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
Hmm. Not sure many would agree with that. Mk48 Tech insert 1 is IMO very likely to be the torpedo Canada goes with, if they acquire new torpedos.
By time all the necessary Canadianization requirements are designed in, the resulting cost would be enormous. France has already been down this path so I doubt any design and major kit options would be acceptable to France.
I think you are confusing the Type 212A with the Type 212CD, given how the former has one diesel engine and the latter has two. The CD is significantly larger than either the Type 212A or the Type 214 and presumably will have far better endurance than either variants otherwise mentioned. It seems likely that Canada would be offered the Type 212CDE which was offered to the Dutch, being an even more expanded variant of the baseline CD to better fit the requirements of the CPS program. The only other German option that is larger was the never built Type 216 pitched for Australia however, that wouldn't meet the Canadian requirements for an operational or in production submarine.
I would argue the opposite, that it would be crazy for Canada to even consider the French SSN design for their competition. The RCN has seriously looked into procuring SSN's twice before in the past and both times the endeavor was a failure due to the inherent unaffordable costs from every avenue alongside a general lack of government support. The infrastructure upgrades required for Canada to domestically operate any sizable SSN fleet would be very high, given you'd effectively need to build an entirely new base on each coast for them with all of the required hardware to upkeep them as well. Have fun dealing with anti-nuclear NIMBY politicians and locals having an absolute fit when they find out that Canada is getting nuclear submarines and basing them on both coasts. The increased security required alongside the requirements for domestic refueling infrastructure would be brutal, unless Canada would be happy sending their submarines to France every decade to have the reactors refueled given they use a far lower level of enrichment in their fuel than US reactor models.
The RCN and Govt staff have been very adamant thus far that these boats will be effectively entirely built abroad, no Canadian company will ever be able to do partial assembly on modern conventional submarines anytime soon. Canada is going to require that the successful bid actively engage and develop Canadian industry to allow us to domestically upkeep, refit and repair these submarines over their lifetime though. That is where the majority of the domestic offsets and money will come from, the lifetime upkeep of the vessels.
Pollies bend with changing electoral winds so who knows what could happen. That being said, an offshore build will offer faster delivery and should be less expensive.
OK this changes the game since this allows to compete way more on the pricing of the subs.