Replacing the Subs

[Czech_pivo]

Without any inside information, and as a non-submariner, if you asked me to place a bet right now I'd guess that the Germans will win the competition.

Even if it isn't the most capable boat, the pitch they're making of split nationality German/Norwegian/Canadian training crews should probably win the bid alone, because IMO it's the only "easy" way to dig ourselves out of the submariner Force Generation hole we're in and start expanding the submarine service by a few hundred people.

Now whether this consideration will receive appropriate weight in a PSPC bid evaluation is another story altogether.

What is potentially concerning with the Nor/Ger sub is the timelines.
By around 2032/33, they are producing 1 sub per year, with the first available time slot being 2036 for the RCN to receive its 1st sub. There are still 2 Norwegian subs to be delivered in that time frame. If they take a sub in 2037, then us in 2038 and in 2039 Norway takes there last boat, that puts us getting our 3rd boat in 2040 and our last boat in 2049, 25yrs from now, assuming we purchase 12 subs.
Will that work for us? I believe 2036 is after our last sub has been mothballed.

 

[Maxman1]

The Netherlands are ordering four Orka class subs, with the first two to be delivered by 2034, so that might give us the opportunity to have boats much faster than other options.

 

[Fabius]

In terms of speed and willingness to work with Canada to build out an indigenous maintenance enterprise I can’t see anyone better than South Korea and HHI.

 

[Rainbow1910]

The Netherlands are ordering four Orka class subs, with the first two to be delivered by 2034, so that might give us the opportunity to have boats much faster than other options.

The French are almost certainly going to have issues meeting the Canadian timeline for the CPSP considering their own domestic SSN, SSBN and now the Dutch program vessels taking up their domestic yard space.

 

[Maxman1]

The French are almost certainly going to have issues meeting the Canadian timeline for the CPSP considering their own domestic SSN, SSBN and now the Dutch program vessels taking up their domestic yard space.

The French Navy ordered six, three of which have already been delivered.

 

[Czech_pivo]

In terms of speed and willingness to work with Canada to build out an indigenous maintenance enterprise I can’t see anyone better than South Korea and HHI.

I seem to have read that Poland is looking into buying SK subs as well.
This can help with Canada purchasing subs from SK as it means another NATO ally will be operating them as well, ensuring compatibility/interoperability with at least 1 large NATO ally.

And here’s an interesting part of Poland’s talks with SK on subs - An important declaration was also made at the Industry Day: ‘If the Hanwha Oceansubmarine is selected by the Ministry of National Defence, we are able to deliver it to the Polish Navy within six years of the contract award, based on Korea’s unique shipbuilding technology and effective project management skills,’ said Jaemin Kim, Orka project manager at Hanwha Ocean. Subsequent units would be ready at one-and-a-half-year intervals.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Here is an article 6 days old about South Korea and Poland talking subs.

Poland has already teamed with SK in past deals for 300 main battle tanks.

HD HHI Submarines In The Poland’s ORKA Program​

Overview of the HD HHI submarines proposal for Poland's ORKA program. The Korean shipbuilder is proposing both the KSS-III PL and the HDS-2300 submarine designs.​

HD HHI Submarines in the Poland's ORKA Program - Naval News

Overview of the HD HHI proposal for Poland's ORKA program. The Korean shipbuilder is proposing both the KSS-III PL and the HDS-2300 submarine designs.

www.navalnews.com

Here is another article outlining yet another arms deal between Poland and SK - so we have a very robust NATO ally committing to a long term relationship with SK.

Poland likely to sign another arms deal with S.Korea, minister says​

WARSAW, June 20 (Reuters) - Poland will probably sign a contract with South Korea in September for the delivery of more arms, in particular K2 tanks, Defence Minister Wladyslaw Kosiniak-Kamysz was quoted as saying on Thursday by the state news agency PAP.

