Replacing the Subs

[Halifax Tar]

Also these times are where I don’t enjoy it.

Great movie though

 

[dimsum]

Taiwan's subs "no one saw coming".,

Isn't that the point - to not see them coming??

 

[GR66]

Meanwhile, in Taiwan

Notable in the final video that Canada is given some props for assisting in the development of this sub. Short range diesel-electric.

Hai Kun-class submarine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Apparently between the 212s and the 216s. About the size of the Dutch Walrus at 2500 tonnes, may be related to the earlier Dutch Zwaardvis.

The first of eight.

They actually sound quite analogous to a modernized Victoria-Class. Roughly the same size. Similar range, etc. They also have the bonus of being equipped with American systems.

America Providing Advanced Systems For Taiwan's New Submarine - Naval News

Taiwan, which has unveiled its first locally designed submarine, is relying on some key elements of American technology.

www.navalnews.com

The masts are supplied by L3 Harris and are expected to include electro-optical ‘periscopes’. These masts, which are similar to the ones aboard the U.S. Navy’s Virginia-class, have several advantages. They do not penetrate the hull so they are safer for the boat if it accidentally hits a ship. This happens frequently enough to be a real concern with traditional periscopes which go into the hull. When they hit something they can bend and cause leaks where they meet the hull. The new system is completely outside the hull so this will not happen.


Another advantage is that they are modular, meaning that new masts can easily be switched in or out. And the modern optics means that the periscope doesn’t have to be raised for as long, so it is less likely to be detected.

The submarine will be armed with the U.S. supplied MK-48 Mod6 Advanced Technology (AT) heavyweight torpedoes. 18 were approved for sale to Taiwan in 2020. These weapons, while not the latest model, are thoroughly modern. Their carriage will provide both anti-ship and anti-submarine capabilities.


The torpedoes are expected to be complemented by the submarine-launched version of the U.S. Navy’s famous Harpoon anti-ship missile. The UGM-84 Sub-Harpoon is already in service with Taiwan aboard the Hai Lunch-class.


The weapons are integrated into a combat management system supplied by Lockheed Martin. This is fed target data from the submarine’s primary sensor, a sonar suite supplied by Raytheon. This features a bow array below the torpedo tubes, and large flank arrays running along either side.

Since they already have American systems they would require less "Canadian-izing" than some of the other foreign subs being looked at.

The question is how do we plan on using our subs? If we're looking at expeditionary use then AIP and VLS equipped subs might make more sense, but if we're simply looking at patrolling our territorial waters then maybe something like this might make sense if the price was right?

 

[Kirkhill]

They actually sound quite analogous to a modernized Victoria-Class. Roughly the same size. Similar range, etc. They also have the bonus of being equipped with American systems.

America Providing Advanced Systems For Taiwan's New Submarine - Naval News

Taiwan, which has unveiled its first locally designed submarine, is relying on some key elements of American technology.

www.navalnews.com

Since they already have American systems they would require less "Canadian-izing" than some of the other foreign subs being looked at.

The question is how do we plan on using our subs? If we're looking at expeditionary use then AIP and VLS equipped subs might make more sense, but if we're simply looking at patrolling our territorial waters then maybe something like this might make sense if the price was right?

Even diesel electrics can transit long ranges if not being overly concerned about being discrete. Transiting in company with a surface task force?

 

[GR66]

I also think that in light of recruiting and retention issues that we need to work very soon on partnering with someone on technologies like this:

Hanwha Ocean to develop energy system for unmanned submarines - Naval News

Hanwha Ocean has embarked on the development of unmanned submersibles, leveraging its technological capabilities in submarine

www.navalnews.com

 

[Rainbow1910]

Since they already have American systems they would require less "Canadian-izing" than some of the other foreign subs being looked at.

The question is how do we plan on using our subs? If we're looking at expeditionary use then AIP and VLS equipped subs might make more sense, but if we're simply looking at patrolling our territorial waters then maybe something like this might make sense if the price was right?

This Taiwanese submarine is generally very conservative in its design, it is based off an older design with some modernized elements but it is missing some features like anechoic tiles and a more modern hull design. If Canada is going to bother with submarines, we shouldn't be attempting to cheap out. Submarines are very expensive, so you might as well get something properly worth that money.

