Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

BostonMartin

New Member
Frankly a province that is committed to Canada is more deserving of building "war" ships than a province whining about separation. Let Davie build icebreakers and other unarmed vessels, give the stuff with guns to Ontario! As for the number of corvettes, probably depends on whether 15 Rivers are actually built. Hopefully all are built then perhaps 8-12 corvettes, assuming they can be crewed. With up to 12 subs, 15 Rivers, 6 AOPS, 2 (hopefully 3) JSS, and other possible ships in the future, many more personnel will be needed.
Oh don't worry I'm sure an hypothetical Québec country would be willing to throw a bone to the Ontario shipyards and let them do the maintenance on the corvettes. ;) lol (Like Germany or South Korea will do for Canada r/ the new subs...)
 
I'm very curious to see how many they will eventually order to bridge the Kingston & Halifax classes (24? One can dream) and if they will pick only one design. I was reading that Ontario Shipyards and Italy's Fincantieri are also interested to bid.
Fundamentally the larger this design becomes and the further it evolves from an actual Kingston replacement, the fewer vessels the RCN is going to get. With it increasingly looking like the CDC is morphing into a multi-thousand ton corvette-esque combatant, I would expect something like 6-8 vessels if all 15 River class ships are eventually delivered. The RCN runs the risk of flying too close to the sun if they get too capable of a ship for the CDC, as it will call into question politically and financially "why aren't we just getting more of these instead of the big expensive vessels?" If the River class is cut down, you could see more ships but I ultimately think that is a very bad decision.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Fundamentally the larger this design becomes and the further it evolves from an actual Kingston replacement, the fewer vessels the RCN is going to get. With it increasingly looking like the CDC is morphing into a multi-thousand ton corvette-esque combatant, I would expect something like 6-8 vessels if all 15 River class ships are eventually delivered. The RCN runs the risk of flying too close to the sun if they get too capable of a ship for the CDC, as it will call into question politically and financially "why aren't we just getting more of these instead of the big expensive vessels?" If the River class is cut down, you could see more ships but I ultimately think that is a very bad decision.
Absolutely spot on wrt the River to Corvette ratio. Losing Rivers in order to have more less expensive corvettes, crap decision which sadly will be entertained by our pollies no doubt.
 

BostonMartin

New Member
Fundamentally the larger this design becomes and the further it evolves from an actual Kingston replacement, the fewer vessels the RCN is going to get. With it increasingly looking like the CDC is morphing into a multi-thousand ton corvette-esque combatant, I would expect something like 6-8 vessels if all 15 River class ships are eventually delivered. The RCN runs the risk of flying too close to the sun if they get too capable of a ship for the CDC, as it will call into question politically and financially "why aren't we just getting more of these instead of the big expensive vessels?" If the River class is cut down, you could see more ships but I ultimately think that is a very bad decision.
Haven't seen it this way. Very true.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
A very fair assessment on both boats and I agree the SKorean boat appears to better meet the RCN’s needs. One factor not mentioned is what kind of weighting will apply to industrial benefits offered by SKorea and Germany. The army has serious equipment needs that both vendors can offer wrt industrial benefits.
 

Sender

Active Member
I suspect that if we buy the Korean subs, the army stuff will go to Europe. There is a substantial requirement for tanks and self-propelled artillery, and if rumours are correct, the army is looking for large numbers of both. There is also the $18.4 Billion helicopter replacement project (nTACS), which would likely go to Europe and/or the US. I think the government will look to satisfy the Europeans, Koreans, and Americans with all these purchases. I think that's why we will commit to the entire order of 88 F-35s. That, with the recent P-8, MQ-9B, SPY7/AEGIS/ESSM/SM-2/Tomahawk, and rumoured $6Billion HIMARS purchase, should satisfy the Americans. The rest will be divided between Korea and Europe.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I suspect that if we buy the Korean subs, the army stuff will go to Europe. There is a substantial requirement for tanks and self-propelled artillery, and if rumours are correct, the army is looking for large numbers of both. There is also the $18.4 Billion helicopter replacement project (nTACS), which would likely go to Europe and/or the US. I think the government will look to satisfy the Europeans, Koreans, and Americans with all these purchases. I think that's why we will commit to the entire order of 88 F-35s. That, with the recent P-8, MQ-9B, SPY7/AEGIS/ESSM/SM-2/Tomahawk, and rumoured $6Billion HIMARS purchase, should satisfy the Americans. The rest will be divided between Korea and Europe.
nTACS is for multiple applications, perhaps some V-280s from the US and helicopters from Europe. A SK sub purchase likely means German tanks and SPGs but SK has some viable alternatives. Too bad GCAP is a ways off because I wouldn’t object to a mixed fleet of F-35s and GCAPs, especially if Trump continues his BS and let’s face it LM and P&W haven’t performed upgrades on time and costs are increasing and readiness rates ~50-60%. LM is fortunate there are no viable alternatives.
 

