John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I suspect SKorea has been working on a SSN design for years given the threat in the North. Japan may be doing the same, another incentive for SKorea.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Quite possibly though I think Japan's greater experience designing and building subs would make a near-term appearance of Japanese SSN's more likely.
Also given the location of perceived threats to S. Korea, there might not have been as much drive towards SSN's when compared to the US or UK.
In that regards it would also go some way to explaining why Japan has not developed one yet, despite having the industrial elements needed to do so for decades.
CorvetteCrunch
Member
The issue for the RCN regarding SSN's has not particularly been access of the technology, but more so the inherent costs and requirements upon the budget, fleet, personnel and infrastructure which SSN's require. I would be very surprised if the RCN moves to an SSN fleet at anytime in the future, especially after a potential 12 boat investment into a conventional fleet which will last for many decades.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Disagree about access, the US was not keen on Mulroney's plan for SSNs back in the 1980s. With Trump, zero chance for any USN SSN technology. As for a future KSS-III (N), perhaps in the distant future with Canadian involvement from our local nuclear industry. Not sure what a ice free Arctic ocean does for submarine operation. Although the need for under ice endurance melts away, having a SSN for fast transit from distant southern bases to a much more accessible Arctic ocean would be desirable.
CorvetteCrunch
Member
Yet the US was eventually brought onboard with the project, which fell through due to budgetary and political reason at the end of the day. That was a different era, an era before agreements like AUKUS and this apparent Korean deal. At the end of the day though, I don't see the financial reality changing from back then to now.
CorvetteCrunch
Member
Canada defence spending: New CEO starts
CTV News broke the story today regarding an apparent RFP sent out for the CPSP to TKMS and Hanwha, with a due date of March 2, 2026. Seems to be moving very fast, a good sign. Details of the RFP are currently unknown as it was not released to the public.
CTV News broke the story today regarding an apparent RFP sent out for the CPSP to TKMS and Hanwha, with a due date of March 2, 2026. Seems to be moving very fast, a good sign. Details of the RFP are currently unknown as it was not released to the public.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Coast guard news about a battery contract for the Davie ice breaker.
Swedish company to provide battery system for Canada's new hybrid icebreaker - Naval Today
Swedish company to provide battery system for Canada's new hybrid icebreaker - Naval Today
Some further information on this. Of particular interest is the entry into service date of 2028 mentioned in both articles. That is about 2 years sooner than was originally reported.
Germany opts for Canadian CMS330 for their new Type 127:
www.canada.ca
Minister Sidhu welcomes German Navy $1-billion purchase of Canadian combat management system - Canada.ca
The Honourable Maninder Sidhu, Minister of International Trade, today welcomed the signature of the Canadian Commercial Corporation’s (CCC) government-to-government (G2G) contract with Germany’s Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support to equip the...
4th CMS330 user, AFAIK: Canada, NZ, Chile & now Germany.Germany opts for Canadian CMS330 for their new Type 127:
Minister Sidhu welcomes German Navy $1-billion purchase of Canadian combat management system - Canada.ca
The Honourable Maninder Sidhu, Minister of International Trade, today welcomed the signature of the Canadian Commercial Corporation’s (CCC) government-to-government (G2G) contract with Germany’s Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support to equip the...
BostonMartin
New Member
Norwegian defence company pitches Ottawa as Arctic partner in sub procurement
"A source familiar with the instructions said the government's scoring of the bids will place most of the emphasis on the boats' long-term maintenance.
The source said sustainment makes up half of the weight of the bid, with 15 per cent going to the cost of the subs, 15 per cent to the economic benefits and 20 per cent to sub capabilities."
"The message that we're also carrying here to Canada is, make sure that you build long-term relationships that build sustainable jobs for Canada and not just something that comes in for a particular program, and when the program ends, the jobs goes away," Myhra said.
The government of Norway itself is also offering up its maintenance yard blueprints to Canada as part of the lobbying push."
- Competition is fierce but it seems the "we can deliver 4 subs by 2035" won't carry a lot of weight in the bid evaluation grid.
- Also, I know both sides have excellent subs but.. sub capability seems a bit low at 20% ?
- 50% for long-term maintenance + 15% for economic benefits. I feel there's overlap there? That's 65%.
"A source familiar with the instructions said the government's scoring of the bids will place most of the emphasis on the boats' long-term maintenance.
The source said sustainment makes up half of the weight of the bid, with 15 per cent going to the cost of the subs, 15 per cent to the economic benefits and 20 per cent to sub capabilities."
"The message that we're also carrying here to Canada is, make sure that you build long-term relationships that build sustainable jobs for Canada and not just something that comes in for a particular program, and when the program ends, the jobs goes away," Myhra said.
The government of Norway itself is also offering up its maintenance yard blueprints to Canada as part of the lobbying push."
- Competition is fierce but it seems the "we can deliver 4 subs by 2035" won't carry a lot of weight in the bid evaluation grid.
- Also, I know both sides have excellent subs but.. sub capability seems a bit low at 20% ?
