John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Fair point wrt hot zone but if the PRC moves against Taiwan in the next 2-3 years, who knows what kind of $hit Putin stirs up amongst the only other potential supplier region.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
An Oberon had a range of over 10,000 nm and could remain submerged for up to 90 days……
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Apparently a range advantage for Oberon but the ninety days submerged is with snorkeling I assume. The 3 week time for KSS III is using AIP/Li ion battery storage only. It has a snorkel also, I would think?
That quoted range of 7000 nm is only what the RCN published as the minimum in the RFI. The range of a KSS-111 batch 1 is said to be 10,000 nm. Batch 2 is said to be more, but finding published specs for the Batch 2 range is difficult. I've seen speculation on other forums that 12-15K is likely. That seems reasonable, given the Batch 2 is 20 feet longer and several hundred tons heavier than the Batch 1.
Canadian Patrol Submarine Project: KSS-3?
A professional level blog on strategic matters, especially submarines (nuclear and conventional) in English, Hindi & most other major languages.
gentleseas.blogspot.com
Dosan Ahn Changho class KSS-III Submarine Korean Navy ROKN
dosan ahn changho class submarine kss-iii korean navy rokn roks 533mm torpedo harpoon ssm chonryong slcm hyunmoo slbm cruise ballistic missile
www.seaforces.org
Last edited:
CorvetteCrunch
Member
I don't think it is especially productive to compare marketing/classified range/speed figures that aren't even at a relevant baseline for comparison in the first place. The Oberon's were great boats for the time however, it is rather silly to put them in the same category as a large, cutting edge AIP/Li conventional boat.
As for the addition of VLS, I don't think SLBM's are an especially vital procurement for Canada, but the VLS opens up a lot of potential options. You are able to keep your torpedo magazine largely free from cruise and anti-ship missiles if you can offload them into the VLS, giving you more room for torpedoes or other systems launched from the primary tubes. It seems that only the SLBM is integrated by the Koreans into the VLS right now, however those cells are by their nature very large and can accommodate likely whatever we want, domestic Korean or international weapon systems.
The ability for Canadian submarines to operate internationally or domestically with the option to launch a variety of strike systems very much complicates the equation for our enemies and gives the Canadian govt countless additional options. A hypothetical Canadian submarine stationed out in the Baltic would potentially be able to provide the Army contingent in Latvia with heavy fire support at relatively short notice.
As for the addition of VLS, I don't think SLBM's are an especially vital procurement for Canada, but the VLS opens up a lot of potential options. You are able to keep your torpedo magazine largely free from cruise and anti-ship missiles if you can offload them into the VLS, giving you more room for torpedoes or other systems launched from the primary tubes. It seems that only the SLBM is integrated by the Koreans into the VLS right now, however those cells are by their nature very large and can accommodate likely whatever we want, domestic Korean or international weapon systems.
The ability for Canadian submarines to operate internationally or domestically with the option to launch a variety of strike systems very much complicates the equation for our enemies and gives the Canadian govt countless additional options. A hypothetical Canadian submarine stationed out in the Baltic would potentially be able to provide the Army contingent in Latvia with heavy fire support at relatively short notice.
Some additional information on a pitch by South Korea for subs and various bit of army kit:That quoted range of 7000 nm is only what the RCN published as the minimum in the RFI. The range of a KSS-111 batch 1 is said to be 10,000 nm. Batch 2 is said to be more, but finding published specs for the Batch 2 range is difficult. I've seen speculation on other forums that 12-15K is likely. That seems reasonable, given the Batch 2 is 20 feet longer and several hundred tons heavier than the Batch 1.
Canadian Patrol Submarine Project: KSS-3?
A professional level blog on strategic matters, especially submarines (nuclear and conventional) in English, Hindi & most other major languages.Dosan Ahn Changho class KSS-III Submarine Korean Navy ROKN
dosan ahn changho class submarine kss-iii korean navy rokn roks 533mm torpedo harpoon ssm chonryong slcm hyunmoo slbm cruise ballistic missilewww.seaforces.org
The quoted figure of $20-24 Billion for the subs is the first time I've seen any sort of cost mentioned for the sub program. No idea if this is for the entire program, and if so, how many subs it covers. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. The RCN may make a decision this year, at which point we should have a pretty good idea of the breadth of this program.
Additional detail on the Korean sub bid:
Underway
Active Member
That is the amount of money that will be re-invested back into Canada for the maintenance and sustainment system. Its a $60 billion program. Foreign build. So getting 1/3 back into Canada is not to bad really.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Not much worse than the F-35 assuming it is 88 jets. WRT subs, no other alternative than foreign build.