The new deal will involve mostly the supply of 180 K2 tanks, Kosiniak-Kamysz said. A first lot of 180 tanks is currently being delivered.

https://www.reuters.com/world/poland-likely-sign-another-arms-deal-with-skorea-minister-says-2024-06-20/

Hanwha Ocean offers KSS-III submarine and industry cooperation to Poland

The KSS-III submarine Hanwha Ocean offers to the Polish Navy is among the most heavily armed non-nuclear submarines on the market.

defence-industry.eu

 

[Czech_pivo]

Here's another article on SK subs and Poland.

What I found interesting in this article was the participation of Babcock at the event in Poland. Some of you might remember that Hanwha recently signed a deal with Babcock Canada on the Canada sub proposal.

Hanwha Ocean hosts events in Poland with eye on submarine project
SEOUL, May 24 (Yonhap) -- Hanwha Ocean Co., a shipbuilding and defense industry unit of South Korea's Hanwha Group, said Friday that it has hosted collaborative events with local companies in Poland as part of its efforts to secure the East European country's submarine modernization project.

On Tuesday, the company held the "Hanwha Ocean Poland Industry Day" event in Gdansk, a port city on the Baltic coast of northern Poland.

Representatives from Hanwha Ocean's domestic and international partners, along with global defense firms, such as Babcock International Group and Gabler, participated in the event.

During the event, Hanwha Ocean expressed its commitment to providing the Polish Navy with high-performance submarines through the Orka project and contributing to the Polish industry through technology transfer and localization.

It also plans to cooperate with the Polish Navy on transferring submarine maintenance technologies and licenses, including establishing a local support center so that the Polish Navy can conduct its own submarine maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO).

Hanwha Ocean hosts events in Poland with eye on submarine project | Yonhap News Agency

By Kim Boram SEOUL, May 24 (Yonhap) -- Hanwha Ocean Co., a shipbuilding and defense ind...

en.yna.co.kr

Babcock sign with South Korean industry for Canadian submarine programme​

South Korea’s Hanwha Ocean, formerly known as DSME, will leverage its design, construction, and logistics support capabilities while Babcock will contribute its experience in providing in-service support and sustainment of Canada’s Victoria-class submarines, which it has been doing since 2008

Babcock sign with South Korean industry for Canadian submarine programme

The Technical Cooperation Agreements enables the companies to share their respective capabilities in shipbuilding and submarine sustainment.

www.naval-technology.com

 

[calculus]

Looking at all these programs, what is clear is we can't afford the usual protracted decision making process if we actually want the first boat in the "mid 2030s". It's sh*t or get off the pot time.

 

[PrairieFella]

Are there any submariners in this thread? In your professional opinion, what do you think the best choice for Canada would be?

 

[Lumber]

Are there any submariners in this thread? In your professional opinion, what do you think the best choice for Canada would be?

Literally any of the subs mentioned (I'm not a submariner, but know enough about their capabilities).

 

[Underway]

Without any inside information, and as a non-submariner, if you asked me to place a bet right now I'd guess that the Germans will win the competition.

Even if it isn't the most capable boat, the pitch they're making of split nationality German/Norwegian/Canadian training crews should probably win the bid alone, because IMO it's the only "easy" way to dig ourselves out of the submariner Force Generation hole we're in and start expanding the submarine service by a few hundred people.

Now whether this consideration will receive appropriate weight in a PSPC bid evaluation is another story altogether.

K KSS3 - available to build now with spare capacity, currently floating submarine, record of technolgy transfer
German U212CD - not available to build now and no spare capacity, currently no submarine of the type is sailing (2029), record of technology transfer
Dutch/French Orka/Attack- paper submarine, minimal spare capacity, expected delivery dates for the Dutch 2032,
Swedish A26 - paper submarine, spare capacity, good record of tech transfer
Spanish S80+ -floating submarine, spare build capacity unknown to me, ok record of tech transfer (but they had a really hard time with getting this particular sub to work)
Japanese Tagei - available to build now with spare capacity, currently floating submarine, no record of technology transfer

Based on the criteria stated by VAdm Topshee the only submarine that can currently be built with spare capacity, has a good record of tech transfer, and is a military off the shelf currently floating submarine is the KSS III. Assuming that is the main criteria in the matrix Korea is the early favourite followed by Japan.