 

[YZT580]

This Taiwanese submarine is generally very conservative in its design, it is based off an older design with some modernized elements but it is missing some features like anechoic tiles and a more modern hull design. If Canada is going to bother with submarines, we shouldn't be attempting to cheap out. Submarines are very expensive, so you might as well get something properly worth that money.

and don't try to add to the design. Include the features that are deemed essential in the initial request. If it can't do what we want without changes, choose that will.

 

[GR66]

OK...here's (another) silly question.

The AUKUS nuclear submarine is a new design to be used by both the UK and Australia and according to Wikipedia "will incorporate US technology such as propulsion plant systems and components, a common vertical launch system and weapons", and "will have a high degree of commonality" with the Virginia class, including "sharing elements of the propulsion plant, combat system and weapons", enhancing interoperability and Australia's transition to SSN-AUKUS"

I think we can all confidently say that Canada is not going to acquire nuclear submarines for both political and economic reasons. But would there be an opportunity for Canada to join the AUKUS submarine program to purchase a conventional version of the AUKUS SSN?

There is a president (although not a great one admittedly) for an existing nuclear submarine design to be modified to a conventional design - the Shortfin Barracuda that Australia originally was going to buy from France.

We know that whatever submarine Canada buys to replace the Victoria-Class will have US combat systems and weapons. In fact a major part of the cost of upgrading the Victoria-Class subs for use by Canada was integrating these US compatible systems. Even if we were to purchase an existing conventional submarine design from a European or Asian country there would likely be some fairly extensive "Canadian-ization" to the design required to meet our engineering standards and our desire for interoperability with US systems.

If we're going to have to pay for Canadian-ization of whatever MOTS design we buy anyway why don't we put that money into a nuclear-to-conventional Canadian-ization rather than a European/Asian Combat System/Weapons Canadian-ization? The end result for Canada is we get a conventional submarine that is broadly similar in combat capability (other than range/endurance) as our major allies. Assuming we purchase our hulls from UK yards the benefit for them is they they get a conventional submarine design that they can potentially sell to other allied nations allied with AUKUS.

 

[KevinB]

OK...here's (another) silly question.

The AUKUS nuclear submarine is a new design to be used by both the UK and Australia and according to Wikipedia "will incorporate US technology such as propulsion plant systems and components, a common vertical launch system and weapons", and "will have a high degree of commonality" with the Virginia class, including "sharing elements of the propulsion plant, combat system and weapons", enhancing interoperability and Australia's transition to SSN-AUKUS"

I think we can all confidently say that Canada is not going to acquire nuclear submarines for both political and economic reasons. But would there be an opportunity for Canada to join the AUKUS submarine program to purchase a conventional version of the AUKUS SSN?

There is a president (although not a great one admittedly) for an existing nuclear submarine design to be modified to a conventional design - the Shortfin Barracuda that Australia originally was going to buy from France.

We know that whatever submarine Canada buys to replace the Victoria-Class will have US combat systems and weapons. In fact a major part of the cost of upgrading the Victoria-Class subs for use by Canada was integrating these US compatible systems. Even if we were to purchase an existing conventional submarine design from a European or Asian country there would likely be some fairly extensive "Canadian-ization" to the design required to meet our engineering standards and our desire for interoperability with US systems.

If we're going to have to pay for Canadian-ization of whatever MOTS design we buy anyway why don't we put that money into a nuclear-to-conventional Canadian-ization rather than a European/Asian Combat System/Weapons Canadian-ization? The end result for Canada is we get a conventional submarine that is broadly similar in combat capability (other than range/endurance) as our major allies. Assuming we purchase our hulls from UK yards the benefit for them is they they get a conventional submarine design that they can potentially sell to other allied nations allied with AUKUS.

Who would build it?
Yesterday the USS Rickover SSN-795 was commissioned in CT.

The next VA class gets commissioned in NJ in April (something with the name linked to NJ so not commissioned in CT)

We build 2-3 VA a year right now. Electric Boat supposedly going to increase to 4. The Block V boats over over 10k tons

The AUKUS boats are smaller than the Block V VA’s, but apparently similar to the earlier blocks at around 8k tons.

I’m unsure of British shipyard capacity, but I tend to doubt the willingness of either UK or US yards to build a hybrid for Canada simply because Canada is an unreliable Defense partner for major programs.