In a worst case scenario and Canada goes with the Korean build the potential for supply and build disruptions in the future are high.
One must realize that when Taiwan is taken, is South Korea next on the list? If China supports North Korea and war breaks out, the chances of getting our subs drops dramatically. Possibly we could get 1 sub, but then what? Are European yards also at risk of disruptions in the future?
What are the costs of not getting anything at all?
Looking at a worst case scenario, whatever sub is chosen, would it be prudent for Canada to set up its own production line in Canada while the first batch is being built overseas.
How many years would it take to fast track a licenced build and bring Canadian workers up to speed? Can we create the high strength steel needed for submarines?
Adding many new high tech jobs across the country, would go along way for our economy.
Predicting the future is most uncertain at best but it's good to look at a worst case scenario and plan accordingly.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree, there is risk in a SK acquisition if $hit hits the fan in Asia which would also be the case for a Euro build. How a Taiwan invasion pans out won’t be good but any move against SKorea or Japan will see a nuclear WW3 and everything will go to hell.
An eventual licensed build in Canada would be a long term goal, especially for a nuclear option should SKorea decide to develop this option and Canada should consider co-development. The other post 2050 option is getting in on AUKUS.
An eventual licensed build in Canada would be a long term goal, especially for a nuclear option should SKorea decide to develop this option and Canada should consider co-development. The other post 2050 option is getting in on AUKUS.
CorvetteCrunch
Member
It seems incredibly unlikely given that Canada would fundamentally develop this capability, only to let it wither on the vine immediately once the submarines are finished. We cannot afford to pay for a rolling production line in funds or manpower due to the size and role of our Navy, we do not need a gigantic submarine fleet especially outsized past the current order. There is no realistic way to keep the capability alive, so it is largely a waste to build it in the first place. We would almost have to build an entirely new shipyard for this task, taking many years within itself to build up staff.
Australia spent around 7+ years per boat on their Collins class in a similar shipbuilding industrial state, and those boats came out absolutely riddled with technical issues that would make Irving or Seaspan blush. Korea is a risk, but they've pledged that a contract signed this or next year will deliver one submarine between 2030 - 2032 plus three more by 2035. Nobody can really match that pace, including the Europeans.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
I tend to agree that Canada establishing a submarine production capability does not really make much sense. I do believe Canada could do it, but that it would be an unwise and wasteful expenditure, largely because Canada most likely will not acquire many subs, or enough to make establishing a sub yard worthwhile, or enough so that the yard has work which would sustain it. I do think that the RCN should probably be looking to acquire eight subs (yes, I know that would be double the current sub fleet) so that four subs could be based on the East and West coasts.
Also, whilst this is the RCN thread I do wish to point out that many of the initial problems the RAN encountered with the Collins-class SSG build were not due to ASC. As I understand it, there were some problems with the Type 471 design from Saab, with one being that the Type 471 was basically an enlarged version of the Västergötland-class sub that was not tank tested. As it was discovered, just increasing the size of the sub impacted how the sub performed in unexpected ways. Also some of the initial hull components for the lead sub, HMAS Collins, were fabricated in Sweden and it turned out many of those welds were poor or faulty and had to be redone once work commenced in Australia.
Down the track it might make sense for the RCN to also look at SSN's for many of the same reasons that the RAN has. Until then, Japan might be another option for sub production aside from S. Korea.
I think one only has to look at Japan and the success they have in a continuous production line of submarines. Canada would be running an almost identical size fleet as the Japanese. Seems like a great model to follow.
There is a steep learning curve building subs, some issues will come up, be identified, then rectified.
The point of a continuous build is to not lose the skill set, thus avoiding these problems in the future.
With S Korean expanding their sub production lines from 2 to 5 this might be the perfect opportunity in overseeing the build of a Canadian sub manufacturing facility with one production line here.
Their knowledge and experience would greatly reduce risk and speed up the process.
It's an impressive build rate and most suited for Canada's timeline. Actually getting them down the road could be an issue. By the time the first one is built, their could be a blockade of warships and subs surrounding S Korea. Then what? Start over somewhere else?
If one looked at this as an insurance policy, and risk assessments, what would you do?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Umm... WHAT?! The RCN currently has a total of four subs which is significantly less than the JMSDF currently has, with some 24 in service plus another on order, two more planned, and IIRC two more subs acting as training vessels.