BostonMartin

New Member
I suspect that if we buy the Korean subs, the army stuff will go to Europe. There is a substantial requirement for tanks and self-propelled artillery, and if rumours are correct, the army is looking for large numbers of both. There is also the $18.4 Billion helicopter replacement project (nTACS), which would likely go to Europe and/or the US. I think the government will look to satisfy the Europeans, Koreans, and Americans with all these purchases. I think that's why we will commit to the entire order of 88 F-35s. That, with the recent P-8, MQ-9B, SPY7/AEGIS/ESSM/SM-2/Tomahawk, and rumoured $6Billion HIMARS purchase, should satisfy the Americans. The rest will be divided between Korea and Europe.
Great read. Both are very capable subs and I'll be very happy if they pick the KSS-III to be honest but this part leaves a bit confused: "For Canada, that means the 212CD is a stealthy ambush submarine first and a strike platform only if Ottawa decides to fund non-trivial integration work."
Which work? My understanding is that they would just need to buy the right missile for that purpose and launch them from the horizontal tubes.

"The Type 212CD, a ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) submarine, is designed to have land-attack capability using Norwegian Naval Strike Missiles (NSM), which are adaptable long-range weapons that can hit both maritime and land-based targets."

"The NSM Block 1A missile is capable of engaging both marine and land targets with remarkable precision, particularly along the shore or coast. "


Now I suppose the overall capability or range isn't the same as to what the KSS-III VLS can do and I'm sure NATO partners would appreciate having that possibility added in the mix, specially with the US pulling away from Europe lately.
 

OldTex

Well-Known Member
Great read. Both are very capable subs and I'll be very happy if they pick the KSS-III to be honest but this part leaves a bit confused: "For Canada, that means the 212CD is a stealthy ambush submarine first and a strike platform only if Ottawa decides to fund non-trivial integration work."
Which work? My understanding is that they would just need to buy the right missile for that purpose and launch them from the horizontal tubes.

"The Type 212CD, a ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) submarine, is designed to have land-attack capability using Norwegian Naval Strike Missiles (NSM), which are adaptable long-range weapons that can hit both maritime and land-based targets."

"The NSM Block 1A missile is capable of engaging both marine and land targets with remarkable precision, particularly along the shore or coast. "


Now I suppose the overall capability or range isn't the same as to what the KSS-III VLS can do and I'm sure NATO partners would appreciate having that possibility added in the mix, specially with the US pulling away from Europe lately.
The submarine launched NSM was reportedly cancelled in 2021. Netherlands and Spain are proposing a TTL (torpedo tube launched) version of the JSM (Joint Strike Missile), with the JSM also being a development of the NSM. If this missile was to be selected as the long-range land attack missile there would still be integration work required for whichever submarine is selected.
 

BostonMartin

New Member
Canada won't split its submarine contract between suppliers: Carney

Seems obvious to me that they should only pick one but by reading the article it seems the option to have a mixed fleet was (is?) seriously considered. Interesting.

"An industry source who asked not to be named due to the private nature of government meetings told The Canadian Press senior officials have floated the idea of splitting the contract for months behind the scenes. The source said it's not immediately clear how seriously Canada is considering this.


"Could we buy six of the Type 212 from Germany and Norway and six of the KSS-III from Korea? Yeah, we could," Topshee said."
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Probably not cost effective but SKorea for the Pacific and German for the Atlantic Arctic could work and builds the defence relationship with two major military kit manufacturers for future business. Still believe SKorea will be selected for all subs.
 
Top