Our brand new shiny MH fleet, which took over a century to order and have delivered, were “fitted for, but not with, L16”?
That’s because L16 is being phased out for something faster & more secure, so we didn’t bother with L16 because it’s essentially ‘old tech.’ Right? Riiigghhttt?
It might have been because it took so damn long, that the SOR was written when L16 wasn't a thing yet
But seriously, requirements are for effects like "a secure two-way datalink system that is interoperable with allied units", not specific things. If you write for a specific thing and it's obsolete by the time the contract is awarded, then you end up with something with an obsolete piece of equipment.
It might have been because it took so damn long, that the SOR was written when L16 wasn't a thing yet
But seriously, requirements are for effects like "a secure two-way datalink system that is interoperable with allied units", not specific things. If you write for a specific thing and it's obsolete by the time the contract is awarded, then you end up with something with an obsolete piece of equipment.
The Type 216 was designed for the Australian sub replacement program, before they went with the French Shortfin Barracuda.
While there haven't been any 216s built yet, due to Australia choosing a different design, the Singaporean Type 218SG is a variant of the 216. The first of the class, RSS Invincible, was launched in 2019 and is undergoing sea trials.
Type 218SG, at 2000 tonnes surfaced, is closer to Type 212 (1500 tonnes) than to Type 216 (projected to be 4000 tonnes). Type 216 is just a kind of "preliminary design", double the size of whatever boat TKMS has built before. This would actually be a customized design. Just think of how the shortfin Barracuda (australian version) has ended up, design still being uncomplete after... a couple of years? despite using previously designed and built Suffren hull.
Indeed Type 212CD (2500 tonnes acc. to Wikipedia) should better match RCN requirements, not to say about technology: Type 212CD being for Germany and Norway will feature state-of-the-art "gadgets" while 218SG is just an export variant for not a so close ally.
The timeline for the T212CD is certainly in line with where we would be looking, with the first boats scheduled for delivery to the Norwegians in 2029. However, while it is certainly chock full of new tech, and will undoubtedly have an improved submerged range, I'm not sure it will actually have much better endurance than the Victorias, which dimensionally are quite similar. While the 212CD seems to have a broader beam, it is not clear, given it's "stealthy" diamond-shaped hull, how much of that translates into more useable space. It is slightly longer, if published specifications can be trusted (it's difficult to find detailed information on this design). So, probably slightly better endurance than the Vics, but maybe not game changing for the RCN.
Submarines rely on stealth to maintain the element of surprise and escape threats. For decades this has focused on reducing the noise emitted by the submarine. A resurgence of using active sonar to locate submarines now means that new stealth measures may be required. German submarine builder...
Realistically, if Canada wants to move quickly on this, an existing MOTS design is the best choice. Type 212CD and A26 Oceanic ER seem to be the only options at this time. However, assuming we would want to stick with American combat systems and weapons, not sure there even is a MOTS design out there that wouldn't need significant changes to accommodate the systems and weapons we are used to working with. So maybe a custom design isn't completely mad. A difficult conundrum for RCN planners.
The timeline for the T212CD is certainly in line with where we would be looking, with the first boats scheduled for delivery to the Norwegians in 2029. However, while it is certainly chock full of new tech, and will undoubtedly have an improved submerged range, I'm not sure it will actually have much better endurance than the Victorias, which dimensionally are quite similar. While the 212CD seems to have a broader beam, it is not clear, given it's "stealthy" diamond-shaped hull, how much of that translates into more useable space. It is slightly longer, if published specifications can be trusted (it's difficult to find detailed information on this design). So, probably slightly better endurance than the Vics, but maybe not game changing for the RCN.
Submarines rely on stealth to maintain the element of surprise and escape threats. For decades this has focused on reducing the noise emitted by the submarine. A resurgence of using active sonar to locate submarines now means that new stealth measures may be required. German submarine builder...
Realistically, if Canada wants to move quickly on this, an existing MOTS design is the best choice. Type 212CD and A26 Oceanic ER seem to be the only options at this time. However, assuming we would want to stick with American combat systems and weapons, not sure there even is a MOTS design out there that wouldn't need significant changes to accommodate the systems and weapons we are used to working with. So maybe a custom design isn't completely mad. A difficult conundrum for RCN planners.
The Victoria class replacement project just stood up and has about a half dozen pers posted to it, we are far, far away from selecting anything let alone building it.
Batteries is the same thing, slow speed and not a lot of power. If we did have a design, and it would have to be a fairly large design to facilitate the extra plating and reinforcement to the sail. Would you want the job of doing the testing of submerging through the ice for the first time?
We would be better off with a large design with efficient motors and lots of lit-ion battery capability and operating at the ice edge of the NW passage.
Stoker is right. We don't need subs that are capable of breaking through the ice. We have satellites to track surface vessels in the Arctic. If necessary we can send long range patrol aircraft, when the target comes within range and weather conditions, to gather more information and watch it. If necessary the CAF can send the AOPS (depending on the ice conditions) to board it.