Secondly that’s still a pretty (gigantic) big boat for a non Nuke. I don’t see any AIP systems nearly in that displacement.

H I Sutton - Covert Shores

 

[Colin Parkinson]

At 8,000 tons you can have AIP and a enlarged battery pack.

 

[GR66]

At 8,000 tons you can have AIP and a enlarged battery pack.

Or do as the Japanese are doing and use the space where you'd have the AIP for Lithium-Ion batteries instead.

From Wikipedia:

The eleventh Sōryū-class submarine (Ōryū) is the first Japanese submarine in the fleet to mount lithium-ion batteries. The JS Ōryū was given a budget of ¥64.3 billion (equivalent to ¥65.55 billion or US$601.3 million in 2019)[8] under the 2015 Japanese Defense Budget.[9]

Lithium-ion batteries have almost double the electric storage capacity of traditional lead-acid batteries, and by not only replacing them in the existing battery storage areas but adding to the already large battery capacity by also filling the huge space (several hundred tons displacement) inside the hull previously occupied by the AIP Stirling engines and their fuel tanks with these new batteries, the amount of (more powerful) batteries carried overall is massive. This has improved the underwater endurance significantly and is felt will be an advantage over the slow recharge capability of the AIP system.

In any event, JMSDF believes that lithium-ion is the way forward and intends to 'trial' this new system and compare it to the previous AIP system for operational effectiveness.

France is going the same route with their "Scorpene Evolved" that they are offering to the Indonesian Navy.

France Offers New 'Scorpene Evolved' Li-Ion Submarine to Indonesia - Naval News

In its latest proposal to the Indonesian Navy, France's Naval Group is offering the new Scorpene Evolved submarine with Lithium-Ion battery

www.navalnews.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Soryu submerged is still only 4,000 tons, we are talking double that tonnage. That gives you a lot of room for fuel, batteries, propulsion, air supply, weapons, sensors, accommodations and food.

 

[KevinB]

At 8,000 tons you can have AIP and an enlarged battery pack.

Who makes one that big?
The largest appear to be in the vicinity of 5k.

One of the reason the SSN/SSBN are bigger is the reinforced hull and sail for ice work, and they don’t have the energy concerns with running the necessary equipment a bigger boat takes to both live and maneuver.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The AUKUS boats are smaller than the Block V VA’s, but apparently similar to the earlier blocks at around 8k tons.

I was quoting you. If you built a conventional sub in that tonnage you have a lot of room to work with.

 

[KevinB]

The AUKUS boats are smaller than the Block V VA’s, but apparently similar to the earlier blocks at around 8k tons.

I was quoting you. If you built a conventional sub in that tonnage you have a lot of room to work with.

Okay I’m tracking now.

I’m not sure the power required for a big boat exists with AIP methods on a linear sort of scale - I think your propulsion and battery etc stuff is going to require a lot more room than the Nuclear option.

Just looking at some of the cutaways that are on the web, the Nuke boats seem to be at least 50% more efficient in size management of the ‘engine room’.

I still think that the RCN should be looking at AUKUS boats, and sending crews to Washington and Virginia to work on VA boats now, and most importantly sending folks through Nuke power schools.

Run two crews to each boat, and have the boats docked for the foreseeable future down here.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thought I would add this to help the discussion. The errors are mine.

