Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
Canada is formally committing to new submarines:
breakingdefense.com
This is a pretty big prize, so interest from manufacturers will undoubtedly be quite strong.
Canada commits to buying 12 new conventionally-powered, under-the-ice submarines - Breaking Defense
In a recent op-ed, Bill Blair, Canada's minister for national defence, said the submarine acquisition would help his country cross the 2 percent GDP target.
breakingdefense.com
This is a pretty big prize, so interest from manufacturers will undoubtedly be quite strong.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
An announcement to pacify NATO by a failed government that won’t get re-elected next year. Submarine vendors shouldn’t get too excited yet.
12 subs. Wow. That seems like a huge uplift in capability. Wonder exactly what under ice capability is in terms of actual requirements. Presumably AIP, maybe conning tower ice strengthening.
Interesting development re. icebreakers. Canada, Finland, and the US form a pact to share designs and best practices, and work on ways to increase capacity.
breakingdefense.com
www.ctvnews.ca
US teams with Canada, Finland on polar icebreakers to chill Russian, Chinese power up north - Breaking Defense
"Without this arrangement, we'd risk our adversaries developing an advantage in a specialized technology with vast geostrategic importance," a White House official said.
breakingdefense.com
Canada to work with Finland, U.S. on 'ice pact' to build icebreakers
Canada has signed a trilateral agreement with Finland and the U.S. to boost the production of icebreakers in an effort to safeguard the Arctic and Antarctic regions.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Probably too late for both Canada and the US unless both countries accept significant construction in Finland.Interesting development re. icebreakers. Canada, Finland, and the US form a pact to share designs and best practices, and work on ways to increase capacity.
US teams with Canada, Finland on polar icebreakers to chill Russian, Chinese power up north - Breaking Defense
"Without this arrangement, we'd risk our adversaries developing an advantage in a specialized technology with vast geostrategic importance," a White House official said.Canada to work with Finland, U.S. on 'ice pact' to build icebreakers
Canada has signed a trilateral agreement with Finland and the U.S. to boost the production of icebreakers in an effort to safeguard the Arctic and Antarctic regions.
Underway
Active Member
A wide ranging interview with CRCN Rear Adm Topshee by the U.S. Naval Institute. There are a bunch of things in here that inform things going forward for the RCN.
Submarine specific he lists 6 countries that have current submarine programs (Korea, Japan, Netherlands, Germany, Spain, Sweden). The goal is a true MOTS purchase as the RCN submarine fleet is to small to have a bespoke build and will just change how they do things for a submarine.
He spoke that AIP is not necessary as current battery technology is advanced enough where it may meet the indiscretion requirements alone.
The submarines are to be able to monitor the Arctic approaches.
Means mostly open water with some ice, but no large amounts of pack ice. So mast strengthening isn't likely as well as contrary to MOTS. Besides, SSK's don't have enough reserve buoyancy to break through even thin ice either way.
He also states 8-12 are the requirement, given that number that's a 15 year build program as ordering now would mean in 5-8 years we would see the first submarine, unless the Korean's would let us jump the line or something.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If we had intelligent people in government during the last decade (or more), we might have had a seat at AUKUS as we have some nuclear expertise that Australia didn’t have. Nuclear submarine investment was what Canada needed, but it is too late now. All alternatives are coastal subs not suitable for long transit times. Proposed SSKs are ok for western Atlantic missions but for across the Pacific and the high Arctic, not so much.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The latest on the RCN’s forever program, the JSS. The estimated cost for two Berlin class ships, albeit with modifications, is over 5 billion. Pathetic!
Certainly an embarrassing program for ships that were need years ago.
It would be nice to see a side by side cost and time comparison of our build vs the German build.
Sadly 2 ships are not enough for a country with 3 oceans to protect.
In an uncertain future 1 ship will be in deep maintenance leaving 1 ship for deployment. Should this ship take any damage...
I must say our pollies do fight, really really hard. Just not for our military.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yes, 3-4,ships seems like a right number. As for the German versus Canadian build, likely lower even with Canada’s mods. Noncombatant ships with minimal armaments should be built overseas, probably in SKorea with final fit out in Canada. As for pollies, only their electoral chances matter to 95% of them.
