• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Replacing the Subs

Sounds about right. I would go a step further in dream land. Get a yard built and do the next set of 12 ourselves with Korean help. Its what Korea did.

Interestingly if Canada got these 12 we would become NATO's 2nd largest operator of submarines (tied with Turkey).
In addition to that, if we stick with the 88 F35's we'd have the 3rd largest fleet in the world I believe.
 
So if everything goes according the ideal and we get 12 KSS III with a full loadout of ballistic or cruise missiles, where does that put our sub fleet? On par with the Royal Navy? The French Navy? Russia? What kind of effects would this have on canadian power projection and naval prestige (notwithstanding the other naval procurements ongoing).
A bit difficuct to compare with the Royal Navy or French Navy. They are all-nuclear submarine forces and include their at sea nuclear deterant. For power projection afar and deterance, they would be ahead.

Still quite aways behind Russia in quantity, they have large fleets of both nuclear and conventional submarines. Sub for sub, ahead of the Russian Navy in quality, but as they say "quantity has a quality on its own".

It would be the premier conventional submarine force in NATO- with whatever naval prestige comes with achievement. For defending our own waters and conventional naval fires, it would be a serious capability add. If we put the resources into it, it would allow the RCN to be the leader in NATO submarine training and doctrine development (for conventional subs). It would allow near continious deployment of a submarine to a NATO task group, a Pacific deployment, and a continental/arctic defense deployment. Simulaniously.

My opinion, at least. I would welcome other takes.
 
A couple of notes , the Victoria class are still some of the most advanced and effective conventional submarines out there. But their aging out and there aren't enough of them to really influence things.
The other thing the Royal Navy has begun talking about acquiring conventional submarines again .
Because as effective as they are the British SSN fleet isn't as large as they need it to be .
 
Withough going into to much detail:

We go by Operational Deficiency Categories which are NATO standard. CAT 1 deficiency ship cannot sail. CAT 4 is basically nuisance (I've never even staffed one that I can recall).

If a system doesn't have an OPDEF attached to it then its availalbe to do its job with no restrictions. Interestingly enough you can have equipment that isn't working but you're still sailing because it doesn't impact the mission.

Otherwise we're basically just like what you stated. Its working as advertized, does it have an OPDEF, is it U/S (unserviceable).
OPDEFs are a bit different compared to what you would look at for commercial fleets, as there is also the nuance that some things relate to combat capability, and at some point things get flagged as the ship falling below commercial marine safety standards so additional things kick in. Some countries have a much higher threshold than just 'accept the risk' at that point so what gets a ship to Cat 1 isn't consistent across countries.

Did some time as acting fleet technical officer, and part of that was to figure out what some of the other ships OPDEFs actually meant, and some countries had Cat 2s for things we'd have as cat 3, and we had cat 2s that other countries would have had as cat 1s. The Brits were surprised we were sailing at all with the state the ship was in, let alone crossed the Atlantic during the stormy season like that.
 
Interesting article out of SK about its recent, formal bid for Poland’s new subs.


 
Back
Top