- 50% for long-term maintenance + 15% for economic benefits. I feel there's overlap there? That's 65%.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The "source" says.....usually a red flag. Sub requirements for the RCN and classified vendor specifications are secret. As for the weighting wrt awarding a bid, life time support would be important of course but retiring 4 Victoria subs asap is a big savings via fast delivery of 4 KSS-III by 2035. As for everything else, we will have to await the award...hopefully before the end of 2026.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
A polar capable amphibious ship is under consideration by the RCN. It would be built by either SeaSpan (acceptable) or Quebec based Davie (unacceptable(. Given current construction, work couldn’t start until the 2032-35 timeframe which involves at least one election which could delay or stuff the project. Probably doesn’t matter as the world will have gone to $hit by launch time.
I seriously doubt Canada will ever build an amphibious ship let alone an ice capable one. I certainly agree with the merits of having a couple though. I would hope that if the concept was ever allowed to come to fruition that SeaSpan would get the contract. Davie would have the ship built in Finland and apply some flourishes to it in Quebec and call it Canadian made, much like MV Asterix.
Why would it have to be ice capable? By the time its built, much of the ice will be gone. Isn't that the problem. Literally by the time any ship is built the northern hemisphere would be ice free in summer, thus only some seasonally icing over would occur and very very thin. There would be no multiyear ice, and probably by decommissioning very little winter ice.
The ideal solution is hovercraft, as they allow speedy travel over ice and snow, and land, and water and mud flats and soft sand.
Australia commissioned (Romania built) a very large Polar exploration ship, polar 3. 25,000t. Moon pool, helicopter facilities for four helicopters, landing barges, ROV, 30t cranes etc. 1,200t of cargo. 2000m3 of fuel, 120 passengers, 1.65m of ice. 90 day endurance. 17 Wet labs, dry labs, sea ice ramp etc.
While not strictly an amphibious military ship it has capabilities that I would assume Canada would need to assert its claims over its polar territories.
CorvetteCrunch
Member
It has to be ice capable because the ice isn't actually going anywhere anytime, why would Canada be looking at a generational expansion and modernization to its icebreaking fleet if the Arctic is going to be largely ice free in the coming decades? We're procuring two PC2 Polar Icebreakers, six PC3~ Program Icebreakers, up to 16 PC4 Multi-purpose icebreakers alongside the eight PC4/5 AOPS. If all of the ice is going to be gone as you describe it, it makes little sense why you have nations like Canada and the US racing to substantially enlarge and modernize their substantial Arctic capable icebreaking fleets even far into the future.
Our Polar Icebreakers under construction basically meet the requirements of what you are proposing with that Australian design.
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Yeah, the ice isn't going to be "gone"
Still freezing over during the winter, just substantially thinner. Which actually make it more navigable during winter periods, thus the push to procure more ice-capable ships
We've also seen periods of earlier ice during the winter up north, I suspect this is caused by a lower salinity of the seawater, which let ice form more readily. But that early forming ice also works as an insulator preventing the covered seawater to cool enough to allow thicker ice to form
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Also, certainly Russia isn’t slowing down ice breaker, production. Subs and icebreakers account for almost all new marine expenditures.
As for future ice conditions, probably less but some predict the collapse of the Gulf Stream, what does that do to future ice conditions in the North Atlantic?
As for future ice conditions, probably less but some predict the collapse of the Gulf Stream, what does that do to future ice conditions in the North Atlantic?
Yeh, but with all the Chinese/Russian/Americans ships that go through there I don't imagine it will be that iced up. Is the idea to make it more navigatable?
Are they looking to conduct amphibious ops in the Winter? What do they do now in terms of winter amphibious ops? What is their current requirement and how exactly is it being met? I thought they basically didn't have any amphibious capability?
If its resupply, presence, science, basing, then a polar ship might be more useful. 25,000t polar ship with great icebreaking capabilities and some amphibious capabilities could fill that. Helicopters and ice vehicles (although again, heavy vehicles are probably a no no).
If its actual amphibious landings, that would need to be a pretty serious ship. If they wanted to land a tank on an island, then that would basically require cushioned landing craft.
Its highly possible that it just enters a period of instability, extra cold and extra mild. But the multi year ice isn't going to be around for ever.
I just worry about Canadian defence procurement where they try to put too many capabilities in one ship. Didn't we go through with this with the big honking ship and that became the JSS and then that became the two tankers.
Amphibious Assault Ship Project - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
As an Australian I watch that whole Canadian process, while we went into LHD's and LPD, selection, building, commissioning, deploying, refitting, upgrading etc. We had to crawl, walk run. And we had 3+ amphibious capable ships before that, and it was a whole process. But we ended up with good capability in the end.
Even when the mistral ships were being offered for crazy low drive away prices, Canada didn't seem that interested. Aren't the AOR the amphibious ships and aren't they yet to be commissioned.
Genuinely curious. Very supportive of Canada getting some sort of useful amphibious capability.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
An ice capable amphibious ship would be dual use, military and civilian. Emergency resupply voyages to the Arctic in winter currently is not possible. The two AORs are for the RCN replenishment at sea requirements. They likely would see limited time in the Arctic unless there is a long term deployment of future River class ships in the summer months.