The Japanese approach to building subs certainly works for them, but part of that is they have a large number of subs in service and they routinely cycle through designs and build programmes to maintain a continuous build. The JMSDF itself has ~51,000 personnel give or take, against the roughly 8,400 regulars in the RCN.
The RCN and CAF as a whole would need to expand drastically before the numbers would start to approach that of Japan and it is really only once there is a build volume that continuous production can be maintained.
CorvetteCrunch
Member
Japan has an indigenous ship design bureau in addition to the points Todjaeger makes, Canada lacks this and would thus have issues constantly iterating on submarines without somebody else constantly doing it for us. At that point, what is the point if we cannot do it for ourselves?
It should not be underestimated how much of a learning curve and a specialist one it is at that, few nations on Earth are producing submarines in comparison to the ones that are producing surface combatants. It took us a substantial period of time to rekindle our surface shipbuilders, this would be retooling or rebuilding an entire new shipyard from scratch for something Canada has never done before. I do not see a continuous build model as practical in the slightest, given how the RCN wants to replace the Victoria class with a class of up to 12 (likely less) and that is that. We do not have the demand to make that production model work and outside of that model, there is no practical way to justify this huge investment of time, capital and effort for something we cannot exploit properly.
You could make this argument for Japan with China as well, throwing out a similar point for Russia and Germany/France/Sweden. If we end up seeing a blockade of the Korean peninsula or a Russian invasion of Europe, getting submarines will be the least of our worries. We will be looking at a world war. There is no submarine producer without risk and given how few options are available, the Koreans seem without a doubt the best of them.
Blowing up the program over "what ifs" isn't especially valuable.
Perhaps modeling after the Koreans numbers would be a better choice.
Canada is looking to purchase up to 12 new subs, while less than Japan is currently running, a continuous build could be maintained here in Canada. 1 sub every 2 years apart and flexibility to increase production if necessary, factoring in attrition.
The obvious advantage of the KSS3 is the low crew numbers to operate and high automation.
Getting them to Canada could be an issue though.
Our subs are nearing the end of their useful lives without costly upgrades and time out of service.
Time is running out to get this right, do we put all our eggs in 1 basket?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
At best, Canada might be able to engage in a continuous sub building programme, but there would be a very large pile of caveats involved.
I would also hazard that Canada could not realistically start a sub-building programme now which could replace the current RCN subs in a reasonable/useful timeframe. More likely Canada would need to have at least some initial subs built overseas, and then a Canadian yard might be able to get sub construction underway.
One set of issues is just how many subs are realistic for the RCN to acquire and operate, and over what timeframe? Even if someone were to give Canada four new subs tomorrow, it would take some time for Canada to transition over to the new class. If deliveries of a new sub then started at two year intervals, would Canada be able to get enough submariners trained to operate the "up to a dozen" subs in 16+ years? One needs to keep in mind that in tripling the number of subs in service, more than triple the officers and crew would be needed. Not to mention that the RCN would likely need more/expanded/new base infrastructure to fit accommodate and maintain the expanded sub fleet, which in turn would mean even more RCN personnel would be needed to operate, maintain and protect the base expansions. Nothing which cannot be done or overcome, but these are all things which would require time, money and resources.
As for maintaining a continuous sub build in Canada... That would be dependent on a number of factors, like total fleet size, what the construction and commissioning rate would be, how long Canada would keep subs in service and perhaps most difficult and important, whether orders would continue to get placed for more subs through successive changes in gov't. Given the whole debacle with the CH-148 Petrel and CH-149 Chimo acquisition, as well as following gov'ts approach to Canadian defence acquisitions, it is not too hard to imagine that a long-term domestic build programme would get axed following a change in gov't.
Looking at how Japan maintains a continuous build, they commission a new sub roughly every year. and manage this by decommissioning subs roughly every 18 years whilst keeping roughly 24 in active service at any given time. Excepting HMCS Chicoutimi, the Victoria-class subs have already spent more time commissioned in the RCN than the JMSDF normally keeps subs, never mind the additional time these subs served in the RN or were tied up alongside. If Canada can get things to a point were the RCN can sustain operating a respectably large number of subs, then looking into a continuous build might start to make sense. At present though it looks like such an attempt would be more likely to fail, and expensively at that.
It effectively takes at least 10 years after completion of initial submarine qualification to train a submarine officer to the point where he or she could be considered for a Perisher - and the pass rate even then is only around 60% or so. That might well become the critical path if Canada wanted to expand its submarine capability,