Canada seeks to join non-nuclear pillar of AUKUS alliance

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

Admiral Beez

Captain
8,837
10,060
Oct 21, 2019
Toronto, Canada

Paywall free here https://archive.is/iEZFm

Canada is going to have to seriously up its game before the US, UK and Aussies will let us play. For starters, most of our naval assets and attention are in the North Atlantic, not Pacific. I suppose the virtue signaling about Canada wanting a dozen new submarines is intended to suggest we're serious.

What submarine options are realistic for Canada? We hope we don't try to build them at home, but instead buy some from elsewhere. We need long range SSKs with accommodations suitable for long deployments. Japan, AIUI produces submarines regardless of need just to keep the yard open and expertise on hand, and has been offering their subs for export.

 
Last edited:


What submarine options are realistic for Canada? We hope we don't try to build them at home, but instead buy some from elsewhere. We need long range SSKs with accommodations suitable for long deployments. Japan, AIUI produces submarines regardless of need just to keep the yard open and expertise on hand, and has been offering their subs for export.


Naval Group's Shortfin Barracudas.
 
Naval Group's Shortfin Barracudas.
Not a bad choice.

 
Not a bad choice.


It is presently proposed to the Netherland's Navy as a replacement for the Walrus class.
 
It is presently proposed to the Netherland's Navy as a replacement for the Walrus class.
My worry is that Canada will demand to produce the submarines domestically instead of buying off the shelf. I get that politicians like offsets, but we need subs pronto, and have zero experience producing submarines. Every submarine Canada has ever operated was produced either in the USA or overseas, even when at the height of the Cold War we were producing DDEs aplenty.

 
Canada could look into the Type 212 U-Boot. It may be a more cost effective vessel for them.

In line with German basic design concepts, the HDW Class 212A air-independent submarine is compact and features high payloads for sensors, communication equipment, weapon control systems and weapons. Great attention has been paid to efficiency and energy management on board. The combination of these factors together with the world-wide unique nonmagnetic construction and acoustically optimized equipment results in submarines that are nearly impossible to detect.


IMG_7715.jpeg
IMG_7714.jpeg


Source: thyssenkrupp Marine Systems GmbH
 
Canada could look into the Type 212 U-Boot. It may be a more cost effective vessel for them.


Source: thyssenkrupp Marine Systems GmbH
Thyssenkrupp can publish all the self serving press releases they want, but I believe their small 56 meter, 1,500 ton (surfaced) boats are more suited to the Baltic or Med than the three oceans Canada must patrol. The Type 212 is significantly smaller than the RCN's current 70 meter, 2,400 ton Victoria class. For a comparison to what may be available, Japan's Sōryū-class submarine offered to Australia is 84 meters long and 2,900 tons (surfaced). I think if they can be had, the Japanese boat is the better option.

0%2FType-212A-SSK-Submarine-%252B%252528223%252529.jpg


Soryu_Cutaway_Variants%2BPNG.png

 
Thyssenkrupp can publish all the self serving press releases they want, but I believe their small 56 meter, 1,500 ton (surfaced) boats are more suited to the Baltic or Med than the three oceans Canada must patrol. The Type 212 is significantly smaller than the RCN's current 70 meter, 2,400 ton Victoria class. For a comparison to what may be available, Japan's Sōryū-class submarine offered to Australia is 84 meters long and 2,900 tons (surfaced). I think if they can be had, the Japanese boat is the better option.

View attachment 719999

View attachment 719997

"Self Serving…"

Ok… :lol:

The Type 212 was conceived from two different requirements. Initially it came to fruition from a German requirement for a shallow water submarine to operate in the Baltic, and an Italian requirement for deep water Mediterranean requirement. The 212 was designed to meet both requirements .The 212 is completely capable of deep ocean operations. Germany currently operates it in the deep Atlantic (both North Atlantic and Mid-South Atlantic, and the Pacific. There is a nice photo (need to find it again) of a 212 sailing into Pearl Harbor with the Arizona Memorial behind it. Italy has done patrols in both the south Atlantic and the Indian Ocean.

It has a range of over 8,000 nautical miles, can operate up to 3 weeks submerged without the use of snorkel, and has a crush depth of 2,296 feet.

But hey, the Italians and Germans can patrol those same three oceans as Canada, with the 212 without any problems. What is the saying? Size does not always matter. And I was suggesting a more cost effective option.

If you would rather spend the money go buy a US built Virginia Class or the new SSN(X)-class submarine being built.
 
But hey, the Italians and Germans can patrol those same three oceans as Canada, with the 212 without any problems.
I was more thinking of the folks aboard. It must be even more cramped aboard those smaller boats than the usual submariner's lot. Mind you if automation can keep the crew size down that can help. And the Italians probably have very good food to make up for the lack of space.

As for Canada, I'd support any AIP sub class available. Let's just get moving. It'll be 2040 otherwise before we see the first one.
 
I was more thinking of the folks aboard. It must be even more cramped aboard those smaller boats than the usual submariner's lot. Mind you if automation can keep the crew size down that can help. And the Italians probably have very good food to make up for the lack of space.

As for Canada, I'd support any AIP sub class available. Let's just get moving. It'll be 2040 otherwise before we see the first one.

They have smaller crews that is for sure. I would assume they are highly automated.
 
re time submerged for USN nuclear submarines

My understanding is that although it depends on the mission type to a very large degree (ie showing the flag vs operational/war patrol) the majority of missions are of the operational/war patrol type. During operational/war patrol missions the submarine may remain submerged for as much as 99% of the time, surfacing only for emergencies or if the mission requires them to - such as for training, interactions with friendly surface vessels or air assets, and entering/exiting ports. The reason for this is the advantage of not being locatable by potential enemy surface, air, or satellite assets. This is particularly true for the SSBNs, but applies to the SSNs also.

During the 1990s an operational/war patrol could last as long as 4-6 months for the SSBNs and 2-4 months for the SSNs.
 
Last edited:
re time submerged for USN nuclear submarines

My understanding is that although it depends on the mission type to a very large degree (ie showing the flag vs operational/war patrol) the majority of missions are of the operational/war patrol type. During operational/war patrol missions the submarine may remain submerged for as much as 99% of the time, surfacing only for emergencies or if the mission requires them to - such as for training, interactions with friendly surface vessels or air assets, and entering/exiting ports. The reason for this is the advantage of not being locatable by potential enemy surface, air, or satellite assets. This is particularly true for the SSBNs, but applies to the SSNs also.

During the 1990s an operational/war patrol could last as long as 4-6 months for the SSBNs and 2-4 months for the SSNs.

Yeah, no thanks. Reason number 1,987 I did not join the Navy or the Submarine Force.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back