Replacing the Subs

[PHughes]

The RCN has specifically asked about land attack and anti-ship missile capability within the RFI itself, and the general trend within the Navy as of late has been to invest in these 'excess capabilities'. See the plans to purchase and operate Tomahawk from the River class in the future. VLS is an effective way of having this capability integrated while not taking up valuable space within the torpedo magazine that horizontally launched systems need. VLS is a potentially very valuable bit of futureproofing and a good deal of additional lethality.

Saying it is a system they have "no requirement for, doesn't need and doesn't want" is an assumption that I personally wouldn't be comfortable making as an outsider looking in.

Capability that can delivered from standard torpedo tubes.

A dedicated VLS system is neither required or requested, it would simply duplicate the tube launched system

 

[Nvlgzr]

Hanwha has said they can ditch the VLS if we want. I dont think we want to

If SK is developing a naval launch cruise missile then the VLS might be a preferred launch method rather than taking up space in the torpedo racks.

 

[suffolkowner]

Capability that can delivered from standard torpedo tubes.

A dedicated VLS system is neither required or requested, it would simply duplicate the tube launched system

or it frees up the torpedo tubes for torpedoes?

the batch 1 had 6 VLS and the batch 2 have 10 with a 6m extension

 

[Nvlgzr]

Hopefully they have factored this into their schedule

I have zero marine engineering background but Grok says they have some serious work to do

Grok is a crock

 

[suffolkowner]

Hopefully they have factored this into their schedule

I have zero marine engineering background but Grok says they have some serious work to do

simplest thing is to not change anything

 

[PHughes]

simplest thing is to not change anything

Explaining to parliament buying stuff you won’t actually use might be a painful political experience .

 

[suffolkowner]

Explaining to parliament buying stuff you won’t actually use might be a painful political experience .

attacking the Liberals for buying equipment thats too good? Will enjoy that

 

[PHughes]

or it frees up the torpedo tubes for torpedoes?

the batch 1 had 6 VLS and the batch 2 have 10 with a 6m extension

True and it would add a deep strike capability tube launched missiles do not provide .

 

[Nvlgzr]

Explaining to parliament buying stuff you won’t actually use might be a painful political experience .

A well equipped military will have plenty of stuff you hope you’ll never use. That is a deterrent to your enemies. Our Vics have torpedos that we have never needed to use in anger, yet we stock them.

 

[PHughes]

attacking the Liberals for buying equipment thats too good? Will enjoy that

Questioning the CDS why Canada is paying for a Ballistic Missile attack capability that has not been approved by parliament would be a painful experience

 

[PHughes]

A well equipped military will have plenty of stuff you hope you’ll never use. That is a deterrent to your enemies. Our Vics have torpedos that we have never needed to use in anger, yet we stock them.

Paying for a VLS system that we have no use for now, have no plans to acquire ammunition for that capability now because it might be needed in the future would be a very hard sell to parliament and make the Army and Air Force both jealous and upset

 

[PHughes]

Grok is a crock

A more detailed critique of the Grok assessment would be helpful.

Where is this assessment incorrect?

Any naval engineers out there with info?

 

[suffolkowner]

Paying for a VLS system that we have no use for now, have no plans to acquire ammunition for that capability now because it might be needed in the future would be a very hard sell to parliament and make the Army and Air Force both jealous and upset

Is the SK offer more expensive? Maybe it will be cheaper? Maybe it will cost more to remove the VLS?

 

[PHughes]

Is the SK offer more expensive? Maybe it will be cheaper? Maybe it will cost more to remove the VLS?

Still at the RFI Down Select stage.

The RFP is still TBD so the proposals have yet to be developed and costed

Would be a hoot to be on the Propsal Team at HO and TKMS. when they get their hands on the RFP and extract all the Shalls & Wills for their proposal matrix.

Anyone heard/know when the RFP is due to be sent to Vendors ?

 

[Nvlgzr]

A more detailed critique of the Grok assessment would be helpful.

Where is this assessment incorrect?

Any naval engineers out there with info?

Grok is not an engineering tool. It is simply an advanced word processor that strings phrases together. The silly idea that to eliminate the VLS feature by sealing them or removing them after manufacturing is beyond logic. If you don’t want the VLS feature then don’t put it in at time of manufacture. I’m sure Hanwha would charge a nice price to re-engineer the ballasting etc. Now you’ve lost a capability that in the future you’re kicking yourself for not having foresight. FYI SAAB is offering VLS , wonder why? USN has had VLS in their LosAngeles for decades.

 

[PHughes]

Grok is not an engineering tool. It is simply an advanced word processor that strings phrases together. The silly idea that to eliminate the VLS feature by sealing them or removing them after manufacturing is beyond logic. If you don’t want the VLS feature then don’t put it in at time of manufacture. I’m sure Hanwha would charge a nice price to re-engineer the ballasting etc. Now you’ve lost a capability that in the future you’re kicking yourself for not having foresight. FYI SAAB is offering VLS , wonder why? USN has had VLS in their LosAngeles for decades.

Grok is a little more than an advanced word processor but whatever.

I would still be interested in a critique of that assessment rather than a critique of Grok. Having nil naval and or submarine engineering background I can only only conclude it would not be a trivial engineeeibg task for HO to build a KSS boat without them. As has been pointed out by others, that is already part of their proposal to Poland.

It all might be a moot point. If the RFP calls for a VLS then HO is in like Flint and TKMS would likely not waste the time and $$ to generate a proposal .

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Some missiles acquisitions being looked at for the RCD's are land strike missiles. If we are going into that rabbit hole, then extending similar capability to our submarines would not be either a strategic or tactical addition, but merely a second platform to fulfil a mission we have already taken onboard.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The idea of passing Canada’s Victoria-class subs to Australia sounds neat on paper but doesn’t hold water in reality. These boats are 35 years old, plagued by maintenance issues since their Upholder days, and are expensive to keep running. Australia’s strategic needs are for long-range, high-endurance submarines to cover vast Indo-Pacific distances—something the Victorias were never designed for. Canberra already has Collins-class subs with established supply chains and is committed to AUKUS nuclear boats; taking on a small, one-off Canadian fleet would mean new training pipelines, spare parts headaches, and little operational payoff. In short, they’d be inheriting our problems, not solving theirs.

The idea of offering them to the Aussie is because they are in the same boat as us, but now married to their 2nd big sub idea and can't buy an proper "interim" sub without likley scuttling that idea. Getting the Vics would mean they might occasional have 2 operational subs out of 10. It not optimal by any means, but it might buy them a few more years for AUKAS to pan out.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Capability that can delivered from standard torpedo tubes.

A dedicated VLS system is neither required or requested, it would simply duplicate the tube launched system

As I understand it, the US is not interested currently in selling anymore tube launched missiles, so likely the only way to have that capability is to have VLS.

 

[Stoker]

The idea of offering them to the Aussie is because they are in the same boat as us, but now married to their 2nd big sub idea and can't buy an proper "interim" sub without likley scuttling that idea. Getting the Vics would mean they might occasional have 2 operational subs out of 10. It not optimal by any means, but it might buy them a few more years for AUKAS to pan out.

I don't think you understand the present condition of the submarines, the condition of the submarines when we potentially get the replacements. Aus would never take them and in my opinion would be crazy to do so.