Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Canada seeks to join non-nuclear pillar of AUKUS alliance
Sources suggest the Department of Global Affairs and the Privy Council Office continue to work to sign up Canada in the non-nuclear aspect of the trilateral security pactwww.theglobeandmail.com
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.
Not a bad choice.Naval Group's Shortfin Barracudas.
Not a bad choice.
Royal Australian Navy’s Shortfin Barracuda Class Submarine
The Shortfin Barracuda Block 1A, designed by the Naval Group (formerly known as DCNS) specifically for the Royal Australian Navy, will be the most advanced, lethal and stealth submarine technology ever contemplated. The French Navy’s incoming Barracuda-class submarines are nuclear attack...www.globaldefensecorp.com
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.It is presently proposed to the Netherland's Navy as a replacement for the Walrus class.
The dutch will make their own sub for various reasons.It is presently proposed to the Netherland's Navy as a replacement for the Walrus class.
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.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.
View attachment 719999
View attachment 719997
Soryu Cutaway Diagrams - Evolution Towards Soryu Aus.
A professional level blog on strategic matters, especially submarines (nuclear and conventional) in English, Hindi & most other major languages.gentleseas.blogspot.com
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.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.
Joking side, I imagine that over their service life even USN nuclear subs spend more time on the surface than below.I'm sure we can easily build submarines that can stay under water forever.
I'm sure we can easily build submarines that can stay under water forever.
I'm sure we can easily build submarines that can stay under water forever.
The prototype is a watertight house.The dutch will make their own sub for various reasons.
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.