For A1413 Bonn, the German third (and modified) Berlin class ordered in 2009:
- Production delayed from planned 25 months (from first steel cut in 2010 to commissioning) to 36 months.
- The production delay in Germany was due to the shipyard that built the basic hull for her going through insolvency.
- Project procurement cost ~350 Million Euro (2012) which i think included ~330 million for the ship itself. Inflation-adjusted that would convert to about 767 million CAD today.
- The procurement cost - significantly increased from the first two ships - was criticized at the time occasionally and considered a hidden subsidy to industry. According to some press reports industry in negotiations reasoned for the higher price based on China supposedly having driven up steel prices globally. The to-then inflation-adjusted cost of the original two ships would have been closer to 170 million Euro, i.e. half as much.
Thanks Kato, much appreciated.
Its sad seeing so much money and time wasted by our government. They seem to be a little out of touch with reality to me and are living in a bubble with blinders on.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
So the inflation adjusted cost for German build is half as much as what Canada is paying.
I think they should have just ordered basically the same build as Germany, and spun the additional requirements into another platform.
But also inflation in ship building is definitely a thing currently. Throw in a significant redesign and a build in a yard that is either green, or green to that type of work, it can easily cost hundreds of millions more. If there is no sustainable work going forward, well that often gets factored in as well.
For large oiler type ship, often there isn't as much local construction work as people hope with such a large ship. Given its all big open spaces, unlike say a surface combatant or even an amphibious ship. So there can be a lot of tooling up costs, for a project that doesn't actually contain a huge amount of labour/complexity.
IMO Canada needs some sort of amphibious capability ship. Not just a AOR with some hangar space.
TBH I am surprised Canada hasn't looked closer at what Australia is doing with its LHD's, which have undoubtably been transformational, and very useful for humanitarian and regional engagement activities you would think Canada would like to do as well. If only we could go back in time to the original Big Honking Ship concept. It wouldn't even need to be a LHD, just some sort of more dedicated Amphib. Even NZ has AOR's and more logistics focused ship, and they have a nearly a tenth the population/budget of Canada, and are even more peaceniks these days. There are lots of options, for the cost of modification, they could have really acquired some sort of more flexible/useful capability.
Sounds like Australia about 6 years ago.Canada is formally committing to new submarines:
Canada commits to buying 12 new conventionally-powered, under-the-ice submarines - Breaking Defense
In a recent op-ed, Bill Blair, Canada's minister for national defence, said the submarine acquisition would help his country cross the 2 percent GDP target.
This is a pretty big prize, so interest from manufacturers will undoubtedly be quite strong.
Just a thought ... why would you want conventional submarines when going under ice packs and potentially facing off against Russian SSNs?
Given how long these selection processes tend to drag out and Australia's failed attempt at trying to find conventional submarines that are capable of performing the roles of nuclear submarines I am inclined to think that Canada will eventually see the light as far as SSNs are concerned.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
How well set up is Canada to develop its own reactors or does it have any chance of joining AUKUS Pillar One? The AUKUS partners have said that it won't invite anyone into Pillar One. Brazil has developed its own reactor to fit into a French developed SSN. Would France be willing to export reactor technology to Canada and is Canada willing to accept all the issues that would come with that outcome.
Canada has a lot more experience with nuclear power than Australia and that includes constructing nuclear reactors.
The major obstacle with them joining Pillar One may well be willingness to the US to sacrifice even more of its SSN fleet to its allies. That would still leave them with AUKUS SSNs but they won't be available for around 20 years. The Victorias will be getting pretty long in the tooth by then. Mind you only the first two Australian boats will be second hand. The third is likely to be a new build. If USN production could be further boosted by the mid to late thirties there could be an opportunity for additional orders.
Also there is always the French option of course.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If there was political unity and the will, nuclear subs could be developed in Canada. Neither exist and it is questionable if Canada will exist in its current form twenty years from now.