No one else could build a submarine and have it available for Canada to use in 4 years besides those two without some creative project management (aka Germans forgo their initial submarine to give it to Canada). Japan and Korea could also allow us to jump into their current production line and get submarines even faster.

I do like the German submarine but the first available time we could get one would be 2036.

 

[Czech_pivo]

K KSS3 - available to build now with spare capacity, currently floating submarine, record of technolgy transfer
German U212CD - not available to build now and no spare capacity, currently no submarine of the type is sailing (2029), record of technology transfer
Dutch/French Orka/Attack- paper submarine, minimal spare capacity, expected delivery dates for the Dutch 2032,
Swedish A26 - paper submarine, spare capacity, good record of tech transfer
Spanish S80+ -floating submarine, spare build capacity unknown to me, ok record of tech transfer (but they had a really hard time with getting this particular sub to work)
Japanese Tagei - available to build now with spare capacity, currently floating submarine, no record of technology transfer

Based on the criteria stated by VAdm Topshee the only submarine that can currently be built with spare capacity, has a good record of tech transfer, and is a military off the shelf currently floating submarine is the KSS III. Assuming that is the main criteria in the matrix Korea is the early favourite followed by Japan.

No one else could build a submarine and have it available for Canada to use in 4 years besides those two without some creative project management (aka Germans forgo their initial submarine to give it to Canada). Japan and Korea could also allow us to jump into their current production line and get submarines even faster.

I do like the German submarine but the first available time we could get one would be 2036.

And if Poland signs with SK it means a large NATO ally operating the sub along with us, which will add weight to the argument of choosing that sub. It would potentially affect availability but the timelines could still work to have at least 1 sub operational prior to 2033/34.

 

[suffolkowner]

K KSS3 - available to build now with spare capacity, currently floating submarine, record of technolgy transfer
German U212CD - not available to build now and no spare capacity, currently no submarine of the type is sailing (2029), record of technology transfer
Dutch/French Orka/Attack- paper submarine, minimal spare capacity, expected delivery dates for the Dutch 2032,
Swedish A26 - paper submarine, spare capacity, good record of tech transfer
Spanish S80+ -floating submarine, spare build capacity unknown to me, ok record of tech transfer (but they had a really hard time with getting this particular sub to work)
Japanese Tagei - available to build now with spare capacity, currently floating submarine, no record of technology transfer

Based on the criteria stated by VAdm Topshee the only submarine that can currently be built with spare capacity, has a good record of tech transfer, and is a military off the shelf currently floating submarine is the KSS III. Assuming that is the main criteria in the matrix Korea is the early favourite followed by Japan.

No one else could build a submarine and have it available for Canada to use in 4 years besides those two without some creative project management (aka Germans forgo their initial submarine to give it to Canada). Japan and Korea could also allow us to jump into their current production line and get submarines even faster.

I do like the German submarine but the first available time we could get one would be 2036.

Yep everytime I come back to this it always seems like the KSS3 is the favourite maybe the S80 is a darkhorse. With the KSS3 you have two shipyards building from a nation that seems keen on exporting with probably some of the most advance technology

Hard to know how much they differ given the limited info available publicly on subs or what are our requirements

 

[JMCanada]

As for Spanish S80+ :
Good record of tech. transfer, see AUS Hobarts & Canberra, Turkish Anadolu and Saudi corvettes.
Latest forecast is... S82 to be delivered in 2026, S83 in 2028, S84 in 2029 (I would rather say 2030). No further orders up to now, full availability I would say.
The problem is the AIP passed the tests on-land, not being available (embarked) until S83. Will have to wait till 2028 to check performance.