Type	Class	Builder	Displacement Tonnes
Ballistic missile submarines[edit]	Borei class (Project 955 Borey)	Russia	24,000
Ballistic missile submarines[edit]	Ohio class (SSBN-726)	United States	18,750
Ballistic missile submarines[edit]	Delta class (Project 667BDR Kal'mar / 667BDRM Del'fin)	Soviet Union / Russia	18,200
Ballistic missile submarines[edit]	Vanguard class	United Kingdom	15,900
Ballistic missile submarines[edit]	Triomphant class	France	14,335
Ballistic missile submarines[edit]	Jin class (Type 094)	People's Republic of China	11,000
Ballistic missile submarines[edit]	Xia class	People's Republic of China	8,000
Ballistic missile submarines[edit]	Arihant class (Project ATV)	India	7,000
Cruise missile submarines[edit]	Oscar class (Project 949 Granit/Project 949A Antey)	Soviet Union / Russia	19,400
Cruise missile submarines[edit]	Ohio class (Tactical Trident)	United States	18,750
Cruise missile submarines[edit]	Yasen class	Russia	13,800
Cruise missile submarines[edit]	Shang class (Type 093G)	People's Republic of China	7,000
Nuclear-powered attack submarines[edit]	Akula class (Project 971 Shchuka)	Soviet Union / Russia	13,800
Nuclear-powered attack submarines[edit]	Sierra class (Project 945)	Soviet Union / Russia	10,400
Nuclear-powered attack submarines[edit]	Virginia class Block V	United States	10,200
Nuclear-powered attack submarines[edit]	Seawolf class (SSN-21)	United States	9,300
Nuclear-powered attack submarines[edit]	Shang class (Type 093)	People's Republic of China	8,000
Nuclear-powered attack submarines[edit]	Virginia class Block I-IV	United States	7,900
Nuclear-powered attack submarines[edit]	Astute class	United Kingdom	7,400
Nuclear-powered attack submarines[edit]	Victor class	Soviet Union / Russia	7,250
Nuclear-powered attack submarines[edit]	Los Angeles class (SSN-688)	United States	7,000
Nuclear-powered attack submarines[edit]	Barracuda class	France	5,300
Nuclear-powered attack submarines[edit]	Trafalgar class	United Kingdom	5,208
Nuclear-powered attack submarines[edit]	Han class (Type 091)	People's Republic of China	4,500
Nuclear-powered attack submarines[edit]	Rubis class	France	2,670
AIP Submarines	Qing-class submarine	China	6,628
AIP Submarines	Sōryū class	Japan	4,200
AIP Submarines	Yuan class	China	3,600
AIP Submarines	S-80 Plus class	Spain	3,426
AIP Submarines	Type 212C/D class	Germany/Italy	2,500
AIP Submarines	Type 214 submarine	Germany	1,980
AIP Submarines	Dolphin class (Dolphin-2; AIP-variant)	Germany	1,900
AIP Submarines	Type 212A class	Germany/Italy	1,830
AIP Submarines	Blekinge class	Sweden	1,800
AIP Submarines	Agosta-90B class	France	1,725
AIP Submarines	Gotland class	Sweden,	1,647
AIP Submarines	Scorpène class	France/Spain	1,590
AIP Submarines	Västergötland class / Archer class	Sweden	1,145
Diesel Electric	Taigei class	Japan	4,300
Diesel Electric	Oyashio class	Japan	4,000
Diesel Electric	Kilo class (Project 877 Paltus and Project 636)	USSR/Russia	3,100
Diesel Electric	Collins class	Australia	3,050
Diesel Electric	Walrus class	Netherlands	2,800
Diesel Electric	Lada class (Project 677 Lada)	Russia	2,700
Diesel Electric	Zwaardvis class	Netherlands	2,600
Diesel Electric	Victoria class (SSK 876)	UK	2,400
Diesel Electric	Song class	China	2,250
Diesel Electric	TR-1700 class	Germany	2,116
Diesel Electric	Ming class (Type 035)	China	2,100
Diesel Electric	Sinpo class	North Korea	2,000
Diesel Electric	Dolphin class (Dolphin-1; non-AIP variant)	Germany	1,900
Diesel Electric	Agosta class	France / Spain	1,725
Diesel Electric	Sauro class	Italy	1,653
Diesel Electric	Type 209 submarine	Germany	1,586
Diesel Electric	Nagapasa class	South Korea/Indonesia	1,400
Diesel Electric	Type 209 submarine	Germany	1,290
Diesel Electric	Type 209 submarine	Germany	1,230
Diesel Electric	Challenger class (ex-Sjöormen class)	Sweden	1,210
Diesel Electric	Ula class (Type 210)	Germany	1,150
Diesel Electric	Fateh class	Iran	593
Diesel Electric	Type 206 submarine	Germany	500
Diesel Electric	Sang-O class	North Korea	370
Midgets	Nahang class	Iran	400
Midgets	Yono class	North Korea	130
Midgets	Ghadir class	Iran	115
Midgets	Yugo class	North Korea	110
Specials	Belgorod (K-329)	Russia	30000
Specials	Sarov (B-90)	Russia	4000
Specials	Uniform-class special mission submarine (Project 1910 Kashalot)	Russia	1580
Specials	Paltus-class special mission submarine (Project 1083.1)	Russia	730
Specials	Losharik	Russia	200
Specials	NSRS Deep submergence rescue vehicle	UK	41
Specials	Mystic-class deep sea rescue submersible (DSRV-1)	US	37
Specials	LR5 Deep submersible	UK	21
Specials	Al-Sabehat swimmer delivery vehicle	Iran
Specials	VAS 525 mini-submarine	Italy
XLUUV	Orca	US	45
XLUUV	Cebus	UK	17

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect that there is certain costs in power requirements, noise, etc when you go over a certain size, which limits the practical size of a DE subs. Even the big French 8" gun sub Surcouf was around 4,300 tons.

