coastal sovereignty patrol), at least one for expeditionary tasks, and the ability to "surge" two others. However, 12 might still be able to provide enough operational hulls. There is a stated goal amongst major operating nations of reducing the number of heavy maintenance periods in the lifetime of a sub by at least one through the combination of better materials and technology. If that can be achieved, and through clever management of the fleet, it may be possible to reduce the submarine operating ratio, which, depending on the source, is somewhere between 3:1 and 4:1. To me. it seems reasonable to assume that the latest tech should generate better availability. In any case, this is a big prize for whichever company wins the RFP, so competition will probably be fierce behind the scenes. It will also be interesting to see how much or how little "Canadianization" occurs, given the tight timeline and Admiral Topshee's stated preference for a MOTS solution.
At a minimum, Canadianization likely will include partial assembly in Canada. The whining from industry will be loud given a 12 boat fleet will cost $20 billion CDN minimum for the boats alone.
1:1:2 ratio.
During an inteview on USNI podcast channel VAdm Topshee (Commander RCN) stated that the Dutch requirements were very similar to the RCN ones.
The boat will require a land attack missile. They are agnostic right now on how that happens. Korea has ballistic missiles vertically launched and the Germans will offer Naval Strike Missile (which can be used for land attack) tube launched as two very different solutions to that requirement.
Crewing for the 212CD is 35 pers. It can be done. Endurance is a big ask though. 7000nm is further than the transit from Esquimalt to Halifax through the NWP. So you could easily get to the Arctic approaches, sail around a bunch and then make it home with gas to spare.
With that many boats there is a strong argument to have local production and support. While overseas yards can supply boats, a 12 boat build is pretty big for excess slack capacity. The Japanese for example would be off the table, if they were ever on the table (Im not sure they are, they are very focused on their own program).
Barracuda is a very interesting concept, I hope the Dutch can make it work. It will be a very large, very long range submarine. But the crew compliment is way higher than Canada's expectations. However I would imagine those in the Canadian Navy would be really excited for that particular platform.
Interesting article on the expanded expeditionary version of the Swedish A26 (the C71), that suggests some pretty spectacular capabilities, along with a fairly small crewing complement:
vanguardcanada.com
www.navalnews.com