But still, I would still love for the RCN to have SSNs.
The timeline for the T212CD is certainly in line with where we would be looking, with the first boats scheduled for delivery to the Norwegians in 2029. However, while it is certainly chock full of new tech, and will undoubtedly have an improved submerged range, I'm not sure it will actually have much better endurance than the Victorias, which dimensionally are quite similar. While the 212CD seems to have a broader beam, it is not clear, given it's "stealthy" diamond-shaped hull, how much of that translates into more useable space. It is slightly longer, if published specifications can be trusted (it's difficult to find detailed information on this design). So, probably slightly better endurance than the Vics, but maybe not game changing for the RCN.
Submarines rely on stealth to maintain the element of surprise and escape threats. For decades this has focused on reducing the noise emitted by the submarine. A resurgence of using active sonar to locate submarines now means that new stealth measures may be required. German submarine builder...
Realistically, if Canada wants to move quickly on this, an existing MOTS design is the best choice. Type 212CD and A26 Oceanic ER seem to be the only options at this time. However, assuming we would want to stick with American combat systems and weapons, not sure there even is a MOTS design out there that wouldn't need significant changes to accommodate the systems and weapons we are used to working with. So maybe a custom design isn't completely mad. A difficult conundrum for RCN planners.
In my mind the three realistic options are:
Type 216
Saab Kockums 4,000-ton variant of the submarines, aka type 612
Sōryū-class or Taigei-class submarines
Currently only the Sōryū and Taigei are operational designs. A big question is how willing is the US to permit those countries/builders access to the sub tech we want to use? That will be one of the big questions. Personally I think closer ties with the Japanese defense industry might be useful for us in the coming years. Japanese build quality is also excellent.
If we went with the Taigei, it's possible that the Japanese would loan us Sōryū class subs as they come out of service till ours are built.
More likely we will offer to buy the Soryu class as it gets retired and not buy the Taigei. They have 12, maybe we will get all of them and actually have a decent number of subs for once?
Still think/hope that there is an opportunity to join on with the Dutch Walrus replacement project. Babcock could assemble the sections just like the Dutch are planning
More likely we will offer to buy the Soryu class as it gets retired and not buy the Taigei. They have 12, maybe we will get all of them and actually have a decent number of subs for once?
Definitely a possibility, I wonder how possible it would be to adapt the current torpedo tubes to fire the Mk 48? Almost the same dimensions, same fuel/propulsion
Still think/hope that there is an opportunity to join on with the Dutch Walrus replacement project. Babcock could assemble the sections just like the Dutch are planning
I also see joining KSS 3, Walrus replacement or Type 212CD as the best options. Any other alternative would be a customized design/ orphan class.
I would not discard a mixed submarine fleet in the future: six SSKs and three SSNs of those to be built for Australia. SSKs to be delivered in the (2nd half of) 2030s and SSNs 10-15 years later. I understand the authorities will never go for this option... but let me dream for a while.
Canada’s new maritime helicopter recently completed its first operational deployment, and by all accounts it was a resounding success.
verticalmag.com
"The TACCO sends and receives information from the ship via Link 11. The ship itself is Link 16 capable and can modulate data to Link 11 format for the CH-148."
Think of how long the aircraft took from "approval to delivery". The mission systems, etc....they weren't purchased the day before delivery. Right?
In 2004, Canada awarded Sikorsky Aircraft a contract for 28 CH-148s with deliveries planned to start in 2009. Deliveries were repeatedly delayed due to development problems until the delivery of six initial helicopters in June 2015.
Forgive my following question, but I’ve been out for a while and honestly didn’t really deal with any ‘Link’ type system when I was in.
But in terms of installing Link 16 instead of Link 11, is there any sort of notable work required to install L16 over L11? I’m guessing it isn’t as simple as unplug one and plug in the other…??
Not quite as simple as unplug/plug. There's a whole gamble of airworthiness/testing processes that have to be completed, after determining, sourcing and procuring the hardware and software. It is a fairly substantial level of effort.
Forgive my following question, but I’ve been out for a while and honestly didn’t really deal with any ‘Link’ type system when I was in.
But in terms of installing Link 16 instead of Link 11, is there any sort of notable work required to install L16 over L11? I’m guessing it isn’t as simple as unplug one and plug in the other…??
To add onto @Eye In The Sky 's comments, that pretty much goes with any aircraft equipment.
Part of the reason why bolts (similar to, but not the same as, ones you can get at Canadian Tire) are so expensive for aircraft. Those bolts, or at least that line of bolts, has to pass airworthiness standards. Same with heating coffee cups.
To add onto @Eye In The Sky 's comments, that pretty much goes with any aircraft equipment.
Part of the reason why bolts (similar to, but not the same as, ones you can get at Canadian Tire) are so expensive for aircraft. Those bolts, or at least that line of bolts, has to pass airworthiness standards. Same with heating coffee cups.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