 

[suffolkowner]

still think I prefer a KSS-III option due to
technologically advanced
continuous build via two shipyards
SK apparent ability to work with other nations at closing deals

however it will be interesting to see which choice the Dutch go with late this year/early next year
A26 Sweden
U212CD Germany
Barracuda France

Too bad the Nuke Barracuda wasnt an option for the Australian sub but I guess that relationship was unrecoverable

 

[Underway]

If I were a betting man I would say that the Dutch are going with the U212CD. Norway and Germany are both getting those. Honestly I like the KSS-III as the options it brings to Canada, but the U212CD is very interesting.

 

[Rainbow1910]

There is a president (although not a great one admittedly) for an existing nuclear submarine design to be modified to a conventional design - the Shortfin Barracuda that Australia originally was going to buy from France.

I would look closely at one of the primary issues of that design, the complexity and risk taken on by the RAN. Modifying a nuclear submarine into a conventional submarine is incredibly difficult, that's even before Australia wanted it to be full of domestic and American systems/weaponry. The design was an integration nightmare and should be something we stay as far away from as humanly possible. Submarines are incredibly complex platforms, the effort would not be worth the result you would get from trying to convert the AUKUS SSN design into a conventional boat.

Just save the headache and purchase something that was designed to be a conventional submarine from the word go. Canada needs to be heavily managing and mitigating risk with this submarine procurement.

I’m unsure of British shipyard capacity, but I tend to doubt the willingness of either UK or US yards to build a hybrid for Canada simply because Canada is an unreliable Defense partner for major programs.

The UK and US are basically at capability with their own orders plus the Australian SSN orders. Canada is going to be forced to look elsewhere in Europe or Asia for a partner to build any conventional submarines for them.

still think I prefer a KSS-III option due to
technologically advanced
continuous build via two shipyards
SK apparent ability to work with other nations at closing deals

however it will be interesting to see which choice the Dutch go with late this year/early next year
A26 Sweden
U212CD Germany
Barracuda France

Too bad the Nuke Barracuda wasnt an option for the Australian sub but I guess that relationship was unrecoverable

My prediction is either the KSS-III or the Type 212CD. The German design is incredibly cutting edge with a proven builder behind it while the KSS-III is a larger boat with more options available (VLS, lithium ion batteries, suite of new Korean missile systems) and backed by a nation that has aggressive export marketing/capability to build.

I am skeptical of the Swedish ability to deliver on their promises after being out of the game regarding submarines for so long. I have concerns about the Japanese being able to successfully navigate and export their design. As for the French, they have a track record of acting in their own interests and not in the interests of their export partners, I am also a bit skeptical that they have the yard capability to keep up a reasonable building pace for us.

Nuclear Barracuda had other issues, like being less capable than American/British SSN designs. The primary issue is the nuclear fuel source Barracuda uses being less enriched than American/British reactors, meaning they need refueling every 8-10 years while the American reactors are lifetime of the boat/30 years. This was politically untenable for Australia to either have to refuel themselves to put their security in the hands of France.

If I were a betting man I would say that the Dutch are going with the U212CD. Norway and Germany are both getting those. Honestly I like the KSS-III as the options it brings to Canada, but the U212CD is very interesting.

I would normally agree for the Dutch but considering how heavily Saab and Damen seem to be partnered for the A26 bid, I wouldn't count them out. They seem to have a fairly robust plan for domestic Dutch work and upkeep on these boats, doing assembly and many other tasks domestically. As far as I know, the Germans have not offered such a thing.

As for Canada, I basically agree with you. Personally I think its a bit difficult to narrow the pool at this point in the process and with the info we have, Canadian program requirements (whatever they are) will be a decisive factor.