Their pros: LM's suite of sensors (sonars) and the basis of the CMS, Torpedo launchers (& CMs) from Babcock.
Capable to launch Harpoons and Tomahawks from the torp. tubes.
Ethanol being easier to reload than the metal hidrydes for Korean AIP.
Supposed to have wider spaces than Korean/Japanese boats. No hot-bunks, one bunk per sailor.

 

[suffolkowner]

As for Spanish S80+ :
Good record of tech. transfer, see AUS Hobarts & Canberra, Turkish Anadolu and Saudi corvettes.
Latest forecast is... S82 to be delivered in 2026, S83 in 2028, S84 in 2029 (I would rather say 2030). No further orders up to now, full availability I would say.
The problem is the AIP passed the tests on-land, not being available (embarked) until S83. Will have to wait till 2028 to check performance.

Their pros: LM's suite of sensors (sonars) and the basis of the CMS, Torpedo launchers (& CMs) from Babcock.
Capable to launch Harpoons and Tomahawks from the torp. tubes.
Ethanol being easier to reload than the metal hidrydes for Korean AIP.
Supposed to have wider spaces than Korean/Japanese boats. No hot-bunks, one bunk per sailor.

AIPs are one of the issues for sure. How necessary are they and how beholden are we to the one currently offered. Acknowledging that we want to minimize Canadianizing.
Same for battery technology do we want to avoid Li batteries or are Li batteries a must have?

 

[Fabius]

It will be interesting to see what actually ends up being valued and prioritized.

K KSS3 - available to build now with spare capacity, currently floating submarine, record of technolgy transfer
German U212CD - not available to build now and no spare capacity, currently no submarine of the type is sailing (2029), record of technology transfer
Dutch/French Orka/Attack- paper submarine, minimal spare capacity, expected delivery dates for the Dutch 2032,
Swedish A26 - paper submarine, spare capacity, good record of tech transfer
Spanish S80+ -floating submarine, spare build capacity unknown to me, ok record of tech transfer (but they had a really hard time with getting this particular sub to work)
Japanese Tagei - available to build now with spare capacity, currently floating submarine, no record of technology transfer

These above are largely strategic facts and evaluated against strategic requirements of speed and industrial support.
Those can be looked at in relation to the below, what I could term tactical perspectives.

Their pros: LM's suite of sensors (sonars) and the basis of the CMS, Torpedo launchers (& CMs) from Babcock.
Capable to launch Harpoons and Tomahawks from the torp. tubes.
Ethanol being easier to reload than the metal hidrydes for Korean AIP.
Supposed to have wider spaces than Korean/Japanese boats. No hot-bunks, one bunk per sailor.

Is the RCN in a position to prioritize tactical preferences over strategic requirements? Likely not and the VAdmiral’s comments seem to support that, question is which one will actually win out.

 

[Underway]

AIPs are one of the issues for sure. How necessary are they and how beholden are we to the one currently offered. Acknowledging that we want to minimize Canadianizing.
Same for battery technology do we want to avoid Li batteries or are Li batteries a must have?

The underwater endurance and speed are the must haves. It doesn't matter if thats done through AIP (Blackfin Barracuda) or with batteries ( Taigei) or with both (KSS III, 212CD). Its good for the competition to state the requirements without stating how they are to meet them. Gives you more options.

 

[Maxman1]

Yep everytime I come back to this it always seems like the KSS3 is the favourite maybe the S80 is a darkhorse. With the KSS3 you have two shipyards building from a nation that seems keen on exporting with probably some of the most advance technology

Hard to know how much they differ given the limited info available publicly on subs or what are our requirements

Also, the KSS III has vertical missile tubes and is the only conventional submarine currently in service capable of launching ballistic missiles.

 

[OldSolduer]

Also, the KSS III has vertical missile tubes and is the only conventional submarine currently in service capable of launching ballistic missiles.

question:

What weapons would they carry? Compatible with US weapons?